Originally posted by ChastMastr:
So then... are you saying that there's no specific doctrine or philosophy per se in modernism that you're arguing against?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:I'm awfully curious about this, IngoB, so: How would you define this heresy of modernism, and how do you see it overcoming other divisions between not only Christians but between Christians and non-Christians?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Beats me why you are shy about saying this. The feeling is entirely mutual, and I consider this to be more praise than insult.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
With them, I have the feeling that we are talking about a common faith, a seeking after God in which we all share. IngoB, I hate to say it, but I do not have that feeling with you. When you post about Catholicism it seems to be a religion as remote to me as that of the ancient Aztecs.
We seem to be living in a time where a particular heresy, let's call it modernism, has become so dominant and widespread that it actually starts to overcome prior divisions due to heresy and schism. I usually have little hope for Christian unity, but if there is one thing that could bring together RCs, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Calvinists, ..., Copts, Syriac Orthodox, ..., heck, perhaps even Muslims (which might have been a strand of the Ebionite heresy) and Jews, then it is that. Seriously.
Given my beliefs where the Church is at, I think the most important showdown will happen within the RCC. But that does not mean that there isn't a bigger picture. These sure are interesting times in religion, and perhaps (perhaps!) even apocalyptic ones. Certainly one can argue that a new world religion is emerging, a new Westerndom, even if it is not identifiably monolithic as Christendom used to be. [/QB]
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
But I mean what IngoB means by it here, since he seems to have something specific in mind (and I don't know if he means the New Advent definition linked above).
quote:First, when I say modernism here, I would include "post-modernism" as a particular strand of it. That's because I don't intend to label something clearly defined, but more a fairly diffuse "spirit of the age". It's intended as a time & place-based label, something like post-enlightenment-ism or perhaps Western-ideology-after-the-18thC-ism.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I'm awfully curious about this, IngoB, so: How would you define this heresy of modernism, and how do you see it overcoming other divisions between not only Christians but between Christians and non-Christians?
quote:I can argue against the specific doctrines of an individual modernist, but modernism as such (in my sense) is not clearly defined enough to allow a general response. At best one can pick one of the more common modernist ideas and argue against that. But there inevitably will be some modernists who agree with your critique, and then turn around and be modernist about something else.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
So then... are you saying that there's no specific doctrine or philosophy per se in modernism that you're arguing against?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We seem to be living in a time where a particular heresy, let's call it modernism, has become so dominant and widespread that it actually starts to overcome prior divisions due to heresy and schism.
quote:Isn't that a bit contradictory? At first modernism is "a particular heresy", but then it's "not clearly defined enough", which seems odd for something so "particular". A dominant and widespread vagueness?
Originally posted by IngoB:
I can argue against the specific doctrines of an individual modernist, but modernism as such (in my sense) is not clearly defined enough to allow a general response.
quote:
Originally posted by A. Modernist:
Down with stuff!
Up with other stuff!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Now that's my kind of protest movement! Where do I sign up?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by A. Modernist:
Down with stuff!
Up with other stuff!
quote:At the place, near the thing.
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:Now that's my kind of protest movement! Where do I sign up?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by A. Modernist:
Down with stuff!
Up with other stuff!
quote:Yeah, I'm having trouble making sense of this.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't that a bit contradictory? At first modernism is "a particular heresy", but then it's "not clearly defined enough", which seems odd for something so "particular". A dominant and widespread vagueness?
quote:
Originally posted by A. Modernist:
Down with stuff!
Up with other stuff!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'm not sure I'd call something as vague as this a heresy. quote:How exactly can we clarify "modernist" beyond "stuff I or my church doesn't agree with"? And I say this as someone who has gleefully and snarkily referred to things from the Enlightenment era as "modernist," and with (I am afraid, for which I must repent) self-righteous scorn. (Knowing that one's position is a rare and minority one can encourage a certain type of arrogance, regardless of whether one's position is, in fact, correct.) (Side note: I personally genuinely do think we started getting some terrible and false ideas during the Enlightenment period--and I have absolutely (and, as mentioned above, deliberately snarkily--referred to That Sort Of Thing as "modernist"--but I don't want to derail the thread.)
Originally posted by IngoB:At best one can pick one of the more common modernist ideas and argue against that. But there inevitably will be some modernists who agree with your critique, and then turn around and be modernist about something else.
quote:Then why call it a heresy--and why not just focus on the individual notions (positivism, etc.) rather than grouping them all together?
In short, "modernism" is not false in the sense of say Pelagianism, but rather in the sense of Greco-Roman paganism.
quote:This is a bit more helpful, though, um, honestly, I think the snark about Protestants is perhaps less helpful. I also think that the worldly "spirit of the age" is perhaps always going to have its own false notions, dangers, and problems--perhaps even swinging wildly from one extreme to another as people try to correct the mistakes of their forefathers, and the next generation does the same, and so on.
Originally posted by StevHep:
Modernism is a heresy which I think priests still take an oath to oppose. What it consists of is most clearly laid out in the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis of Pius X. It is not so much a coherent philosophy or theology as it is the spirit of the age. Pope Benedict XVI identified its current dominant strain as Relativism. Essentially it denies the existence of an absolute truth which is knowable to man and makes personal individual truth the measure of everything.
quote:Call me a heretic, but all the above sounds like a damned good thing to me that the world could do with more of. Happy people getting on with one another - I'm really struggling to find what's terrible about this. Sounds like heaven.
Originally posted by IngoB:
How does modernism unify Christians? Well, pretty much by stating that the old division do not really matter. Those sectarian concerns are mere labels (nominalism) which fade into obscurity against the need to help people (humanism) in an optimal way (utilitarianism) , where their well-being can be determined (positivism) in terms of how the get along in the world (materialism & anti-teleology) and how they feel about it (hedonism).
quote:Doesn't this kind of beg the question of whether "modernism" is coherent enough to be a heresy--indeed, coherent enough to be mutually exclusive with orthodoxy?
Originally posted by StevHep:
I think Pius X was focussing his ire mostly on those Catholics, particularly priests, who were continuing to promote modernist ideas within the Church as if they were compatible with orthodoxy. By the time of the encyclical it had been made pretty plain that modernism had no place in the Church and those who wished to propagate it should leave. It was fundamentally dishonest to stay within the Church as a priest with a vow of obedience while being consciously and deliberately disobedient. This irked the Holy Father. There is room for a civil reasoned debate between Catholicism and modernism but that would be on a basis of two groups each external to the other.
quote:I wholeheartedly agree with this part--less so with the positivism and such. But to me the whole idea that people should try to help one another and make the world a better place seems kind of central to acting like a Christian to me.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Happy people getting on with one another - I'm really struggling to find what's terrible about this. Sounds like heaven.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Not anymore. It was dropped with the introduction of the semi-Protestant Vactican II liturgy.
Originally posted by StevHep:
Modernism is a heresy which I think priests still take an oath to oppose.
quote:I liked Pope Benedict XVI - it is a pity some people wouldn't listen to him more.
Originally posted by StevHep:
Modernism is a heresy which I think priests still take an oath to oppose. What it consists of is most clearly laid out in the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis of Pius X. It is not so much a coherent philosophy or theology as it is the spirit of the age. Pope Benedict XVI identified its current dominant strain as Relativism. Essentially it denies the existence of an absolute truth which is knowable to man and makes personal individual truth the measure of everything. In some ways it is a continuation by other means of the Protestant notion that private judgement of Scripture takes precedence over Sacred Tradition and the consensus of the Church.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:So true.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:I liked Pope Benedict XVI - it is a pity some people wouldn't listen to him more.
