I have been speaking with many atheists/agnostics/skeptics, etc. lately and have been asking where they get their morals from? How do we decide what is right and what is wrong?

Almost all of the answers I am getting are some form of Moral Relativism.

For those not familiar with Moral Relativism, let me inform you, because you may be a moral relativist and not even know it.

The moral relativist view states that morals are essentially, relative... Meaning that what I think is right and wrong is fine for me, but may not be right for you but that's ok, because whatever is right for you is right for you, because morals are relative to the person they belong too.

There are a couple of fallacies in this worldview that I would like to point out considering it easily one of the most popular worldviews among us today.

#1. Its an argument that is constructed against itself.
- Moral relativists will tell a moral absolutist that there no absolutes... Well guess what, you just made an absolute. Saying that there are no absolutes is an absolute within itself, so you just contradicted your own argument...

#2. Moral Relativism just DOESN'T WORK.
- Let me explain myself by providing an example. One day you are waiting in line at McDonald's and a random man approaches you and says, "Hey man, I just raped and murdered your entire family...so yeah just thought you should know." You would obviously reply,"What!!?? You are insane! That is terrible! etc etc.." To which the man could respond, "but hey, its alright for me and my morals, so who are you to tell me any different." And if we are to live in a moral relativist state, he would have a point. I could do anything I wanted to anybody and say that is ok with my morals, so I am not wrong because morals are relative.

Discuss.

suffering

You clearly do not understand "Moral Relativism"

I does not mean that X morals are okay for me, yet not okay for you and so on.

It means that in certain situations doing X action may be correct, or "right" while in another situation X action would be deemed wrong. The situation and surrounding circumstances help to determine the right course of action.

For the sake of argument, I will play long with your situation theory.

Who says what is wrong and right in the situations?

Please explain.

Every situation is different but by and large society dictates what is right and what is wrong.

well im not a moral relativist, since i dont believe in morality or 'oughts.'

but what ethics is concerned with is sufferining; namely, preventing/eliminating it in its unnecessary forms. and promoting the well being of individuals.

How can you as a Christian say the McDonald's man was absolutely wrong in what he did?

If God ordered the man to kill the family because they were Amalek would it still be absolutely wrong?

Ok, so what Hitler and Nazi Germany did is alright because that was what the "society" deemed correct.

How about societies nowadays that consider raping children, cannibalism, etc. to be ok?

How fortunate that the vast majority of humans do not behave this way. Believing that there is a rational (but non-objective) basis for morality is not the same as belief in hard moral relativism. Furthermore, belief in an objective, absolute morality faces a very serious epistemic problem.

God is perfectly just in everything he does, he cannot sin as it goes against his nature. God would not ask someone to kill a family.

And I know your licking your chops waiting to bring up the Old Testament scriptures where God asked his people to destroy cities.. We can go there if you want.

Who decides what rational is? Your definition of rational is different from mine, and why should I believe your definition is any better than mine?

The biblical God has killed family's and has ordered the death of family's.

If God ordered the McDonald's man to kill the Amalek family then killing the family couldn't have been absolutely wrong.

Just to make sure, which God's objective morality are we using? Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Aztec's Gods?

*Sigh* How many times do I have to trot out Euthyphro?

I'm not a moral relativist so I don't believe any of that is okay.

I also think that absolute morality is weaksauce so go figure.

let me guess, you *know* this cause thats what the bible says, right?

sin means to go against the will of God, so no, he can't sin not because it goes against his nature, he can't sin because its a logical impossibility. You should try to learn more about your own religion before you try to defend it.

you are correct, he always commands his people to spares the young virgins. how convenient.

semantics

Thats not an answer, thats passing the buck. The point is what is the standard that is used for morality.

Who makes that standard. Where did it come from, originate?

i don't think you're right. moral relativism is the first thing you said, not the second.

Focusing on only one aspect of moral relativism, ie. the rape and murdering of families, is a specious way to argue that moral relativism is bologna.

First off, most rapists or murderers probably don't consider the morality of their actions when deliberating their heinous actions --- "hmm I should probably rape Sally this weekend, seeing as she's so busy during the week with work and all" --- so your argument is not really a fair one.

But also, moral relativism is obviously accurate when you look at less extreme topics such as vegetarianism, abortion, manners and etiquette, acism and statism, euthanization or pretty much anything else that get's debated in an ethics class.

I get them from those who passed them down to me, social norms and so on. Same as everybody else.

The statement that there are no absolutes is not an absolute.

No, I wouldn't. I would stab him in the eye. Which is perfectly okay in my morality.

