moral relativism

xiin-finiin

general of ciidamada sida raha ubooda
Moral relativism basically states that morality/moral values are not universal and are relative. they can be relative to time, culture, etc. What is your opinion on this? I, for example have strong relativist tendencies (not a full blown relativist but kinda close).
 

Khaemwaset

Djiboutian πŸ‡©πŸ‡― | 𐒖𐒆𐒄A𐒗𐒃 πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡΄
VIP
Moral relativism basically states that morality/moral values are not universal and are relative. they can be relative to time, culture, etc. What is your opinion on this? I, for example have strong relativist tendencies (not a full blown relativist but kinda close).
There are some moral values that all humans share but i would say that morality has changed quite a bit throughout time.
 

xiin-finiin

general of ciidamada sida raha ubooda
There are some moral values that all humans share but i would say that morality has changed quite a bit throughout time.
if morality changes then maybe it's relative to time? like just a couple 100 years ago, marrying young was super normal and now you eve have muslims pushing this idea of aisha being 18 LOOL. if that chanfed, maybe there will come a time where killing isn't immoral ?
 

Khaemwaset

Djiboutian πŸ‡©πŸ‡― | 𐒖𐒆𐒄A𐒗𐒃 πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡΄
VIP
if morality changes then maybe it's relative to time? like just a couple 100 years ago, marrying young was super normal and now you eve have muslims pushing this idea of aisha being 18 LOOL. if that chanfed, maybe there will come a time where killing isn't immoral ?
Killing and many other things will always stay immoral for the general world. There are of course uncivilised monkeys in isolated tribes who engage in cannibalism but Humanity as a whole see it as one of the worst things. There are a basic set of rules for morality that is set to maintain the fabric of society. If killing was seen as okay then society would collapse as everyone starts killing each other.
 

xiin-finiin

general of ciidamada sida raha ubooda
Killing and many other things will always stay immoral for the general world. There are of course uncivilised monkeys in isolated tribes who engage in cannibalism but Humanity as a whole see it as one of the worst things. There are a basic set of rules for morality that is set to maintain the fabric of society. If killing was seen as okay then society would collapse as everyone starts killing each other.
What makes them monkeys tho? it could be the case that, to them, you are the monkey that is wasting perfectly good meat. obviously i don't support cannibalism, but you know what i mean.
If killing was seen as okay then society would collapse as everyone starts killing each other.
Did you get this from Kant? if not, you are a genius my guy. but even if that was the case, now you just shifted the problem from killing being immoral to society ending being bad.
 

Khaemwaset

Djiboutian πŸ‡©πŸ‡― | 𐒖𐒆𐒄A𐒗𐒃 πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡΄
VIP
What makes them monkeys tho? it could be the case that, to them, you are the monkey that is wasting perfectly good meat. obviously i don't support cannibalism, but you know what i mean.

Did you get this from Kant? if not, you are a genius my guy. but even if that was the case, now you just shifted the problem from killing being immoral to society ending being bad.
What's kant?

What makes them monkeys tho? it could be the case that, to them, you are the monkey that is wasting perfectly good meat. obviously i don't support cannibalism, but you know what i mean.
That's a very interesting perspective on it. To them, this is just meat that can help you survive whilst to us it is a part of humanity and it is a disrespect to consume a fellow man.
 

xiin-finiin

general of ciidamada sida raha ubooda
What's kant?
Kant was a very big philosopher, and what you just about killing being bad because if everyone one did it, it'd lead to the end of society is very similar to Kant's categorical imperatives. Impressive ngl

 
Last edited:

Khaemwaset

Djiboutian πŸ‡©πŸ‡― | 𐒖𐒆𐒄A𐒗𐒃 πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡΄
VIP
Kant was a very big philosopher, and what you just about killing being bad because if everyone one did it, it'd lead to the end of society is very similar to Kan'ts categorical imperatives. Impressive ngl

Oh wow i didn't know that. That's interesting to think about nonetheless.
 

xiin-finiin

general of ciidamada sida raha ubooda
Morals are guidelines given to humans by Allah.
This could work, So, you are saying Good is what God commanded and Bad is what God forbade. ok, but which God? By that i mean, even in Islam there are radically different conceptions of God. The God of the muslim philosophers for example is quite different from the God of the hanbalites/atharis. Even if that wasn't a problem, who would interpret the scriptures to determine what is right/wrong? obviously different madhabs lead to different laws.
 