Originally posted by StevHep:
Modernism is a heresy which I think priests still take an oath to oppose. What it consists of is most clearly laid out in the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis of Pius X. It is not so much a coherent philosophy or theology as it is the spirit of the age. Pope Benedict XVI identified its current dominant strain as Relativism. Essentially it denies the existence of an absolute truth which is knowable to man and makes personal individual truth the measure of everything. In some ways it is a continuation by other means of the Protestant notion that private judgement of Scripture takes precedence over Sacred Tradition and the consensus of the Church.
quote:Broadly speaking anti-modernists stress authority, hierarchy, tradition and nature and modernists stress reason, democracy, innovation and nurture. Outwith the SSPX and the Tendence Vladimir Putin wing of Orthodoxy most anti-modernists have come to some terms with the latter and, for that matter, most thoughtful modernists acknowledge some kind of place for the former. (The usual caveats about ideological legitimisation apply, of course, no-one on either side is immune to the charm of sloganeering or of watering down their doctrines when they become inconvenient). So when you come across someone claiming that the condition of modernity is a manichean clash betwixt the two, unless they have fallen through a space-time wormhole at the Battle of Stalingrad, they are probably indulging in a penchant for self-dramatisation.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Call me a heretic, but all the above sounds like a damned good thing to me that the world could do with more of. Happy people getting on with one another - I'm really struggling to find what's terrible about this. Sounds like heaven.
Originally posted by IngoB:
How does modernism unify Christians? Well, pretty much by stating that the old division do not really matter. Those sectarian concerns are mere labels (nominalism) which fade into obscurity against the need to help people (humanism) in an optimal way (utilitarianism) , where their well-being can be determined (positivism) in terms of how the get along in the world (materialism & anti-teleology) and how they feel about it (hedonism).
quote:Nicely put, especially the comment about a manichean clash. It's often said that we're all postmodernists now, which I think is often correct. In fact, some postmodernists seem to rehabilitate religion, since although pm has criticized 'grand narratives', it has also argued for a plurality of narratives, which in some ways, discombobulates the new atheists, who would prefer religious narratives to go into the dustbin of history. That seems unlikely.
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:Broadly speaking anti-modernists stress authority, hierarchy, tradition and nature and modernists stress reason, democracy, innovation and nurture. Outwith the SSPX and the Tendence Vladimir Putin wing of Orthodoxy most anti-modernists have come to some terms with the latter and, for that matter, most thoughtful modernists acknowledge some kind of place for the former. (The usual caveats about ideological legitimisation apply, of course, no-one on either side is immune to the charm of sloganeering or of watering down their doctrines when they become inconvenient). So when you come across someone claiming that the condition of modernity is a manichean clash betwixt the two, unless they have fallen through a space-time wormhole at the Battle of Stalingrad, they are probably indulging in a penchant for self-dramatisation.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Call me a heretic, but all the above sounds like a damned good thing to me that the world could do with more of. Happy people getting on with one another - I'm really struggling to find what's terrible about this. Sounds like heaven.
Originally posted by IngoB:
How does modernism unify Christians? Well, pretty much by stating that the old division do not really matter. Those sectarian concerns are mere labels (nominalism) which fade into obscurity against the need to help people (humanism) in an optimal way (utilitarianism) , where their well-being can be determined (positivism) in terms of how the get along in the world (materialism & anti-teleology) and how they feel about it (hedonism).
quote:It's more understandable when you consider that the anti-modernist churches don't have even a single fuck to give about whether people are happy or getting along with one another. All they care about is whether people are under their authority or not.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Happy people getting on with one another - I'm really struggling to find what's terrible about this.
quote:Bollocks! But that's another modernist error, that if something makes us feel happy it must therefore be good and right. But then modernists are some of the most smug people you'll ever meet who love the smell of their own farts.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It's more understandable when you consider that the anti-modernist churches don't have even a single fuck to give about whether people are happy or getting along with one another. All they care about is whether people are under their authority or not.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Happy people getting on with one another - I'm really struggling to find what's terrible about this.
The trouble is Christianity can only survive as a brand as long as it's Traditional AKA frozen in legalism. The cockeyed plus side is that we need these old apostate shoals to swim in.
quote:Nothing like a bit of generalised ad hom when all else fails. But authoritarianism is all about declaring this group or that group to be irredeemably bad; it's how it justifies putting the frighteners on anyone who steps out of line - "carry on like that and you'll end up like one of those evil people so we're doing this for your own good."
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:Bollocks! But that's another modernist error, that if something makes us feel happy it must therefore be good and right. But then modernists are some of the most smug people you'll ever meet who love the smell of their own farts.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It's more understandable when you consider that the anti-modernist churches don't have even a single fuck to give about whether people are happy or getting along with one another. All they care about is whether people are under their authority or not.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Happy people getting on with one another - I'm really struggling to find what's terrible about this.
quote:Goodness. I had no idea Aristotle was a modernist.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that's another modernist error, that if something makes us feel happy it must therefore be good and right.
quote:Would "I believe in an absolute truth, but I don't think I know what it is, and I don't think we'll ever really know, but let's see what we can find." do?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:Goodness. I had no idea Aristotle was a modernist.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that's another modernist error, that if something makes us feel happy it must therefore be good and right.
For me, the basic problem with anti-modernists is that they appeal to an absolute (usually revealed) truth, which - oh my! - they just happen to be the sole custodians of, right down to the last semicolon. What a coincidence! It comes back to the depressing old equation "Orthodoxy = my doxy; heterodoxy = your doxy".
I suppose 'twas ever thus and ever will be, but I'd pay a lot more attention if someone actually said, "Yes, I believe in an absolute truth, but I don't think I know what it is. Let's go and find it together."
quote:I guess I'm theologically as far removed from you as they come but I love tradition, also within my religion.
Ad Orientem: Relativism, comparative religion and a general distain of tradition I think is a fair description of modernism.
quote:Plenty of room for that in my doxy.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Would "I believe in an absolute truth, but I don't think I know what it is, and I don't think we'll ever really know, but let's see what we can find." do?
quote:But Christ promises his Church that the Holy Spirit will lead it into all truth. The modernists, I suppose, just don't believe that? Of course they don't because they choose relativism and syncretism; there is no revelation, God does not reveal anything to us.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:Goodness. I had no idea Aristotle was a modernist.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But that's another modernist error, that if something makes us feel happy it must therefore be good and right.
For me, the basic problem with anti-modernists is that they appeal to an absolute (usually revealed) truth, which - oh my! - they just happen to be the sole custodians of, right down to the last semicolon. What a coincidence! It comes back to the depressing old equation "Orthodoxy = my doxy; heterodoxy = your doxy".
I suppose 'twas ever thus and ever will be, but I'd pay a lot more attention if someone actually said, "Yes, I believe in an absolute truth, but I don't think I know what it is. Let's go and find it together."
quote:I'm not sure if I'm a modernist, but I do.
Ad Orientem: But Christ promises his Church that the Holy Spirit will lead it into all truth. The modernists, I suppose, just don't believe that?
quote:As put like that it's a capitalist consumerist paradise. Which is all very well, until you realise that capitalism doesn't deliver on its promises.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Call me a heretic, but all the above sounds like a damned good thing to me that the world could do with more of. Happy people getting on with one another - I'm really struggling to find what's terrible about this. Sounds like heaven.
