It's all -not so- relative

in #philosophy7 years ago

It's all relative!


I hear this phrase quite often. I've seen it used in lots of arguments regarding a variety of subjects from physics, politics, sports etc. I am also using this phrase when I want to point the relations between two subjects and how one reacts to a change in other.

What does it really mean for something to be relative?

First and foremost comes the principle of causality. Cause and effect implies a relationship. Thus the two are relative. This is simple enough. Used in the context of human relations, to be relative with someone means kinship. While the phrase is used in a wide range of arguments and has actual meaning, I believe that in a certain area of though this phrase has nearly no meaning at all and more than than, it can actually be pretty misleading if not used in the proper sense.
That area is the area of ontological ethics.

Ontology ( from the Greek words -όντος and -λόγος ) is the metaphysical study of the nature of things, the study of being. Ethics ( from the Greek word -ήθος ) is the sum of human conducts and their values. It can also be defined as the body of knowledge that deals with moral arguments. The ethics of a person, simply speaking, is synonymous with his morality and every human person has his own unique morality.

I make the following case.

In a person the capability to be moral is developed. A newborn does not come into this world with a predetermined set of values thus a baby possesses minimal morality. When this capability starts developing, a person is then able to influence it, personal choice also comes into effect. A person's morality is then defined as ''good' or ''bad'' according to the person's deeds, conducts, behavior and actions. Thus, the characterization ''good'' or ''bad'' is strictly relative to the deeds, actions of the person. This relation between morality and facts is crucial

Let us consider now the facts ( actions, conducts etc. ) and take two cases.

  1. Facts are themselves relative to the characterizations ''good'' or ''bad.
  2. Facts are themselves ''good'' or ''bad''.

In the first case, if facts themselves are relative to the characterizations, one can easily conclude that there is no stable basis under which we can consider something as ''good'' or ''bad'' in relation only to itself. If this is true, then morality simply becomes, as a concept, no different than character simply because then it reflects only personal opinion in relation to facts which are also themselves not tied to the designations ''good'' or ''bad''. Here we see that the meaning of the characterizations ''good'' or ''bad'' is subverted and we can never reach an absolute conclusion. Let's consider the following example. Two persons share exactly the same moral values and they do exactly the same actions. If the first case stands correct, then, there is a chance, where while they do exactly the same things under the same frame of reference, they are both characterized differently. Actions and designations are relational to each other it is easily assumed that it is the relation that gives the meaning ''good'' or ''bad'' to the facts. Since there are two persons, we are considering also two relations ( even though the frames of reference are identical ). Thus it is easy to assume that there is no fixed outcome when it comes to the final designation of their actions. This is quite paradoxical.

In the second case, facts bear themselves the designations ''good'' or ''bad''. Facts are not relational to the designations as they are already bearing the notions themselves. Thus there can be established a solid relation between morality, facts and designations without recourse to an obscure relationship between facts and the notions of ''good'' or ''bad''. Considering again the example in case one, there can be no paradox here as every time the two persons do the same thing the designation is always the same. I strongly believe that this is the true case!

In my previous post, Moral assertions and sense perception, I tried to give a simple definition of morality and how do people perceive it. Check it out if you enjoyed reading this article!

Thank you for reading!!!

Sort:  

This was a nice thought experiment. At a hasty first read through I was going to respond that two people taking the exact same actions most certainly could be considered differently RE "good" and "bad", but I had missed the first part where you specify two people sharing the exact same moral values. I think I have to agree with the validity of your thought experiment and conclusions. Nicely done, and a well written post in general. Happy to have found you and glad to be following you now! Looking forward to more thought provoking content in my feed :) Cheers - Carl

Hey Carl, Thank you for your feedback man! Really appreciated!!! Your observation is correct, assuming similar moral values and same actions it is impossible to consider them diffrently. If the first case was true, then actions wouldn't themselves bear the designations thus here it's not neccesary for both persons to be considered the same. It's a rather thin line I'd say. To be honest I came up with it in the moment, I too examined it afterwards and had my reservations but on the end I decided that it could have some validity, at least ideally.
Thank you also for following me man! I'm following you too and I'll do my best to contribute my share of concerns, experiences and knowledge on this platform :)

Very informative and nice philosophy!

Thank you for the comment @hanen :)

Addition: I also believe that a newborn has already appreciated goodness ( even unconsciously ). This is during childbirth. Thus a newborn baby already possesses minimal morality which is also pristine and good.

Congratulations @theodorelib! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Award for the number of upvotes received

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

By upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!

Congratulations @theodorelib! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Award for the number of comments received

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

By upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!

"A newborn does not come into this world with a predetermined set of values thus a baby possesses minimal morality. " The minimal you are referring to is huge in my opinion. this a relative issue!!!!

Do we agree that a baby does not come into this world with a predetermined set of values?

Humans set on the top of the creation pyramid. Yet we are born the least knowing about what to do to survive. The only thing we know is sucking. i.e. it took me six years to learn how to clean myself after using the bathroom. The less intelligent the species the more built in survival knowledge it has at birth. But when it comes to moral concepts I think the opposite is true. I believe (I have no proof) that we have built in triggers for such morals and also emotions that get activated by age and/or environment. So the answer we disagree on that with all respect.

I don't disagree that we have built in triggers. In fact that's what I'm actually implying here. As you say though these are built in triggers, they do not come externally to us. This is what I'm saying by ''no predetermined set of values''. I knew nothing when I was born. My abilities to understand and remember evolved afterwards. Thus I didn't know any concept or value. I couldn't even do so.

You've touched a fine point in my post and there is also a comment where I clarify my position a little further, tried to add it as a footnote but didnt allow me.

We are getting closer to agreement. I like to raise the point to level where I want to claim that these moral concepts are built in our genes. A gain no Proof. My personal proof is my observation to little kids especially my owns. I notice the difference between them and the way they behave and think at very early age. No explanation but inherited behaviors in their genetic. Because they born and raised nearly the same way yet difference are big. If you are a parent you might agree. If you are not, may be when you become a parent you will remember this conversation.

I can't claim that it is tied to our genes but I have said that each person has a unique morality. Each person is unique, thus the difference. I'll let you know more about it when I have kids also :)

I think we have reached some kind of agreement. I will talk to you when you have children. Thanks for such lovely conversation.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.16
TRX 0.13
JST 0.026
BTC 57213.13
ETH 2415.72
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.40