I believe in objective morality given to us by God. Saying morality is relative is like saying truth is subjective.

Moral relativism is saying anything society deems moral or ethical is moral or ethical. It is principally not principal at all.

Moral relativism got a lot in common with post-modern thinking. A moral relativist believes there is no universal authority or a grand narrative; it is strictly incompatible with Islam which believes Allah is the authority, with us getting those morals through Islam. We Muslims believe no society is moral if it contradicts what The Creator said was correct. Those are binding standards.

Fundamentally moral relativism is similar to moral nihilism in that they both reject objective binding standards, although they claim to be different in other ways regarding meaning.
 

xiin-finiin

general of ciidamada sida raha ubooda
I believe in objective morality given to us by God. Saying morality is relative is like saying truth is subjective.

Moral relativism is saying anything society deems moral or ethical is moral or ethical. It is principally not principal at all.

Moral relativism got a lot in common with post-modern thinking. A moral relativist believes there is no universal authority or a grand narrative; it is strictly incompatible with Islam which believes Allah is the authority, with us getting those morals through Islam. We Muslims believe no society is moral if it contradicts what The Creator said was correct. Those are binding standards.

Fundamentally moral relativism is similar to moral nihilism in that they both reject objective binding standards, although they claim to be different in other ways regarding meaning.
But even if that was the case, which version of islam would determine what is morally good/bad? because tbh, there are very different versions of it (unless you do takfir on every muslim except for the ones in you sect). Even if you accept that Allah is the one that determines what is moral/immoral (i too believe this but i think it's very dangerous and impractical), i think that is still moral relativism. because that only applies to muslims that accept Allah/Quran, so morality is now relative to whether you accept islam or not
 
But even if that was the case, which version of islam would determine what is morally good/bad? because tbh, there are very different versions of it (unless you do takfir on every muslim except for the ones in you sect). Even if you accept that Allah is the one that determines what is moral/immoral (i too believe this but i think it's very dangerous and impractical), i think that is still moral relativism. because that only applies to muslims that accept Allah/Quran, so morality is now relative to whether you accept islam or not
First off, there is only one Islam.

Secondly, there are no disagreements about the most important and far-majority of things. Where you observe are differences -- the internal dialogue of nuances -- and aspects left to the scholars. How those are resolved is through Islam as the reference point. There is no subjectivity or relativistic farce in that conversation.

Anyway, this does not respond to the central point that moral relativism is incompatible with Islam based on how it fundamentally rejects any higher power of authority over moral standards placing universal claims. The whole thing about Islam blows that out of the water for the nonsense it is.

It is not even accepted among serious, secular scholars. Because even those atheistic academics are uncomfortable with the idea that there is no inherent moral development or improvement other than relativism. I reject this idea of linear moral growth with regard to time but I mention it because moral relativism is not a respected moral philosophical stance in the West. It lost traction a long time ago, along with their subjective-based social theory cousins. But the deleterious impact is very much present in other forms today throughout the West. You hear it like the language of today's generation that state things like, "my truth" and all that incoherency.
 

xiin-finiin

general of ciidamada sida raha ubooda
First off, there is only one Islam.

Secondly, there are no disagreements about the most important and far-majority of things. Where you observe are differences -- the internal dialogue of nuances -- and aspects left to the scholars. How those are resolved is through Islam as the reference point. There is no subjectivity or relativistic farce in that conversation.

Anyway, this does not respond to the central point that moral relativism is incompatible with Islam based on how it fundamentally rejects any higher power of authority over moral standards placing universal claims. The whole thing about Islam blows that out of the water for the nonsense it is.