Originally posted by IngoB:
How does modernism unify Christians? Well, pretty much by stating that the old division do not really matter. Those sectarian concerns are mere labels (nominalism) which fade into obscurity against the need to help people (humanism) in an optimal way (utilitarianism) , where their well-being can be determined (positivism) in terms of how the get along in the world (materialism & anti-teleology) and how they feel about it (hedonism).
quote:Say rather that they believe the process is still ongoing. Whereas the anti-modernist churches appear to believe that the Holy Spirit has already lead the church into all truth, and no further exploration or examination is required.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But Christ promises his Church that the Holy Spirit will lead it into all truth. The modernists, I suppose, just don't believe that?
quote:Other way around. Conservatives believe that the Holy Spirit had led the church into all truth by the time of Jesus' arrest, and after that there's been no leading done.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But Christ promises his Church that the Holy Spirit will lead it into all truth. The modernists, I suppose, just don't believe that? Of course they don't because they choose relativism and syncretism; there is no revelation, God does not reveal anything to us.
quote:How on earth did you get that from what you quoted?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:As put like that it's a capitalist consumerist paradise.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Call me a heretic, but all the above sounds like a damned good thing to me that the world could do with more of. Happy people getting on with one another - I'm really struggling to find what's terrible about this. Sounds like heaven.
Originally posted by IngoB:
How does modernism unify Christians? Well, pretty much by stating that the old division do not really matter. Those sectarian concerns are mere labels (nominalism) which fade into obscurity against the need to help people (humanism) in an optimal way (utilitarianism) , where their well-being can be determined (positivism) in terms of how the get along in the world (materialism & anti-teleology) and how they feel about it (hedonism).
quote:Surely not, otherwise the Holy Spirit got it terribly wrong for two thousand years, not leading into truth but creating confusion. Either what God has revealed is true for all time or he is s liar and not God at all, for the faith was delivered once to the saints, to quote the scriptures.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Other way around. Conservatives believe that the Holy Spirit had led the church into all truth by the time of Jesus' arrest, and after that there's been no leading done.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But Christ promises his Church that the Holy Spirit will lead it into all truth. The modernists, I suppose, just don't believe that? Of course they don't because they choose relativism and syncretism; there is no revelation, God does not reveal anything to us.
The contrary position, that the Holy Spirit is still leading and will continue to lead us into all truth, not just those bits of truth that were settled by the speaker's adolescence, is more commonly associated with theological liberalism.
quote:In that case the relativism of the modernist is designed to create its own dictatorship, where we are forced to know nothing so that we can believe anything, that bad is good etc.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think accusations of heresy often flow from a loss of power and control. Those who had it, think of a heresy which the usurpers can be accused of; a kind of fatal flaw which has (because of a quirk of history) given them more power.
Cue Koestler (rough paraphrase): "Comrade, we are just saying that you have deviated from the objective road described by the party, and you are in fact facilitating the rehabilitation of a degenerate and revanchist imperialism. But comrade! It is not too late to return to the objective path mapped out by the party, under the firm leadership of comrade X. Take care!"
quote:Or the church did. Two different things.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Surely not, otherwise the Holy Spirit got it terribly wrong for two thousand years
quote:False dichotomy. The Church is defined by the Holy Spirit. No Spirit no Church.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Or the church did. Two different things.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Surely not, otherwise the Holy Spirit got it terribly wrong for two thousand years
quote:Yes; we're just rather more careful about parsing the future tense.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But Christ promises his Church that the Holy Spirit will lead it into all truth. The modernists, I suppose, just don't believe that?
quote:Are you saying that everything the church does and has done over the last 2000 years has automatically been in accordance with the Holy Spirit? Otherwise, there's very much a true dichotomy here.
Ad Orientem: False dichotomy. The Church is defined by the Holy Spirit. No Spirit no Church.
quote:All truth? Doesn't that make the Church's centuries-long battle against heliocentrism a little hard to explain?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But Christ promises his Church that the Holy Spirit will lead it into all truth.
quote:Depends what you mean by "done". The Holy Spirit certainly has led the Church into all truth via tradition, that is, the faith handed down from the Apostles as expressed in the scriptures, the holy councils, the ancient liturgies, the fathers and the lives of the saints etc.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Are you saying that everything the church does and has done over the last 2000 years has automatically been in accordance with the Holy Spirit? Otherwise, there's very much a true dichotomy here.
Ad Orientem: False dichotomy. The Church is defined by the Holy Spirit. No Spirit no Church.
quote:I don't know. You'll have to ask a Roman Catholic about that.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:All truth? Doesn't that make the Church's centuries-long battle against heliocentrism a little hard to explain?
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
But Christ promises his Church that the Holy Spirit will lead it into all truth.
quote:That sounds odd to me, since relativism promotes pluralism. You are not forced to know nothing - how could that work? This forum - in fact, this thread - demonstrates how pluralism works quite well. You are perfectly entitled to put forward your point of view, and so am I.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:In that case the relativism of the modernist is designed to create its own dictatorship, where we are forced to know nothing so that we can believe anything, that bad is good etc.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think accusations of heresy often flow from a loss of power and control. Those who had it, think of a heresy which the usurpers can be accused of; a kind of fatal flaw which has (because of a quirk of history) given them more power.
Cue Koestler (rough paraphrase): "Comrade, we are just saying that you have deviated from the objective road described by the party, and you are in fact facilitating the rehabilitation of a degenerate and revanchist imperialism. But comrade! It is not too late to return to the objective path mapped out by the party, under the firm leadership of comrade X. Take care!"
quote:Pluralism isn't the same as relativism. Relativism is the belief that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Pluralism is based on the belief that there may be an absolute truth but none of us are it's sole possessor. You can hold, for example, quite sincerely that Mr Cameron is the best thing since sliced custard and that Mr Miliband would be a disaster as Prime Minister whilst accepting that persons of sincerity and intelligence can hold the contrary view and that the best way of resolving the issue is to debate it extensively and then to put it to the popular vote.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:That sounds odd to me, since relativism promotes pluralism. You are not forced to know nothing - how could that work? This forum - in fact, this thread - demonstrates how pluralism works quite well. You are perfectly entitled to put forward your point of view, and so am I.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:In that case the relativism of the modernist is designed to create its own dictatorship, where we are forced to know nothing so that we can believe anything, that bad is good etc.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think accusations of heresy often flow from a loss of power and control. Those who had it, think of a heresy which the usurpers can be accused of; a kind of fatal flaw which has (because of a quirk of history) given them more power.
Cue Koestler (rough paraphrase): "Comrade, we are just saying that you have deviated from the objective road described by the party, and you are in fact facilitating the rehabilitation of a degenerate and revanchist imperialism. But comrade! It is not too late to return to the objective path mapped out by the party, under the firm leadership of comrade X. Take care!"
quote:Like others have said on this thread, I believe that the Holy Spirit will lead the Church into all truth. I don't believe that She has already done so.
Ad Orientem: The Holy Spirit certainly has led the Church into all truth via tradition, that is, the faith handed down from the Apostles as expressed in the scriptures, the holy councils, the ancient liturgies, the fathers and the lives of the saints etc.
quote:AO - I believe you are Orthodox, possibly of the Greek variety? Please forgive me if I am mistaken. Many years ago, when I was taught Patristics by an Orthodox priest, he said that the Church is always right, when acting as the Church. When the Church has made mistakes it was not being the Church. While this position does throw up other problems, it does recognize that the Church has been wrong at times in the past, and may well be so again in the future.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:False dichotomy. The Church is defined by the Holy Spirit. No Spirit no Church.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Or the church did. Two different things.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Surely not, otherwise the Holy Spirit got it terribly wrong for two thousand years
quote:I'm forced to think this really. 500 years ago the Church thought that torturing heretics and autos da fé were a Good Thing. She no longer does; I like to think the Holy Spirit's personal position on the matter is closer to the latter than the former, so he has indeed led the Church into a truer truth since the 1500s, "Good morning Team, my name's Edmund Blackadder, and I'm the new Minister in charge of Religious Genocide."
