I am working on the hypothesis that all ethics and morality is tribal. That is, what is acceptable to the tribe or in the modern world a Social Support Group (SSG) is absolutely the right thing to do and if you wish to be a part of the SSG you do it that way. There are several distinct but overlapping SSGs in the USA but within the SSG there is little latitude for divergence.
Take for example the SSG of educated rational people. If you think I am talking about those reading this blog you are correct. Things like sexism or homophobia, if openly expressed would likely be met with that raised eyebrow that says "We don't think that way." Ignore the eyebrow and you will find that SSG meetings will be closed to you.
但在ssg中，这样的事情是道德标准。
It makes it difficult to ignore relativism even though within a SSG the standards are absolute. This is where discussion becomes confused. Are we talking about society in general or our SSG when discussing morality?

生活无量才是真理。
Just be,
=
MJA

SQUIRMING RATIONALITY
Nothing entertains me more than rational thinkers squirming to justify: 1. immoral or amoral actions, 2. drawing lines (or refusing to draw them).
The morality content of any issue is just one factor to consider before taking action (as opposed to having an opinion, short of acting). There are others: such as, convenience, necessity, well-being, survival, expense, social consequences, etc. Disagreements about moral action often hinge not on the assessment of moral content, but on the assessment of the impact of these other factors on action.
这种蠕动的例子:女性生殖器切割(坏的，不道德的)，而男性生殖器切割，即割礼(好的)。堕胎(好的，不道德的谋杀)，但有必要或其他压倒性的问题为其辩护;塔利班(好?自由战士?当把俄罗斯赶出去的时候，坏的恐怖分子?4);5.亚伯拉罕·林肯(好的，他为了维护国家和防止继承，即自决，发动了杀害数百万无辜民众的战争，摧毁了南方)、萨达姆·侯赛因和卡扎菲(坏的，他们为了维护国家镇压了少数民族和分裂主义者)、战争:杀害25万无辜的人，以防止他们再杀害1万无辜的人。
As for line drawing: Remember: the only real-life practical worth of philosophers is to draw lines for those immobilized by ?but where do you draw the line?? The philosopher recognizes it is immoral NOT to draw lines. Relativism in these instances is a refuge for wimps who use the ?but?line? as a cop-out. They are afraid to draw lines.

这都是相对的，不是吗?到目前为止，我想我理解这些评论，并且大部分同意他们的观点。我将给其他评论者的想象留下任何例外。相对主义的问题在于，它依赖于各种各样的影响，有些旧的，有些新的，这些影响使我们相信，在任何给定的时间点上，什么是相对的，什么不是相关的。这些影响必然包括政治、文化、神学、伦理等。相对论的某些方面变化缓慢;进化。其他人则以革命性的方式改变着——除了认真研究社会变革的学生之外，大多数人完全意想不到。
为了我自己的理智，我拼凑了贝克尔、丹尼特、道金斯、古尔德以及最近的戴蒙德和平克等人的著作，试图找出相对主义的进步本质。但这种说法可能过于乐观，因为有迹象表明，相对主义有许多倒退的方面。以防没人注意到。我认为相对主义很重要——如果它不重要，它就不值得研究，不是吗?但在我看来，这是一个不断变化的目标，很难确定。

A Symposium
I?d love to have a symposium with Socrates, Einstein, and King, but will settle equally and happily with all of you. The menu is simple, it?s simply the Truth.
(Sorry for clarity no alcohol will be served)
Let?s eat!
First Course:
The flaw in our mentality is our continued practice and belief in measure or measurement. Science has proven nature to be truly immeasurable but unfortunately as of yet most including science itself has failed to move on. Probability is all we have today, QM, the grey area of fairness, of justice, a dice game. ?Man is the measure of all things,? yet truly everything is immeasurable!
Main Course:
Einstein knew God or nature doesn?t play dice but unfortunately again science rather than searching for the absolute path went the most probable way instead, the wrong way. Beyond our path of measurements, of uncertainty or chance, beyond our judgments of good and bad, beyond our philosophies of East and West, beyond our theories and faiths, or beyond what you call relativity IS nature?s absolute; a truth more simple and more powerful than thought; the true Way.
Desert (The Cake):
There was an old Greek who asked his wife to follow him outside into the starry night so that he could show her the truth of the universe he had found. As they walked through the darkness the man stumbled and fell into a ditch. The woman began to laugh. The man became angry and asked why she found this so funny. She said you claim to know the truth of the universe yet you fail to know what is in front of your own to feet.
The Frosting:
真理不仅在我们所有人面前，它就是我们所有人。
Truth is!
Bon appetite,
=

