So my follow-up questions are:
Do you see yourself as a moral relativist? Does your morality shift according to the situation? Why or why not?
Hijack and tangent incoming.
We are all moral relativists. Regardless of whether we ascribe to a group that claims to believe in or practice moral absolutes, that is not the case in reality. Rather, the appearance and acceptance of such is an aspect of the amazing power of words to make meaning and distinction disappear.
No matter where a moral law comes from, it exists within an individual or individuals, each of whose life experiences inform interpretations that must necessarily vary. (Thou shalt not kill. But what about war? Self-defence? Abortion? Thou shalt not steal. But what if you are starving? What if it will save a person's life? And so on.)
If we could somehow ascribe meaningful values to each person's deep interpretations of these laws, we could construct a diagram or continuum in which all people were placed and related to each other in terms of those values. And as no absolute truth can exist in a system based in language, there could be no over-arching authority to legitimate any position over any or all others. The system is unavoidably reduced to (or, really, can exist only as) one of relativism. Social norms will take care of the rest.
Language in this case (in most cases) can only hint at the truly intended meaning. Communication is the transmission of really small, general pieces of information across channels that tend naturally toward high entropy. As such, they cannot be too precise, or the system becomes unwieldy and untenable. Language as a tool is based in carving understanding out of all possible interpretations (again, crazy entropy). It cannot be precise, though we often mistake it for such.
That said, it generally doesn't matter, because we're used to it.
The power of words in this case is to provide, in effect, a banner to march under, organising group effort to meaningful action. A group can say they practice the absolute word of God as much as they like, but the rules that govern language and communication say they cannot, because absolutes are strictly forbidden, or are utterly trivial, in those arenas.
Now, as a summary, this does a disservice to the immense complexities involved. And 'can of worms' doesn't even begin to describe it, so I hope you will forgive any and all gaping holes in the above.
Anyway, back on subject:
Yes, I view myself as a moral relativist, though perhaps not in the negative sense the term has acquired.
I believe that my morality probably does shift according to situation (mood, hormones, physical state). But then you're into the tricky area of defining the boundaries of morality, and back to words annihilating meaning again.
Is there a problem with moral relativism? Or is it a sensible, good way to live? Why?
Well, I think it's unavoidable
The distinction here might be do do with the notion of 'self-aware' morality, with the implication that an entity in possession of such faculties can and will act almost sociopathically, and then use some Sophist-like argument to justify any and every course of action. I'd like to think, however, that those people are just sociopaths.
If you feel that there is some sort of relativism in your morality, how do you avoid applying the benefit of that relativism to yourself, and the cost to others? Or is that not an issue for you?
It always has to be a temptation I think. But there again, I am a frothing maniac for fairness, so the idea of giving anyone preference (at least in principal) is offensive to me. I hate pandering, I hate giving people false hope, or expectation, or whatever, and I hate feeling like I didn't try hard enough myself. I guess it will be different for each person though.
(For extra credit, NinjasLoveNixon, how do Taoists recognise Virtue and tell it apart from Morality or Custom or just pure Selfishness?)
I'm not a Taoist, so this may be going well beyond my capacity to answer.
Taoism (at least as I understand it) is about individual action as opposed to an organised and over-arching social program. Kind of like a cross between a hive-mind and a perfect anarchy. Totally realised, all people operate in harmony, want little, and create no strife.
On a more analytical level, from what I can surmise, it works on a principle of performativity. If it turns out the action brought peace, happiness, and stability, it was good. If it didn't, it was bad. The sage is just a person who gets it right all the time, and, at the highest levels without ever necessarily realising so (or particularly caring - he or she just
is, in perfect harmony with the will of the world).
There is quite a famous little epigram about how one becomes a sage that goes along the lines of 'Sit down. Extend your consciousness to encompass all around you, so you feel the heartbeat of the world. Then forget you are there.' I tried it. Sadly, I'm not a sage yet.
The distinction between virtue and morality, however, as far as I can gather in the Taoist view, is that morality is a code. Virtue is not. Between Virtue and Selfishness, I think the performative criteria comes into play, though an action can, I believe, be both selfish and virtuous simultaneously (I don't believe the distinction would have any credibility in the Taoist view). I'm not a scholar on the subject, however, so I'd take anything I say with only a metric ton of salt.
Speaking personally I try to judge my deeds from what I expect them to produce, and then see if I was right. For me, custom and expectation are a tool, not a prison. I'll happily break them to do something good if the good is big enough, and I'll spurn them if I think I think they risk producing bad.
Ditto.
That means that in the right circumstances, I can see some very disagreeable things as being virtuous -- so it has echoes of NJN's comments about Taoism and virtue -- except that I think that morality is about recognising Virtue, so I don't see myself as embracing a purely Taoist line.
Yeah, we're hitting a semantic border here, where we would need to rigorously define 'morality' to bring the discussion further. Even then we'd have problems. Language, I tells ya. It's evil.
I don't think I'm a moral relativist or a moral absolutist. I think that my morality isn't fixed but grows out of its own ignorance by enquiry.
But if every situation is novel, can you be genuinely sure you are learning at all? Or is that itself an illusion?
I also think that morality is not simply individual but collective.
Bam. Fantastic. Yes. Facepalm moment for me. Why did I not realise this before? And that is another distinction that can be applied between morality and virtue. Virtue resides in the individual. Morality does not. Which hopefully ties together a ton of flailing loose ends from my ramblings above. Thanks Ruv!
The role of ethics for me is to be responsible to myself and others for my impacts, my ignorance and my self-interest. Neither do I see morality and ethics as simply about avoiding doing harm (because sometimes I think we can't avoid it), but rather about learning from the good and the harm we do.
Agreed.
From that perspective I find it hard to define 'evil'. I can certainly describe 'bad' though -- anything that does avoidable harm. For me, 'evil' is what moral absolutists call any bad that breaks their taboos. There are certainly kinds of harm that shock, horrify and outrage me. I can denounce them, but I still can't bring myself call them evil.
I dunno. The wilful and self-aware infliction of unnecessary and extreme harm on others might qualify. But, as always, where the borders?
Against the context of your morality, what if anything, does 'evil' mean to you?
The wilful and self-aware infliction of unnecessary and extreme harm on others. Best I can come up with right now. But as with things like racism, sexism, and so on, I think you need to talk to the victims to decide.
Is it a personal, relativist definition or an absolutist one, or can you not define it at all? Why?
Necessarily relativist.
And omg, wall of text.
Edit: And going back to the moral/intellectual values versus aesthetic/virtue thing: Moral/intellectual values cannot meaningfully reside in the individual, because they are a property of society and require a frame of reference to be sensible; aesthetic/virtuous values can meaningfully reside in the individual with no external discourse required.