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Like others have said on this thread, I believe that the Holy Spirit will lead the Church into all truth. I don't believe that She has already done so.
Ad Orientem: The Holy Spirit certainly has led the Church into all truth via tradition, that is, the faith handed down from the Apostles as expressed in the scriptures, the holy councils, the ancient liturgies, the fathers and the lives of the saints etc.
quote:I think I'm being caught up in semantics here. I do believe that the Holy Spirit is trying to lead the church. Sometimes we listen to Her, but often we don't. What I don't believe is that She has finished in leading the Church to all truth.
Karl: Liberal Backslider: 500 years ago the Church thought that torturing heretics and autos da fé were a Good Thing. She no longer does; I like to think the Holy Spirit's personal position on the matter is closer to the latter than the former, so he has indeed led the Church into a truer truth since the 1500s
quote:I think we're broadly in agreement. I think there are errors we thought were truth hundreds of years ago (torturing heretics for example) which we no longer do.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I think I'm being caught up in semantics here. I do believe that the Holy Spirit is trying to lead the church. Sometimes we listen to Her, but often we don't. What I don't believe is that She has finished in leading the Church to all truth.
Karl: Liberal Backslider: 500 years ago the Church thought that torturing heretics and autos da fé were a Good Thing. She no longer does; I like to think the Holy Spirit's personal position on the matter is closer to the latter than the former, so he has indeed led the Church into a truer truth since the 1500s
quote:Call it a world view and a source of heresies then. It is particular in the sense of being fairly localisable in (cultural) space and time. As I've said, it's basically the Western mindset after the Enlightenment. But that mindset just is a mixture of various ideas and influences, and cannot really be captured in a couple of tightly defined sentences. And to repeat what I've said earlier, I do not believe that we have moved on to something else now. There have been developments, sure, not in the least because of the strenuous efforts of the West to kill itself off in two massive wars. But it is still recognisably the same intellectual mode. I consider postmodernism, for example, mostly as a cynical / skeptical form of modernism.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't that a bit contradictory? At first modernism is "a particular heresy", but then it's "not clearly defined enough", which seems odd for something so "particular". A dominant and widespread vagueness?
quote:I don't think that we can, at least certainly not in a few lines of text. Perhaps a book or two would do. It's like wanting a snappy characterisation of Greco-Roman paganism. But that we do not have a clear target does not mean that we do not have a problem. (Let me state clearly that I do not see my "modernism" as limited to what Pius X considered as "modernism".)
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
How exactly can we clarify "modernist" beyond "stuff I or my church doesn't agree with"?
quote:I know. I deliberately phrased this in the way that modernist present their utopia.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Call me a heretic, but all the above sounds like a damned good thing to me that the world could do with more of. Happy people getting on with one another - I'm really struggling to find what's terrible about this. Sounds like heaven.
quote:That's just trash talk.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's more understandable when you consider that the anti-modernist churches don't have even a single fuck to give about whether people are happy or getting along with one another. All they care about is whether people are under their authority or not.
quote:Everybody is orthodox to those who share their beliefs, and heretic to those who don't. That's just what those words mean.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
We ARE the orthodox.
quote:So there we find a man who was close to two millennia ahead of his time, and thanks to him perhaps a more concrete name for a more particular heresy that is spreading from the modern West: Pilatism.
John 18:37-39
Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice." Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again, and told them, "I find no crime in him. But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover; will you have me release for you the King of the Jews?"
quote:Pretty neat trick. Sort of like saying "I'm always right. When I'm wrong I'm not me." In a person the inability to admit mistakes is a symptom of borderline personality disorder. I'm not sure what it's called in an institution.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:AO - I believe you are Orthodox, possibly of the Greek variety? Please forgive me if I am mistaken. Many years ago, when I was taught Patristics by an Orthodox priest, he said that the Church is always right, when acting as the Church. When the Church has made mistakes it was not being the Church. While this position does throw up other problems, it does recognize that the Church has been wrong at times in the past, and may well be so again in the future.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
False dichotomy. The Church is defined by the Holy Spirit. No Spirit no Church.
quote:Somehow I haven't found this one on Wikipedia's list of logical fallacies
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: That is the error of the pre-ante-non-ante-un
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:I've always been puzzled by this assumption. My church group is very respectful of tradition. We'll chant Psalms, we'll discuss medieval Catholic philosophers... These things aren't done that often in more traditional churches.
Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard: they assume liberals reject tradition and orthodoxy.
quote:So do I.
Karl: Liberal Backslider: I think we're broadly in agreement.
quote:Likewise, it's safe to assume there are errors we think are truth now which we (hopefully) no longer will hundreds of years from now.
Karl: Liberal Backslider: I think there are errors we thought were truth hundreds of years ago (torturing heretics for example) which we no longer do.
quote:Well, I'm not saying that relativism is the same thing as pluralism. But surely, the relativist will disagree that there are absolute truths, but s/he will tend to argue with the absolutist, and will not construct a dictatorship over him, as Ad Orientem suggested. Hence, many relativists are fans of pluralism. How about anti-modernists?
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:Pluralism isn't the same as relativism. Relativism is the belief that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Pluralism is based on the belief that there may be an absolute truth but none of us are it's sole possessor. You can hold, for example, quite sincerely that Mr Cameron is the best thing since sliced custard and that Mr Miliband would be a disaster as Prime Minister whilst accepting that persons of sincerity and intelligence can hold the contrary view and that the best way of resolving the issue is to debate it extensively and then to put it to the popular vote.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:That sounds odd to me, since relativism promotes pluralism. You are not forced to know nothing - how could that work? This forum - in fact, this thread - demonstrates how pluralism works quite well. You are perfectly entitled to put forward your point of view, and so am I.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:In that case the relativism of the modernist is designed to create its own dictatorship, where we are forced to know nothing so that we can believe anything, that bad is good etc.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think accusations of heresy often flow from a loss of power and control. Those who had it, think of a heresy which the usurpers can be accused of; a kind of fatal flaw which has (because of a quirk of history) given them more power.
Cue Koestler (rough paraphrase): "Comrade, we are just saying that you have deviated from the objective road described by the party, and you are in fact facilitating the rehabilitation of a degenerate and revanchist imperialism. But comrade! It is not too late to return to the objective path mapped out by the party, under the firm leadership of comrade X. Take care!"
Relativism is a kind of intellectual bug-a-boo in these debates as very few people are actually relativists. People who support, say, inter-faith dialogue don't do so because they think that there is nothing to choose between inter-faith dialogue and burning down mosques. They do so because they think that inter-faith dialogue is a good thing in itself. They might be wrong about this but they are not, thereby, relativists.
quote:I'm not saying that the Church cannot overstep its bounds, if that's what you mean, but it cannot err in matters concerning the faith.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:AO - I believe you are Orthodox, possibly of the Greek variety? Please forgive me if I am mistaken. Many years ago, when I was taught Patristics by an Orthodox priest, he said that the Church is always right, when acting as the Church. When the Church has made mistakes it was not being the Church. While this position does throw up other problems, it does recognize that the Church has been wrong at times in the past, and may well be so again in the future.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:False dichotomy. The Church is defined by the Holy Spirit. No Spirit no Church.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Or the church did. Two different things.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Surely not, otherwise the Holy Spirit got it terribly wrong for two thousand years
quote:But that's not tradition or necessarily respectful of it.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
[QUOTE]I've always been puzzled by this assumption. My church group is very respectful of tradition. We'll chant Psalms, we'll discuss medieval Catholic philosophers
quote:You have the right to believe that. But what you've been saying is that anyone who doesn't believe this "doesn't respect tradition" or "doesn't believe the Holy Spirit will guide the church to all truth". Now, that's a false dichotomy.
