How I Accidentally Became a Moral Relativist

Updates from My Last Post

In my last post I talked about 'conforming to the Korean male beauty standard'. I shaved my beard, grew my hair out, stopped kickboxing to pursue bodybuilding (fight club physique), and figured out that dressing minimally yet sophisticated is the ultimate trump card in Korean fashion. Next, I started bulking up and have already put on 2kg in less than two weeks. All I did was eat 4 meals of PROTEINNNN and ceased to release my male aggression on a punch bag. Instead, it gets released... on inconsiderate Korean OAPs blasting rock music in this train carriage!!!

Apologies. I'm back. The plan is to excel in all areas of life including my physicals. The way I see it is, as men, Competence and Confidence are vital to our value. Physicals are less so, but putting in the effort here can help with confidence. The first objective is to obtain a fight-club-style, lean, muscular physique. Why? Because it is sustainable long-term and achieves the baseline benefits of getting jacked: easier social interaction, visible discipline, and an increase in female attention. The second objective is to reintroduce kickboxing after I have built the physique, switching focus to holistic fitness. I expect this process to take 1-3 years. Maxing out on natty bodybuilding means 3-5 years minimum, but the tradeoff might not be worth it. It's great looking like Cbum when that's your career, but the body image issues, potential narcissistic pitfalls, and time investment do not align with my reasons for bodybuilding.

For now, it's eat more, move less, go outside, talk to women—you know, all the jock starter-pack/self-improvement malarkey. Anywho, swiftly onto today's post!

Philosophy

Philosophy! Ooo~ Ahh~~ The wonder is radiating through my computer screen! Philosophy isn't static; it's ever-changing, fool! Three months prior, I was so 'sure' about objective morals, but moral relativity came knocking on my door and turned my worldview upside down John Cena style (John Cena).

A friend of mine recently investigated the correlation between individuals with Down syndrome and a passion for John Cena. I refuse to comment further on the matter. Before the semester, I was all smug thinking I must 'do the RIGHT thing'. Turns out my morality was based on the default Christian ethics of Western society, and I completely missed the option of moral relativism. Alright, buckle up and Yee-haw, reader, this philosophical chatter is about to get wild.

It all began with 'Digital Broadcast Theory (디지털방송론)' class. My professor said what translates to: "1) There is no wrong and right. 2) In society, competition is fierce. 3) Follow the white rabbit, Neo!". Minus the last one. He kept exclaiming how even if we do not believe him, we ought to remember his words in times of adversity. I sat down 1:1 with him; we talked. I went home, watched videos, read books, and researched. It became a weekly discussion. I was bought free lunch for 16 weeks. I slowly became convinced.

I try not to subscribe to any one ideology, but the kicker for me was the talk around static philosophy and personal values. Updating your philosophy weekly is intellectual badassery as far as I'm concerned. Religious folk tend to criticize relative morality, saying there is no overarching life guidance if you create your own value structure. But I think my current approach is all about 'using what works for you' and abandoning the rest. The religious moral proposition is set-in-stone, refer-back-to-the-manual type rigidity. The Moral Relativist approach is essentially throwing out the instructions and rewriting your own manual.

"The only constant is change."
—Buddah (I think)

Philosophy isn't perfect, and so should you!_{(Yes that was on purpose)} For those not up to speed on the moral conversation, I will now pose the arguments *For* and *Against* Moral Relativity so you can adopt a balanced view. To clarify, I am subject to change on this, as I now am philosophizing on the regular ;) Everything I write has potential for falsity, that is to say, (a particular) world religion might hold the truth. So read on with caution.

Points For Moral Relativity

Morals are culturally diverse (What is wrong in culture A is a daily practice in culture B).
Judgments about what is 'right' are completely subjective.
Accepting this view allows for understanding of different cultures, views, philosophies, etc.
There is no moral standard; 'right and wrong' all depend on context (e.g. Murder is wrong in the context of society, but no one bats an eye when a soldier lets loose an M16 on opposing forces).
Moral judgments can only be made within the boundary of a situation or culture, therefore cannot be indefinite or objective.

Points Against Moral Relativity

Relativity prevents any judgment of right and wrong (e.g., it might be necessary to make moral judgments in war, the courtroom, etc.).
'We need a moral structure' → ⓐ
Saying morals are all relative means that my view becomes objective → ⓑ
If morals are relative, you cannot criticize or improve society.

ⓐ COUNTERPOINT: I believe we can discover our own values and hold our own moral structure.
ⓑ COUNTER-QUESTION: What if the only objective truth is that everything is relative?
ⓒ COUNTER-QUESTION: What is the objective 'right' thing? Can we not discover our OWN VALUES?

There you have it. Morality is (probably) relative. Although, a part of me still feels the desire for an objective overlord (God) to guide my moral decisions. However, that all seems very 'blue-pilled' now I've gone down the morality rabbit hole.

Charlie Chaplin once said, "Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot." The great inventors of the past give the image of ultimate 'Goodness' but upon closer inspection, many attempted morally questionable endeavors. A. Bell stole the telephone idea off an Italian. S. Morse plagiarized his professor's findings. Zuckerberg started Facebook by hacking into university databases to create a system that ranks the hottest girls. Not cool, Zucc. Only a reptilian could do something so... Oh, never mind.

This begs the question, if these remarkable contributors to world technology committed 'evil,' is it still 'evil'? I am not saying we have to abandon the rules to climb in society, but it seems to me we might have to bend them. As Nietzsche points out, there is a difference between master morality and slave morality. Masters make the rules for the slaves; slaves follow. The rules of the masters appear to be self-discovered. For the record, this does not mean you should be breaking the law; all it means is that right and wrong might not be as clear-cut as we once thought.

Either that or I have just been entered into a Pyramid scheme by a 60-year-old Korean media professor and risk committing acts of great evil. The choice is yours, but at present, moral relativity seems subjectively 'right' for me.

GeorgeGreensmith.com