我真的很喜欢这篇文章中所有评论者的观点、想法和观点。萨维纳一如既往地聪明伶俐;感谢Michael J.发布的远不止俳句——喜欢你关于研讨会的想法。相对主义成为了我们，因为我们是人，我们有测量事物的强烈需求。我认为卡朋特说相对主义是进化的，这是正确的——我没有证据证明他的断言——这感觉就是对的。不管它值多少。
我们创造了这个世界，我们塑造和重塑了相对主义。有些时候，我们本可以认为它不值得考虑、调查或分析。但这与我们的求知欲不符，与我们对事物测量的极度需求不符。
KT一开始的问题就有了答案。是的，一切都是相对的。如果不是这样，我们该怎么办?那是另一种调查方式。

This exposition of relativism ignores what I think is the only really interesting form of relativism - what you might call objective relativism. Define objective relativism as standard moral realism minus moral universalism. On this view, values are objective, but only relative to a particular organism. So x is objectively good for A, though not necessarily good for B. And x is good for A not in virtue of A's opinion or choice, but because x and A are objectively so constituted that x is valuable for A (on whatever theory of value you like).
到目前为止，我们已经习惯了这样一种观点，即即使在一个物种中也有很多变异。所以你会认为我们会怀疑任何声称是普遍的，基于(或符合)人性的道德。没有什么“人性”;只有“人类”，拥有高度多变的天赋、兴趣、动力、残疾等等。所以我们应该预料到，一些人可能会恰当地受到道德约束，这与恰当地约束其他人的道德约束相冲突。
现在，这个想法似乎吓坏了人们。“但是……希特勒!”首先，我们没有理由认为希特勒遵循任何恰当的道德准则。(这种形式的相对主义的优点之一是，人们应该做什么可能是错误的。)第二，即使希特勒遵循的原则在道德上对他来说是恰当的，他的道德原则也没有理由阻止我们对他采取行动。"老虎攻击我是有道理的，我击杀它也是有道理的。我为他辩护的不是我的权利，而是我自己。“*
* Max Stirner.

都是各种各样的好意见。在阅读平克先生的《语言本能》时，我在他的第十三章《思维设计》中发现了一些东西。He was quoting philosopher and 'experimental psycholinguist' Jerry Fodor who (allegedly) said:
The thing is: I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate anything else, excepting, maybe, fiberglass powerboats. More to the point, I think that relativism is very probably FALSE (emphasis added).What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature...
Fodor的咆哮持续了一段时间，但你应该能明白大致的意思。将Fodor描述为实验心理语言学家是模糊的:实验心理语言学是一门实验亚科学，还是Fodor在用它做实验?我不清楚其中的区别。但我跑题了——所有思考者都会这么做。
经过一些思考和考虑，我必须得出这样的结论:相对主义是真实的。如果不是这样，我们就不会为它烦恼，而杰瑞·福多可以——也将不得不——找到其他可以憎恨的东西。我认为这是一个问题，因为它代表了一类分歧，我们在这些分歧上幻想战争和其他或多或少具有破坏性的反社会行为。
人性的结构是“固定的”吗?我想可能是这样，不过固定到什么程度还有待商榷。也许这都是相对的。如果是这样，我们还想要其他方式吗?我们能想象，更不用说忍受，其他事情吗?