Ad Orientem: I'm not saying that the Church cannot overstep its bounds, if that's what you mean, but it cannot err in matters concerning the faith.
quote:Care to explain why not?
Ad Orientem: But that's not tradition or necessarily respectful of it.
quote:The other odd angle to this, is that if you demur from the 'sole custodian' idea, you might be accused a la Ad Orientem of wanting to establish a relativist dictatorship! Eh?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The problem with this, and many similar issues, is that the central theme is a circular argument -
"I'm the sole custodian of God's Truth."
"Why should I believe you?"
"Because I'm the sole custodian of God's Truth."
Those of us who see these arguments as the (at least potential) fakes that they are, are left somewhat bemused. Unless, of course, we appeal to such counsels as "by their fruits shall ye know them," at which point so many cans of worms present themselves that we really need to buy a new tin opener.
quote:Because singing a few Psalms or discussing Aquinas isn't tradition. Neither does one have to be respectful of it per se to do so. Tradition is much larger thang signing the Psalms nor is it idle scholastic speculation.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Care to explain why not?
Ad Orientem: But that's not tradition or necessarily respectful of it.
quote:Then we must mean two completely different things by "lead into all truth", because I would also insist on that meaning that the Holy Spirit cannot contradict himself. The dead horse issues are a good example, though of course examples aren't limited to them.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:You have the right to believe that. But what you've been saying is that anyone who doesn't believe this "doesn't respect tradition" or "doesn't believe the Holy Spirit will guide the church to all truth". Now, that's a false dichotomy.
Ad Orientem: I'm not saying that the Church cannot overstep its bounds, if that's what you mean, but it cannot err in matters concerning the faith.
quote:Oh, I perfectly agree that tradition is larger than this. We can't do the whole of tradition in a church service.
Ad Orientem: Because singing a few Psalms or discussing Aquinas isn't tradition. Neither does one have to be respectful of it per se to do so.
quote:Men can contradict Her though. Including men in the church.
Ad Orientem: I would also insist on that meaning that the Holy Spirit cannot contradict himself.
quote:Differentiate between men following Her and men contradicting Her, you mean?
Ad Orientem: And how do you differentiate between the two?
quote:That's like saying that because your post contains neither the truth that 2+2=4, nor the truth that the atomic number of hydrogen is 1, your post is therefore leading people into error.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:Surely not, otherwise the Holy Spirit got it terribly wrong for two thousand years, not leading into truth but creating confusion. Either what God has revealed is true for all time or he is s liar and not God at all, for the faith was delivered once to the saints, to quote the scriptures.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The contrary position, that the Holy Spirit is still leading and will continue to lead us into all truth, not just those bits of truth that were settled by the speaker's adolescence, is more commonly associated with theological liberalism.
quote:Relativism is the belief that what I, or we, hold to be true cannot be proved by rational argument to people holding sufficiently different views. A relativist holds that the only ways to change other people's minds are by emotional rhetoric or by force.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I'm not saying that relativism is the same thing as pluralism. But surely, the relativist will disagree that there are absolute truths, but s/he will tend to argue with the absolutist, and will not construct a dictatorship over him, as Ad Orientem suggested.
quote:Very good reply. I agree that relativism does not rule out force; I'm not sure about ruling out arguing with other people. The Italian philosopher Gianni Vattimo is a kind of nihilist, and appears to reject any kind of 'foundation for knowledge' in the modern age. Well, he spends a lot of time writing about this!
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Relativism is the belief that what I, or we, hold to be true cannot be proved by rational argument to people holding sufficiently different views. A relativist holds that the only ways to change other people's minds are by emotional rhetoric or by force.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I'm not saying that relativism is the same thing as pluralism. But surely, the relativist will disagree that there are absolute truths, but s/he will tend to argue with the absolutist, and will not construct a dictatorship over him, as Ad Orientem suggested.
There is therefore nothing in relativism that requires one to rule out force as an option. One might say that the archetypically relativist position is, those fundamentalist Taliban over there can't be convinced using reason (relativism), therefore we have to bomb them until they are no longer a threat.
Samuel Huntingdon's neoliberal Clash of Civilizations is a relativist work.
quote:Let's see: hedonism is the belief that there are no goods beyond desire-satisfaction. Utilitarianism is the belief that all desires are qualitatively identical - the only essential difference between enjoying reading poetry or a novel, enjoying seeing the Taj Mahal, and enjoying eating chocolate is which one gives you more enjoyment. This is effectively the claim that money can serve as an effective measure of desire. Positivism, in this context, is the belief that I can't be meaningfully said to have any goods or desires beyond those that I'm actually willing to pay for.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:How on earth did you get that from what you quoted?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:As put like that it's a capitalist consumerist paradise.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Those sectarian concerns are mere labels (nominalism) which fade into obscurity against the need to help people (humanism) in an optimal way (utilitarianism) , where their well-being can be determined (positivism) in terms of how the get along in the world (materialism & anti-teleology) and how they feel about it (hedonism).
quote:The idea goes that you can only argue with people if you share sufficient premises / principles of argument. Relativism says that truth is relative to some X, e.g. cultures, so that having different e.g. cultures means having different premises / principles of argument. Therefore, you can't argue with someone who has a different culture. Well - you can go through the motions of arguing, but if either of you is convinced it's not for any reasons the other person put forward.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dafyd:
[qb] I agree that relativism does not rule out force; I'm not sure about ruling out arguing with other people.
quote:One can always use rational means with people with whom one shares sufficient premises, even if those premises are underdetermined by any rational method.
The Italian philosopher Gianni Vattimo is a kind of nihilist, and appears to reject any kind of 'foundation for knowledge' in the modern age. Well, he spends a lot of time writing about this!
But someone like Vattimo is a paradox, since he must be using rational means to an extent in order to write books.
quote:I don't think one can make those kinds of generalisations about postmodernism. Mostly postmodernism is defined negatively - not enlightenment rationalism, not grand narratives, etc. The slogans and methods of one postmodernist thinker will be different from those of another.
But postmodernism will talk about multiplicities, chaos, emptying out, the lack of an ending, the surface, and so on. I find this very attractive, so I suppose you are right that this works via emotion and intuition, not reason. Yet I have to describe this to an extent via reason, I can't just present a chaotic blob, and say there it is.
quote:That was certainly Bentham's take but one doesn't have to hold that view to be a utilitarian. Better Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied and all that jazz.
Utilitarianism is the belief that all desires are qualitatively identical - the only essential difference between enjoying reading poetry or a novel, enjoying seeing the Taj Mahal, and enjoying eating chocolate is which one gives you more enjoyment. This is effectively the claim that money can serve as an effective measure of desire. Positivism, in this context, is the belief that I can't be meaningfully said to have any goods or desires beyond those that I'm actually willing to pay for.
quote:What the heliocentrism issue demonstrates is that the Church can err in deciding whether a particular issue is a matter of faith or not.
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
not saying that the Church cannot overstep its bounds, if that's what you mean, but it cannot err in matters concerning the faith.
quote:That's just polemical spreading of FUD.
Originally posted by Russ:
But it removes any certainty about whether the Church is right on any particular issue...
quote:I guess you don't count the inclusion of astronomical beliefs amongst the heresy charges against Giordano Bruno a few years earlier, which led to his execution...
