[Vision2020] What is relative morality

[Carl Westberg]

To seek an answer to "what is relative morality", I asked my Uncle Steve.  
He said he had no idea, but asked if I wanted to help him rob a bank.  On 
the way to the heist, we ran into my Aunt Gertrude.  She scolded me for what 
I was about to do, and convinced me to accompany her to her bake sale 
benefitting the local orphanage instead.  I asked her about relative 
morality, and she told me to ask my cousin Phil.  I caught up with Phil as 
he was returning some library books that were 2 1/2 years overdue.  He 
didn't know what relative morality was either, but suggested I ask my 
brother Al.  Al was too busy working on his life-long quest to cure the 
world of rampant middle-aged nose hairs to answer my question, but thought 
our grandfather Bob might know.  I asked grandpa Bob about relative 
morality, but he said he was busy getting ready to leave the country for an 
extended vacation, something to do with a misunderstanding about taxes.  I'm 
still stumped.  I guess morality is up to the relative.                      
                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             
                     Carl Westberg Jr.


>From: Aldoussoma@aol.com
>To: bubbajones9763@hotmail.com, vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] What is relative morality
>Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 04:36:14 EST
>
>
>All:
>
>There is always going to be someone who is relativistic, nihilistic,
>absolutist, etc., in their moral thinking or lack thereof, so that there is 
>no way to
>get 100% consensus on any moral issue.
>
>Consider the moral view that might makes right, believed in by more people 
>in
>one form or another than would admit.  Force, power and success determine
>moral advantage in this view, so if the weak and/or powerless are wiped out 
>or
>exploited, the victors claim their greater power and success proves they 
>inhabit
>a moral high ground.  This "moral " theory is often linked to a kind of
>Darwinist determinism of survival of the fittest, backed by the science of
>evolution, providing the dominators and/or survivors of economic struggle 
>and/or war
>with a moral justification that they have more right to live and prosper 
>than
>those who may be weaker and are easy to defeat or exploit by force or
>circumstances.  After all, this is the way of nature that has led to the 
>progress of
>evolution.
>
>Again, this view or a variant is believed in by many who do not fully admit
>it in polite company, and in fact is often trotted out as a justification 
>for
>the predatory and ruthless capitalist behavior of many in America, and in
>international warfare and economic struggle, though this moral thinking is 
>often
>not formulated into a system.  If challenged, of course a kinder and 
>gentler
>moral view is allowed to temper the extremes of survival of the fittest.  
>But
>nonetheless some form of "survival of the fittest" moral thinking is still
>adhered to by many individuals and nations when you examine their actual 
>conduct.
>
>Those who lack the means or ability to survive and prosper in a competitive
>capitalist society lack the moral ground to cry foul, because the "losers" 
>lack
>the capabilities to survive in a harsh struggle for success that should
>reward the survival of the fittest.  Therefore there is no obligation from 
>society
>to provide a social safety net, or to try to level the playing field (the 
>evil
>specter of socialism rises), actions that would undermine the logic that
>determines progress based on the survival of the fittest.
>
>Moral theory can be idealist (Platonic) or empirically (Empiricist) based,
>Utilitarian (consequentialist, or based on outcomes often defined in terms 
>of
>happiness for the greatest number) or deontological (moral obligation comes
>first based on "principles" or other approaches).
>
>Then there is Kant's Categorical Imperative, an ethical theory that for 
>some
>reason is regarded as of major significance, though I am not sure why 
>(maybe I
>am exposing my ignorance here, but so be it).
>
>I estimate that most of the world's people believe in an ethics based on 
>pure
>revelation from a supreme being who dictates moral codes that really are 
>not
>open to debate (though the ethics involved may have many theoretical
>justifications), and have as their ultimate grounding the authority of a 
>supreme being
>of one form or another, who has revealed his moral codes in a miraculous 
>book,
>e.g., the Koran or the Bible.
>
>There are other forms of ethical reasoning, but all these different
>approaches to ethical thinking have variations and combinations and 
>subtleties that can
>confound anyone trying to put it all together into a perfect formal system.
>
>Those who think they have Ethics all figured out are of course inclined to
>impose their view as the one and only true way.  It is no surprise many 
>find
>comfort and simplicity in finding a religion to put all their faith in that
>offers definite moral codes that are not open to debate, where many of the
>difficult problems and apparently insolvable moral quandaries of life are 
>seemingly
>resolved and settled to great relief.  Is this part of what it means to be
>"saved?"
>
>Ted

_________________________________________________________________
Let the new MSN Premium Internet Software make the most of your high-speed 
experience. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1