It is not even accepted among serious, secular scholars. Because even those atheistic academics are uncomfortable with the idea that there is no inherent moral development or improvement other than relativism. I reject this idea of linear moral growth with regard to time but I mention it because moral relativism is not a respected moral philosophical stance in the West. It lost traction a long time ago, along with their subjective-based social theory cousins. But the deleterious impact is very much present in other forms today throughout the West. You hear it like the language of today's generation that state things like, "my truth" and all that incoherency.
but even if that's the case wouldn't your moral values still be relative to a madhab/school ? For example, what is halal in imam abu hanifa's madhab, might be haram in imam shafi'i's madhab. it's irrelevant whether the thing is small/big.
 

hinters

E pluribus unum
VIP
This could work, So, you are saying Good is what God commanded and Bad is what God forbade. ok, but which God? By that i mean, even in Islam there are radically different conceptions of God. The God of the muslim philosophers for example is quite different from the God of the hanbalites/atharis. Even if that wasn't a problem, who would interpret the scriptures to determine what is right/wrong? obviously different madhabs lead to different laws.
Different schools of thought interpret certain passages differently but I think it's mostly cut and dry, such as specifically what not to do, and the punishments for those who do those things.
 
but even if that's the case wouldn't your moral values still be relative to a madhab/school ? For example, what is halal in imam abu hanifa's madhab, might be haram in imam shafi'i's madhab. it's irrelevant whether the thing is small/big.
I think you have misread the fundamentals if you think such antithetic claims are synonyms.

We have an objective claim, in fact, a monopoly on moral status which comes from Allah. Moral relativists don't believe there are transcendent moral standards that are objective and universally applied and think each civilization has to be contextually judged from within its moral rules of society and cultural milieu. That is the opposite of Islam. A jahil society is a jahil society, with no ifs and buts, if it does not correspond with Islam.

All madhabs agree on the far majority of things, and fundamentally on creedal aspects. The other things, perhaps on the application of systemic functions and such, there is a debate and in those areas, they do refer to objective moral claims in Islam, nothing relativistic or nonsensical. Not even the moral relativist would support your claim on this since they reject the fact that a Creator gave us morality.

Islam = Objective claim

Moral relativism = subjectivity, believes all morals are human-created

Pay attention to the word "relative." That word is only used in relation to something else when there is no objective measuring stick. For example, the motion of objects can only be measured relative to other things. But we don't apply those silly games because we, first of all, don't believe we can measure morality without the moral barometer that Islam, maintained and validated by Allah, with Him being the One who will judge everything in the most perfect manner and just. This is the complete opposite of the fraudulent relativistic bankrupt philosophy, which I need to remind you, is not even gaining traction among the gaals, as they think their secular ideals are superior to others.

Muslims believe morality only comes from Allah, and nowhere else. The moral relativist believes human subjectivity is the source of all morals, human-made claims, and human-processed on relativistic grounds when you observe other cultures.

You're falsely attempting to mix things that fundamentally disagree.

You can't be a Muslim and moral relativist and you can't be a moral relativist and claim Allah gave you objective morals. It's comparable to a nihilist that claims he knows the meaning of life, lol. Anyone would call him a fool, comedian, or crazy.

I have fleshed this out enough, and you should understand the basics by now since this was never any grounds for a debate from the get-go and don't want to keep repeating why you are conflating contradictions.
 

xiin-finiin

general of ciidamada sida raha ubooda
I have fleshed this out enough, and you should understand the basics by now since this was never any grounds for a debate from the get-go and don't want to keep repeating why you are conflating contradictions.
I agree with this, you can't be a moral relativist and a muslim at the same time. The reason i asked this question was because i wanted to see if you can use only pure reason to figure out what is moral/immoral (so no revelation). But a problem i came across with this approach was that if you removed God, now who determines what is moral/immoral? there is Kant's categorial imperative for example. But all of these "methods/proofs" for How morality can be defined without God ran into the problem of relativism for me (here i am willing to accept that the whole world ending is not "bad"). So, i posted this here in the hopes that someone would "attack" moral relativism without bringing God into it. maybe a mutazilite since they believe only reason is needed to figure out morality (sorry for not clarifying this at the beginning). Moving on, even if you bring God into it, some hints of relativism still persist.
All madhabs agree on the far majority of things, and fundamentally on creedal aspects. The other things, perhaps on the application of systemic functions and such, there is a debate and in those areas, they do refer to objective moral claims in Islam, nothing relativistic or nonsensical. Not even the moral relativist would support your claim on this since they reject the fact that a Creator gave us morality.
i disagree with almost everything you wrote here (i will make a separate thread about this in the future inshalah). but going into the details would be pointless really as the discussion is going into places that it wasn't intended.