Originally posted by IngoB:
Even at the time the matter was judged to be uncomfortably at the interface between religion and science (or natural philosophy). Cardinal Bellarmine stated "I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated." The official decree in of the Congregation of the Index in 1616, which prohibited Copernican works did so "donec corrigatur", namely with the requirement for correction that heliocentrism be presented as hypothesis, not as established fact.
And that's pretty much it as far as official interference with the scientific process itself goes.
quote:One might say that, but one would be seriously fucked up if one did.
One might say that the archetypically relativist position is, those fundamentalist Taliban over there can't be convinced using reason (relativism), therefore we have to bomb them until they are no longer a threat.
quote:Yes, this is giving me trouble in trying to make sense of this. If something isn't clearly defined as to be a clear statement, then it's not easy to say that/how/why it's false--or, for that matter, true.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
...I can't just present a chaotic blob, and say there it is.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's just polemical spreading of FUD.
What's FUD? ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:I'm channeling a floating signifier here; yes, is there anyone here with an uncle Bob, he is trying to tell you to avoid floating signifiers, and anything yellow. Well, that's enough from uncle Bob. And I believe auntie Doris is coming through with a message about empty signifiers, well, that's all for tonight, folks, the bandwidth is very crowded.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:Yes, this is giving me trouble in trying to make sense of this. If something isn't clearly defined as to be a clear statement, then it's not easy to say that/how/why it's false--or, for that matter, true.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
...I can't just present a chaotic blob, and say there it is.
Presumably in the mass of semi-defined notions there are things within modernism that are also good and true, and one should try to divide the contemporary wheat from the chaff?
quote:Are you saying that normative relativists are absolutely required to tolerate the behaviour of others?
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Originally posted by Dafyd:quote:One might say that, but one would be seriously fucked up if one did.
One might say that the archetypically relativist position is, those fundamentalist Taliban over there can't be convinced using reason (relativism), therefore we have to bomb them until they are no longer a threat.
If someone is a normative relativist, surely they are required to tolerate the behaviour of others since there is no absolute sense of right, wrong, good or bad.
quote:The reason that's the commonest complaint is that most people who are against 'relativistic morals' are using 'relativistic' as a boo-word. And contrariwise, people who are for it are using it to mean 'warmy fuzzy liberal feelings'. Most people who talk about relativism don't think of something like nationalism (where right and wrong are relative to which nation you belong to).
From a moral perspective, there are no grounds for action against the Taliban. Indeed, the commonest complaint against relativistic morals is that they allow perceived evil to go about its business unchallenged.
quote:Anyone who trivializes totalitarianism by applying an Orwell quote about it to domestic party politics in a liberal democracy either knows nothing about totalitarianism, or else is a graduate from a course in Marxism-Leninism 101 in East Germany in the 1950s which taught that capitalism=fascism.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So, what's wrong with all of the above is that it leads to Cameron and Osborne stamping on a human face forever.
quote:Spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt, an ancient disinformation tactic which was given this catchy modern name thanks to IBM and then Microsoft using it consciously to push competitors out of the market.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:Yes, yes, important distinction.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
(Note that I said direction, not that it's like that at this point.)
quote:Fine so far.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Let's see: hedonism is the belief that there are no goods beyond desire-satisfaction. Utilitarianism is the belief that all desires are qualitatively identical - the only essential difference between enjoying reading poetry or a novel, enjoying seeing the Taj Mahal, and enjoying eating chocolate is which one gives you more enjoyment.
quote:That's where you lose me. If the only essential difference between watching a sunset and eating chocolate is the amount of enjoyment they give to the individual, then why does money factor into it? For that matter, why does any independent "measure of desire" feature at all?
This is effectively the claim that money can serve as an effective measure of desire.
quote:Only if they're left-wing. It's alright for someone like you to invoke Stalin while criticising left-wing politicians, or even centre-left politicians; or for you to compare criticism of right-wing politicians to government propaganda from 1950s East Germany.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Anyone who trivializes totalitarianism by applying an Orwell quote about it to domestic party politics in a liberal democracy either knows nothing about totalitarianism, or else is a graduate from a course in Marxism-Leninism 101 in East Germany in the 1950s which taught that capitalism=fascism.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So, what's wrong with all of the above is that it leads to Cameron and Osborne stamping on a human face forever.
quote:1. Ok - the only essential difference between one and the other is that the one desire is stronger or gives you more of the same satisfaction or utility.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:That's where you lose me. If the only essential difference between watching a sunset and eating chocolate is the amount of enjoyment they give to the individual, then why does money factor into it? For that matter, why does any independent "measure of desire" feature at all?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
This is effectively the claim that money can serve as an effective measure of desire.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
1. Ok - the only essential difference between one and the other is that the one desire is stronger or gives you more of the same satisfaction or utility.
quote:But it's only possible to quantify the strength at the level of the individual. Just because one person highly rates something doesn't mean everyone will.
2. If the only difference in desires is strength it could be possible to quantify the strength. (This is crucial for utilitarian ethics: the ethical thing to do is that which maximises the utility created - that obviously requires that you're able to add together the strength of different desires.)
quote:Yes, but again only at the level of the individual. You can't extrapolate from that that certain things are objectively more valuable than others.
3. The stronger a desire the more you're willing to pay for it. (Seems reasonable. If you're willing to pay more for pork sausages than you are for vegetarian sausages then you must want pork sausages more.)
quote:True, but only because you've added in "drive out to see" as a key part of "sunset". Not everything is amenable to economic valuation, and sunsets can be enjoyed without spendign a penny.
4. The amount you're willing to pay for something is a direct measure of how much you desire it. (From the fact that prices operate according to linear arithmetic. If you pass up the pork sausages for cheaper vegetarian sausages and spend the extra money, or time, driving out to watch the sunset, you must value vegetarian sausages and sunset more than you value pork sausages.)
quote:In a way, but it also reveals your presuppositions. Not least that everything we enjoy has to be paid for.
Does that spell out the reasoning a bit more clearly?
quote:The way I see things moving, I fear that this will become more and more true in the future.
Marvin the Martian: Not least that everything we enjoy has to be paid for.
quote:Of course. Why do you think that is an objection?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:But it's only possible to quantify the strength at the level of the individual. Just because one person highly rates something doesn't mean everyone will.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
2. If the only difference in desires is strength it could be possible to quantify the strength. (This is crucial for utilitarian ethics: the ethical thing to do is that which maximises the utility created - that obviously requires that you're able to add together the strength of different desires.)
quote:Again - of course. That is the whole bloody point. We are presupposing positivism: and positivism denies that there is any objective value beyond what people are willing to pay for things. That's the point of free market economics. You can't say that potatoes are objectively worth such and such. You can't say Tesco are paying too little to the farmer if the prices are so low that the farmer can't make a profit, as long as the farmer has no other way to make a living; you can't say Tesco are charging too much as long as enough people buy the potatoes for Tesco to make a profit. That is the point. There is no room here for objective value beyond what people actually charge and what people actually pay.
quote:Yes, but again only at the level of the individual. You can't extrapolate from that that certain things are objectively more valuable than others.
3. The stronger a desire the more you're willing to pay for it. (Seems reasonable. If you're willing to pay more for pork sausages than you are for vegetarian sausages then you must want pork sausages more.)
quote:On a positivist utilitarian framework, the reason that sunsets can be enjoyed without spending a penny is supply-side rather than demand-side. When a sunset comes along, the supply heavily outweighs demand to the point that the price is pushed down to zero. However, one can still, in this framework, measure the desire to see a sunset by considering what other activities one forgoes in order to do so.
quote:True, but only because you've added in "drive out to see" as a key part of "sunset". Not everything is amenable to economic valuation, and sunsets can be enjoyed without spendign a penny.