That strikes me a bit like saying a female cannot be a urologist because she doesn't have a penis. It really isn't a contradiction (no pun intended), and it doesn't stand to reason.

Moral relativists do not believe there are moral absolutes. The preceding sentence is not a moral absolute, even though it's subject matter happens to be moral absolutes. There is no contradiction.

This reminds me of people who used to call into a local tv show to declare that god(s) give us morality, and if they woke up tomorrow not believing in god(s) anymore, they would immediately commence raping and killing everyone in sight. Personally, I don't want to rape or kill everyone in sight, and that is probably the biggest contributing factor to my not doing so.

Moral relativism is not a Get Out of Jail Free Card. I think your example is flawed and ironic and misses the mark. People do in fact commit rapes and murders! And people have even been known to brag about it or rub it in the faces of the victims' loved ones! These things happen, and potentially some of the people carrying out these acts think they are morally ok. And other people think they are morally not ok. But so what?

Each of us as individuals acts as we wish, based on what we personally perceive to be right and wrong. That includes creating a legal system with lawyers and judges and courts and jails. In some places, it includes death as a penalty for some crimes.

The only difference between a moral relativist and a moral absolutist is that the latter believes that someone's set of morals (read: his own personal morals; what a shock!) are true and real and woven into the fiber of the universe, whereas the moral relativist does not.

Gills are essential if you want to breath underwater, but useless on dry land. Morals, too, are relative to their surroundings, and meaningless (not to mention, useless) to rocks, stars, the speed of light, gravity, and Bermuda grass.

The only thing that even makes this an argument/discussion/debate at all, and not a crystal clear triviality (imo) is the "I believe in a powerful, magical, invisible, etc., being who cares about us and has a plan for us"-factor. Without that thought being held by one "side" of this argument, I think it very quickly and easily distills down to something as silly as: I believe Goodnight Moon by Margaret Wise Brown is some crap that humans made up; versus: No no no, I believe Goodnight Moon by Margaret Wise Brown is a universal absolute!

(And I said parenthood wouldn't change me!?)

So going back to your example, if we lived in a moral relativist state... well, I believe we already do. I think your hypothetical would play out exactly as it does in the real world. Someone did something, society frowns on it, they will lock him away in jail, or kill him for it.

And to briefly address your Hitler-related remarks... Even though it is dramatic and emotional, it doesn't matter. What Hitler did is no more or less intrinsically "absolutely" wrong than what Fred Rogers (of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood) did. But that has virtually no bearing on the mob mentality of people; we are quite willing to judge, criticize, hold accountable, punish, etc., people for their actions as we see fit, whether or not some of us claim/admit we are doing it because our holy books tell us to, or because it is ultimately self-serving.

In fact, moral relativism to some extent informs my tolerance. I may not like what you are doing, but in general, I know my wants and beliefs are no more or less good or bad than yours, and so if I can live with you doing what you're doing, then why not let you go on your way and do as you wish? (Lest this open up a whole new can of worms, starting this whole thread again based on this paragraph -- "But what if what I want to do is take all your money?" -- this does not mean I am paralyzed into complete pacifism and inaction; I can and will act in self-defense, etc.).

I'm not sure if this qualifies as moral relativism (I'm uncomfortable with philosophical terms) but I've posted before in other threads on this topic, here is how I see morality.

We need to start from assumptions. The assumption I'm starting from is that human beings have three basic goals: to survive, thrive, and be happy. We can base right or wrong on those principles. I think another way to put it is the Social Contract.

Human beings are not self-sufficient: we can't, for the most part, achieve those goals on our own. Hence the need for society. As a society, in order for us to achieve our goals, we need to help everyone else do the same. There is a mutual benefit. This is where we get the principle of reducing or eliminating harm or suffering. Something is only immoral if it cause harm to others (ie: interfering with their ability to achieve those goals). Now, its not quite so simple, because sometimes harm is unavoidable: in those cases the moral action is to choose the path that causes the least amount of harm.

Now, while I believe that we can figure out these correct paths through logic and reason, that doesn't mean that we will always do it properly. The correct path may be open to debate, and the answer may not always be obvious. Reasonable people may end up disagreeing on which path causes the least amount of harm.

But in this framework, what hitler did is wrong - plain and simple. If we all went around trying to commit genocide, few of us would acheive those three goals, and most of us would be stuck on the first goal: survival. I think we see this in societies that do have to deal with genocide on a regular basis: Everyone is afraid, death if everywhere, the society has trouble surviving, and forget about thriving and being happy. But genocide is an easy one. It can get much harder.