So, in conclusion, if you put down your muslim "hat" for a sec, why would moral relativism be wrong. So, for example, why would killing be bad?


if an atheist is seeing this, please participate. i would love to see what you think :)
 
@xiin-finiin

No, you can't use pure reason to derive morality. We Muslims believe we are born with a natural inclination towards morality but Islam is there because we will fail and go the wrong path eventually. You don't know where you stand, the compass measurements are all not adjusted, Islam is there to correct that and guide you. Everything else is Westernized contrived nonsense of men thinking they can do better than what Allah gave perfectly.

You should acquaint yourself with the is-ought problem. You cannot get an ought from an is; a descriptive statement cannot give you a prescriptive statement about how one should act or be. You have a much stronger claim for the moral intuition part, namely the fitrah. But as stated above, this is quickly corrupted and anyone is susceptible to a lot of misdeeds so Islam is needed to merge the natural inclination with the true path.

This "not bringing God into it" attempt is folly when morality is nothing without God. Why speak a secular language that carries no justified weight? It's an empty intellectual exercise because you're needlessly dancing around the central contradicting claims while erroneously trying to reconcile them.

i disagree with almost everything you wrote here (i will make a separate thread about this in the future inshalah). but going into the details would be pointless really as the discussion is going into places that it wasn't intended.

So, in conclusion, if you put down your muslim "hat" for a sec, why would moral relativism be wrong. So, for example, why would killing be bad?

As a reminder, you wrote it was "relativistic" which was the central premise. It was categorically wrong, irrespective of what you think the differences between the madhabs are, and yes it would go off the initial conversation, and this is not that type of discussion.

But I think I stressed the points enough. I suggest you read about the topics next time. Because saying the madhabs are morally relativistic is not a real take based on the defined philosophical assumptions in moral relativism and what Islam states. The premises were never valid, to begin with, so I wanted to correct them, not debate in redundancy about apparent things. A simple Google search would have reduced this back and forth.

An Atheist cannot support anything other than the aesthetics of baseless moral claims. Absolutely no difference between, killing is bad as I like pizzas and the color black. That's the level of bankruptcy we are talking about. So I don't know how such confused people will help you out on this conversation. The majority of them are not aware of their incoherent stance so they think morality is self-evident or they appeal to how society is. It's stupidity and low reflection with insufferable arrogance.

I think I have talked about this enough. So I will leave it with that and you can chew on it or not. It's my problem. I don't feel like being the utility object of a stubborn learning process. You feel me? :mjlol: Spend more time being critical of the things you read by first learning the basic definitions.
 

xiin-finiin

general of ciidamada sida raha ubooda
As a reminder, you wrote it was "relativistic" which was the central premise. It was categorically wrong, irrespective of what you think the differences between the madhabs are, and yes it would go off the initial conversation, and this is not that type of discussion.
this is the main difference between us. you think the madhabs/creed schools are mostly the same. i think they are fundamentally different and might not even be worshipping the same God (this is obviously distressing so i'll make a post about it inshallah). But, thank you very much for taking the time to do all this :)
 
this is the main difference between us. you think the madhabs/creed schools are mostly the same. i think they are fundamentally different and might not even be worshipping the same God (this is obviously distressing so i'll make a post about it inshallah). But, thank you very much for taking the time to do all this :)
I already explained the topic at hand quite comprehensively.

This particular reply of yours was not the initial contention point. I suggest you seek learned people about it that got a real depth of Islamic background if you're sincere instead of a thread on this forum because thinking different madhabs don't worship the same God is misguided rhetoric and needs to be explained to you responsibly.

It was a mess, but you're welcome.
 

Trending

Top