4. The amount you're willing to pay for something is a direct measure of how much you desire it. (From the fact that prices operate according to linear arithmetic. If you pass up the pork sausages for cheaper vegetarian sausages and spend the extra money, or time, driving out to watch the sunset, you must value vegetarian sausages and sunset more than you value pork sausages.)
quote:They're not my presuppositions. I am neither a utilitarian nor a positivist nor a hedonist. They are however the presuppositions of the theory of free market capitalism. According to neoclassical economists, if you excluded government interference by planning departments, the value of a sunset would be set at the premium you get on apartments and houses that are high enough to see enough of the western sky.
quote:In a way, but it also reveals your presuppositions. Not least that everything we enjoy has to be paid for.
Does that spell out the reasoning a bit more clearly?
quote:See, I was thinking that it denies any objective value at all.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
We are presupposing positivism: and positivism denies that there is any objective value beyond what people are willing to pay for things.
quote:That's nonsense, because it assumes that if sunsets were rare we'd have to pay to enjoy them. That can be disproved merely by pointing to solar eclipses - they are extremely rare, and yet when one comes along it costs absolutely nothing to enjoy the spectacle.
On a positivist utilitarian framework, the reason that sunsets can be enjoyed without spending a penny is supply-side rather than demand-side. When a sunset comes along, the supply heavily outweighs demand to the point that the price is pushed down to zero.
quote:Beyond in the sense of 'underlying', not in the sense of 'other than'. I agree that positivism denies any objective value. Although positivism does say that what people are willing to pay for something is an objective fact.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:See, I was thinking that it denies any objective value at all.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
We are presupposing positivism: and positivism denies that there is any objective value beyond what people are willing to pay for things.
quote:When one comes along everyone who wants to see one can do so.
quote:That's nonsense, because it assumes that if sunsets were rare we'd have to pay to enjoy them. That can be disproved merely by pointing to solar eclipses - they are extremely rare, and yet when one comes along it costs absolutely nothing to enjoy the spectacle.
On a positivist utilitarian framework, the reason that sunsets can be enjoyed without spending a penny is supply-side rather than demand-side. When a sunset comes along, the supply heavily outweighs demand to the point that the price is pushed down to zero.
quote:At a first approximation. At a second approximation, one has to factor in opportunity cost (I can't watch a sunset if I want to earn money indoors at the relevant time). In addition, other people's ability to restrict my access to a good increases the price. If somebody buys a plot of land with a waterfall on it, and charges money to see that waterfall, then I have to pay to see even though I don't need that person to provide the waterfall.
Where price comes in to the equation here is purely and simply when one's desire to enjoy an activity requires someone else to provide or facilitate that activity.
quote:A utilitarian has to suppose that volunteering is giving them a measurable amount of enjoyment. The volunteer could have spent their time earning money at some other activity. So the enjoyment they get from the activity is equal to or greater than whatever they could have spent the money they could have otherwise earned on.
Of course, that person may well choose to give their effort for nothing on the grounds that they themselves enjoy doing it (or are otherwise motivated) - as seen in the many activities that are provided solely by volunteers at no cost to the user.
quote:The cost of their facilitation is affected by demand as well as by supply. You charge for your services not what you're willing to charge but what the market will bear. If demand outstrips supply you can charge more for your services. If supply outstrips demand then people have to charge less than they'd like to receive, or find some other line of work. That is why street sweepers get paid less money than professional footballers, even though I'm sure most people would be more willing to be a professional footballer.
But when they would not freely choose to do so, they must be compensated to a sufficient degree that they will choose to provide the activity that gives you enjoyment in return.
But - and this is a key point - the cost of their facilitation of your enjoyment is not directly related to the level of enjoyment you gain from doing the activity, or indeed to the activity itself. It is rather a measure of their willingness to facilitate it in the first place.
quote:Eclipses are rare in the sense that they don't happen often. They aren't rare in the sense that only a few people can have them. It's the latter meaning of rarity that matters for economics.
Marvin the Martian: That can be disproved merely by pointing to solar eclipses - they are extremely rare, and yet when one comes along it costs absolutely nothing to enjoy the spectacle.
quote:Nope. I'm saying they have a serious problem when it comes to deciding whether to do do stuff like tolerating or not tolerating. When I said "...advocating actually doing anything at all from that position requires wriggling up ones own fundament at least a couple of times" it was for precisely the reasons you lay out here:
Are you saying that normative relativists are absolutely required to tolerate the behaviour of others?
quote:
A relativist cannot believe intolerance is absolutely wrong. A consistent relativist therefore cannot believe relativism requires tolerance, since if relativism requires tolerance then the position-independent normative truth of 'tolerance is required' would follow from the position-independent truth of relativism, and a relativist believes there are no position-independent normative truths.
quote:This is just muddled. Someone might see that different civilizations or ideologies are locked in a life-and-death struggle for the survival of their culture and values and there is nothing to choose between them because relativism. They might believe relativism is a component of an adequate description of the world. But normatively speaking, a relativist can't find any justification in getting involved in the struggle without making some compromises or without ignoring the moral dimension completely. Nationalism and patriotism require a belief that one's own in-group is superior to those foreign bastards which an out and out relativist can't have without considerable cognitive dissonance.
A relativist could be a pacifist. A relativist could be a nationalist. A relativist could believe that different civilizations or ideologies are locked in a life-and-death struggle for the survival of their culture and values, and that therefore all is fair in a struggle for survival.
Given what people have done in the name of nationalism and patriotism, the latter seems more likely
quote:I don't think there's a timetable for it. And happily, I don't think Orwell's depiction of absolute universal mind control are quite possible in the real world either.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
So how long do you give it, then, until the US is indistinguishable from Nineteen Eighty-Four?
quote:So the correct punishment for someone who writes a hyperbolic sentence that "trivializes totalitarianism" is ... to be compared to a communist apparatchik?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Anyone who trivializes totalitarianism by applying an Orwell quote about it to domestic party politics in a liberal democracy either knows nothing about totalitarianism, or else is a graduate from a course in Marxism-Leninism 101 in East Germany in the 1950s which taught that capitalism=fascism.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So, what's wrong with all of the above is that it leads to Cameron and Osborne stamping on a human face forever.
quote:The point is that you made the comment in the context of criticizing capitalism and the Conservative Party.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Only if they're left-wing. It's alright for someone like you to invoke Stalin while criticising left-wing politicians, or even centre-left politicians; or for you to compare criticism of right-wing politicians to government propaganda from 1950s East Germany.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Anyone who trivializes totalitarianism by applying an Orwell quote about it to domestic party politics in a liberal democracy either knows nothing about totalitarianism, or else is a graduate from a course in Marxism-Leninism 101 in East Germany in the 1950s which taught that capitalism=fascism.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So, what's wrong with all of the above is that it leads to Cameron and Osborne stamping on a human face forever.
quote:Do you remember the first argument we had on this site? Do you remember what you did in it?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The point is that you made the comment in the context of criticizing capitalism and the Conservative Party.
It would be just as silly and melodramatic for someone to invoke Orwell and the spectre of 1984 while criticizing equally mainstream elements such as the welfare state and the Labour Party.
His name makes me think of Al Stewart's song "The Ghost of Charlotte Corday" from his excellent Famous Last Words album, though. If you hear a step upon the stair tonight...
quote:Nihilist: there are no normative truths.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:This is just muddled. Someone might see that different civilizations or ideologies are locked in a life-and-death struggle for the survival of their culture and values and there is nothing to choose between them because relativism. They might believe relativism is a component of an adequate description of the world.
A relativist could be a pacifist. A relativist could be a nationalist. A relativist could believe that different civilizations or ideologies are locked in a life-and-death struggle for the survival of their culture and values, and that therefore all is fair in a struggle for survival.
