Does Exitentialism naturally lead to Moral Relativism?

Question

Once we have left the theistic world and no longer look to the heavens to dictate morality, it seems we encounter a rather complex problem.
From an Existentialist point of view, in which life has no inherent meaning and where we have no proof of any higher creator, we are free to do as we wish.
In this world it seems that individuals create a subjective framework, a personal ethos, whereby they assign morality and value to whatever actions they wish.
We choose which value systems to follow, but even this choice is not is entirely free, our values will always be affected by our society and place in time.
Any choice we make will be without universal foundation and will only be as viable as the people and societies who create them. These values and morality will be short lived and constantly changing.
In the end, there can be no true morality, the morality that we fabricate, our ethos, is only a reflection of personal preference relative to our society and time.

Answer 1

WOW, i rare deep question in the philosophy section.
existentialism has been described as the philosophy of the individual. if you subscribe to that idea (i do) than yes it can lead to moral relativism, but it can also lead to nihilistic ideas and absurdity.

in the end it is up to the individual and how they interpret the ideas of existentialism.

Answer 2

This is a good question. It's like something to do with being politically correct and are there any absolute moral concepts upon which to judge situations. For example, gay marriage. The bible forbids homosexual love (although it's not really that specific when it comes to lesbian love). So if I am open minded, I want everyone to have the same rights and that means the right to get married regardless of gender, sexual persuasion, etc. But if I have absolute moral concepts that I believe in, which are not politically correct, then gay marriage is forbidden. I am not saying which side of the fence I am on because I don't really know anymore - I am ambivalent. So where do I draw the line - I think the line is zig zagging - it's hard to find borders and boundaries. Although, when the issue hits home, I am sure I will take an unequivocal stand. For example, Israel has the right to exist - no, ifs and buts.

Answer 3

Then that begs the question, "is there really a need for morality at all?" and it becomes obvious that at this stage, as far as humans are concerned, there is. I dare say that many advances in technology in general are the result of morality, simply because morality leads to free time, that would have otherwise been spent watching our a$$, that can now be spent pondering solutions to other problems. I think this was especially true in the early stages of civilization.
Morality is practical.
On a different note I do not think theism is dead just yet, for quantum physics has stumble upon evidence that suggests it is necessary for "god" to exist, the reason being is that a primary/original/cosmic consciousness is required if we wish to believe that physical reality exists in the absence of human observation, and I would say that it is fair to call such a consciousness a deity when we compare it to our own consciousness. Perhaps this will lead to some new development in the ethics department, that is if we ever accept that the true nature of reality is much more than just physical and then begin to explore the rest of reality, but hey even Einstein was a skeptic when it came to quantum physics.
So really your question amounts to speculation as to whether or not morality will ever become obsolete and in that I case I will say only time will tell.

Answer 4

I dig what you're saying, and understand your delimma. It's all true, everything you said. Problem is you can't function without making the choices, bogus that they may be. This philosophy of yours can really be quite exhilarating as it opens up doors in every aspect of your life. True freedom comes from knowing the world is nothing more than what we say it is and that there is no rule of law or even theistic retribution should you falter and break a commandment or two. I survive by doing as I see as moral. I am not a chaos loving atheist or a god fearing man, I am simply Daniel and I do as I believe is right. Luckily most of these things coincide with the laws of man. People arent really stupid, some things are obvious. It makes for short conversations when the missionaries come a marchin. OK, enough on this, good luck, excellent arguement you made, thanks for the insight.

Answer 5

You seem to equate moral relativism with the absence of morals. This is not so. There has never been nor will there ever be an absolute - what you call "true" - morality. The one constant as pertains to morality, to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, has a foundation that shifts with the regional cultural expectations. The local morality behaves in a lawrentian way in that it acts as an attractor and is in fact very stable at its core. Only at the intersection of moral codes to you see short lived local phenomena consistent with the lack of a fixed moral code.

Answer 6

but there is a religious existentialism, Kierkegaard, Marcel, and others.

this whole non sense about individualism is based upon the most stupid man in history, Rene Descartes. as a sociologist, I can't accept such a myth, when I know that my mind is based upon the social language that I'm using.

Answer 7

i ******* agree with you.