讨论文化道德的问题在于，他们认为在一种文化中，每个人都有相同的信仰。这很少是真的。例如，我们可能会说X文化认为同性恋是错误的，但几乎可以肯定的是，在X文化中有一些人质疑或完全不同意这种观点。所以这不是一个问题，我们是谁来反对x文化?，而是，我们应该站在多数派/文化x代言人的一边，还是站在少数人/弱势群体的一边?“文化相对主义”只是对现状的一种懒惰的选择。

As the king of Siam said, "Is a puzzlement!" Is a puzzlement to me about all the discussions brought up about 'relative morality', 'culturally determined morality' and other such issues regarding a once perfectly defined and understood concept.
Morality was simply about (1) refraining from harming the well-being of others, and (2) furthermore enhancing the well-being of others. If the universe has suddenly emerged from a wormhole where this fundamental definition no longer holds, then let's talk about "decency and non-decency" and start again from there.
Perhaps it's that some wish to quibble over what constitutes "well-being". If so, I suggest a better waste of time is debating what is sadness or happiness.
The role of government or social/cultural factors in morality {or 'decency/non-decency') is indeed a tricky one and is perhaps what much of the fretting is about. So let's clarify that fact at least.
Also the role of preternatural forces or "spirits" is commonly brought up. I recommend settling that issue by proposing preternatural forces as exclusively ENFORCING decency/non-decency. However, beware of extending this to the Abraham-Isaac sacrifice of infants problem in religion. Preternatural MANDATE outside of decency/non-decency is big puzzlement!

There are a lot of ideas floating about concerning this post. But I will posit another one for those who remain unfulfilled. Relativism, by its nature, assumes there are no absolutes. Bad assumption. MJA simplifies absolute to one word: truth. This may be oversimplification, yet he re-emphasizes his point, time after time. And whether you agree with him, or believe him to be a lost seeker, something inside your head cannot dispute his claim. Take this where you will, or dismiss it. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Here is some non-relativity for ya:
We are truly just One,
The Universe,
=
MJA

When all the relativities are equal,
Relativity becomes the Truth.
=
MJA

I have been perusing E. O. Wilson's CONSILIENCE, THE UNITY OF KNOWLEDGE (1998). He said something that solidified what was for me previously unexpressible. Ths substance of his remark was that relativism denies any sort of objective truth. The sentiment seems elegant to this layman, even if it is incomplete in some way or another (not saying it IS). But when we relegate matters to their relativity to others, we appear to be discounting the fact that some things, just ARE, WERE and have always BEEN. I'm sure MJA would agree.

PT writes (I assume it's Ken's argument):
"The conclusion is supposed to be that the bare fact that we greet moral disagreements with arguments, rather than with automatic acceptance or indifference, shows that we aren?t really relativists after all.
But a not so small voice inside me thinks that the last line of argument just went by much too fast. Why, the not so small voice plaintively asks, can?t a relativist rationally prefer that others share his or her moral outlook? If she does rationally prefer such a thing, then that bare optional preference itself would give her a reason to invite further argument in the face of apparent disagreement. And there?s no reason, the not so small voice says, that she can?t coherently both have such a preference and believe that there is no absolute truth of the matter where things like morality are concerned"
肯的“小声音”是正确的。相对主义者可以条理清晰地参与道德辩论，同时始终相信结果只能是她喜欢的共识，而不是共同的真理。然而，对于这样一个相对主义者来说，使用她的“理性偏好”策略将是一种欺骗。让我们想象一下，她进入一场关于道德问题的辩论，比如焚烧可兰经是否正当。除非她在一开始就宣称她是一个相对主义者，并且她只是基于她的偏好来争论，她的对话者来分享她的立场，那么她在讨论中使用的任何论点都将是欺骗性的，仅仅是修辞手段。如果她的对手发现相对主义者在这类问题上根本没有辩论的实际用处，而只是希望她的修辞或情感说服能力足以解决这个问题，那他当然会愤怒。这是不诚实的行为。

你好，这里有访客!我不得不说，关于希特勒和纳粹的评论，这是一个相当有问题的主题，就相对论而言。一方面，希特勒和纳粹都是人类，他们行为的错误并不仅仅在于他们的手，而是文明让他们逃脱了他们所做的一切。但是，如果你对普通人提到这一点，你可能会被打上不体贴、冷漠的烙印。我认为这里的问题可能是，同理心通常被视为对受害者的同情，而不是更原始的理解他人观点的形式。因此，相对论的一个问题可能是它的范围——很难完全全面地理解它，并试图从每个人的角度来理解事物，这导致了一些冒犯者的妖魔化，一些受害者的神圣化，尽管最终双方都是人，既不是恶魔，也不是神圣/正义，而现实往往比这更模糊。

多么活泼、有思想、有见解的一群人啊!这是非常有趣和刺激的交流。从克里斯萨默瑞评论的最后一部分开始:那么，现实是相对的吗?还是说事情就是这样?嗯。

A challenge to Fodor's alleged assertion (from Van Pelt's comment): Is human nature 'fixed'? We have often assumed so, but do our views of and relationships toward others remain the same as they were fifty, one hundred, five hundred years ago? If this is what Fodor meant, he must have been sleeping lately.
An example(and Pinker might like this one): 'Thanks for your help with this.' Response: 'Oh, no problem.' Oh, no problem is noncommital---even disdainful. But if we cannot utter the words, you are welcome, without feeling that we just apologized for being human, then human nature is far from fixed---it may be irreparable. But check on the 90-year hypothesis, recently advanced by some science folks. Human nature may be running out of wiggle room.

If your searching for Truth beyond relativity, study nature; it worked for Michelangelo and me.
=
MJA

I stumbled upon this forum and it's a great discussion. I've been thinking about this very thing for a while. Here's my 2c:
Humans have an "objective" aspect to their morality. That is tied to their biology. All humans are the same species and are very nearly identical in the way they operate, their desires, their motives, so they lie in the same moral domain because of their biology. You can't just decide to change your genetic makeup, otherwise you wouldn't be human (by degrees). This is why I accept the quote:
"老虎攻击我是有道理的，我击杀它也是有道理的。我为他辩护的不是我的权利，而是我自己。"
但我不认为这适用于希特勒。希特勒是不道德的。我之所以能这么说，是因为他打破了同理心这一黄金法则，以及其他一些根植于他生物学中的法则。
A thought experiment: Say an island is discovered where humans have mutated into a different species - let's call the species choomans. Choomans are just like humans in every regard, except that they must eat a baby chooman every ten years to survive. If one of these people doesn't eat a baby of their own kind, they will die.
This means that every surviving adult chooman on the island has eaten a baby. Every chooman of reproductive age has eaten a baby.
So, assume that we know for humans that it's immoral to eat people's babies (you can disagree but then we'll have to have a different discussion). Can we judge the choomans to be immoral for eating their babies? Remember, they need to do it to survive.
My conclusion is that the choomans aren't being immoral in eating their babies. Their biology dictates that it is something they must do, and thus they do what leads to the best outcome.
事实上，有些动物确实会吃掉自己的孩子，但我们不会从道德上评判它们，因为我们不认为它们有道德能力。但是，如果一个完全有知觉的生物在生理上被迫吃自己的孩子，我们就不能把同样的人类道德规则强加给他们。
在许多方面，这些道德规则归结为生存和繁殖，而楚曼人吃自己的孩子是他们生存和繁殖的最佳方式。
所有这些的重点是，我认为我们可以通过经验达到一个最佳的伦理体系，在一定程度上，我们物种的生物学保持不变。如果外星人被发现了，我们不能自动假定那些客观适用于人类的道德准则也适用于他们——这取决于他们在生物学上与我们有多相似。我反对道德相对主义，但与此同时，我不认为存在任何宇宙上的客观道德命令，只有生物学上的客观道德命令。
What do you think of the thought experiment? It's my original thought (although I'm sure others have considered this) and I'd like it shot to pieces if possible, thanks!

好话题。如果我可以从佛教中推断，这个世界是1和0的结果。因此，从技术上讲，这是一个相对的领域。
In Buddhism, there is this realm of Absoluteness. And meditation is the key to it. This realm of Absoluteness is located within each of us. Whilst, the realm of Relativity that we know of is located away from us. The more we try to explore outside for answers, the further we dive into relativity...so the further away we are from absoluteness (which what some people calls, "The Truth").
希望你能理解;)

This post couldnt be more right on