Given what people have done in the name of nationalism and patriotism, the latter seems more likely
quote:Now, this is muddled.
But normatively speaking, a relativist can't find any justification in getting involved in the struggle without making some compromises or without ignoring the moral dimension completely.
quote:Not true. An out-and-out relativist believes '"my own in-group is superior" is true for the members of my own in-group', and not true for members of other in-groups. Since the relativist is a member of their own in-group, they believe it's true for them.
Nationalism and patriotism require a belief that one's own in-group is superior to those foreign bastards which an out and out relativist can't have without considerable cognitive dissonance.
quote:But relativists have to accept that there is nothing to choose between the English and the Germans. They needs the ability, at least in the safety of their armchair to accept that when they say the "English are best" they are making no sense, since to them, good, bad, better or worse have no meaning in the context of inter-cultural relations. If they have some ethical or moral disagreement with the Germans, they must accept that there is no way to adjudicate it that applies to both parties.
So a relativist believes that there are moral statements that are true for the relativist and people like the relativist. So, a relativist nationalist thinks, 'the English, the English, the English are best,' is true for the English. It's not true for the Germans. But if the relativist is English then the relativist thinks 'the English are best' is true for the relativist. The English relativist would agree that 'the Germans are best' is true for a German relativist. But that's irrelevant to an English relativist.
quote:Again, no they don't, since they deny the very idea of moral superiority.
Not true. An out-and-out relativist believes '"my own in-group is superior" is true for the members of my own in-group',
quote:Paisano!
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I don't!
quote:Thank you for the link - very interesting. I'm pretty sure out and out relativists don't really exist either and not only because of the logical knots it entails. More that our actual behaviour is hardly influenced at all by proclaimed adherence to a particular ethical stance. But Dafyd's idea of the archetype relativist position was sufficiently strange to warrant comment.
I'm not sure I've ever met an actual relativist over the age of 18--at least as defined by the anti-relativist crowd, who seem to me to be frantically attacking straw men with pitchforks and torches. But most of what I might have to say about that has been said better by Clifford Geertz in his excellent essay "Anti-Anti-Relativism" which, amazingly, is available for free online as a pdf.
quote:This seems to approach the essence of it. Three ways of looking at the history of the church:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
, I do think there is a central organizing principle to "modernism," which is pretty clearly signified in the term itself, whether used in the laudatory or condemnatory senses: it's the idea of progress. That is, the belief that human understanding naturally changes over time, and that this is a good thing, leading to greater knowledge, technical skill, and prosperity, but also to superior moral insight...
...Post-modernism continues the idea of the necessity of change, but not the idea that it necessarily involves things getting better--they're just different.
The contrary tendency, what we might call traditionalism, whether Christian, Confucian, or whatever ("anti-modernism" casts it in wholly reactionary terms, and though that is indeed a large part of it it's not the whole thing), tends to see changes in understanding as decline...
...The idea of modernism as heresy seems to arise from horror at the idea that one can have progress in spiritual understanding, or in moral thinking and behavior (beyond a firmer adherence to received truths).
quote:This isn't true. They have two ways to adjudicate it - a German way, and an English way. It is true that they have no way that both parties will accept. But the idea that you don't have any way to adjudicate the dispute unless both parties accept that way of adjudicating it depends on universalist premises. A relativist does not believe in universalist premises.(*)
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:But relativists have to accept that there is nothing to choose between the English and the Germans. They needs the ability, at least in the safety of their armchair to accept that when they say the "English are best" they are making no sense, since to them, good, bad, better or worse have no meaning in the context of inter-cultural relations. If they have some ethical or moral disagreement with the Germans, they must accept that there is no way to adjudicate it that applies to both parties.
So a relativist believes that there are moral statements that are true for the relativist and people like the relativist. So, a relativist nationalist thinks, 'the English, the English, the English are best,' is true for the English. It's not true for the Germans. But if the relativist is English then the relativist thinks 'the English are best' is true for the relativist. The English relativist would agree that 'the Germans are best' is true for a German relativist. But that's irrelevant to an English relativist.
quote:(Better tortured logical bollocks than illogical bollocks.)
In practice, given all this the tortured logical bollocks, the upshot is that normative relativists tend to think we should tolerate the bad behaviour of other cultures rather than bomb the fuck out of them.
quote:Wrong. They deny the very idea of culture-independent or absolute moral superiority. They deny moral superiority as it is understood by moral universalists. But they're perfectly happy to say that judgements of moral superiority by the standards of a particular culture are true for members of that particular culture. The whole point of being a relativist, rather than a nihilist, is that you don't think the inability to make universal moral judgements stops you from making any moral judgements.
quote:Again, no they don't, since they deny the very idea of moral superiority.
Not true. An out-and-out relativist believes '"my own in-group is superior" is true for the members of my own in-group',
quote:If moral relativists cannot think they have any grounds for judging that another culture deserves to be bombed, they equally cannot have any grounds for judging that another culture deserves to live in peace. "That culture deserves to live in peace" is just as much a moral judgement on the other culture as "that culture deserves not to live in peace".
And, there is only one thing to be said for moral relativism, and that is it is probably preferable to have a bunch of civilisations living side by side who by and large think the others are deserving of being left in peace, rather than a bunch who think the others are all moral reprobates who need a good dose of bombing simply because they have a different way of life and a different flag.
quote:That... makes sense to me.
Originally posted by Russ:
And the thing is that all three models or approaches have something to be said for them. Most people will have experienced areas of life (connected with science and technology) where there has been real advance, real progress. And areas of life (connected with foreign travel) where they have experienced a different culture that is overall neither better nor worse but just different. And areas of life (connected with personal relationships or achievement) where something good has been gained or won, that needs to be defended or upheld against subsequent mood swings or doubts.
None of the three is adequate as a Rule of Life - the whole person uses all three modes as appropriate.
quote:My Ship name is a tribute to two public-spirited women: Charlotte Corday, who stabbed Marat in his bath (don't know whether Al Stewart's song is about her), and Fanny Kaplan, who was imprisoned and flogged by the Romanovs, and executed by the Bolsheviks for trying to assassinate Lenin.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I don't!
quote:If you ever want a middle name consider Violet Gibson who shot Mussolini and is buried a few hundred yards from where I write.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:My Ship name is a tribute to two public-spirited women: Charlotte Corday, who stabbed Marat in his bath (don't know whether Al Stewart's song is about her), and Fanny Kaplan, who was imprisoned and flogged by the Romanovs, and executed by the Bolsheviks for trying to assassinate Lenin.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I don't!
quote:The difficulty for the relativist is that our culture says it's wrong to attack people unless you thereby prevent them doing something that's objectively evil. Something that you happen to dislike doesn't count.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:(Better tortured logical bollocks than illogical bollocks.)
Originally posted by Grokesx:
In practice, given all this the tortured logical bollocks, the upshot is that normative relativists tend to think we should tolerate the bad behaviour of other cultures rather than bomb the fuck out of them.
If they think we ought not to bomb the fuck out of other cultures, because there is no way to judge between cultures, then they're not relativists. If they think they can argue the case for that, then they accept at least one moral universal (i.e. tolerate other cultures and don't bomb the fuck out of them), and therefore they are not a relativist.
(A relativist can certainly think that we ought not to bomb the fuck out of other cultures because our culture thinks we ought not to. But our culture seems generally to think there are circumstances under which it is permissible
quote:Next time there is a Hosts and Admins day can I respectfully petition the Powers That Be to rename him Harmodius Aristogeiton.
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:If you ever want a middle name consider Violet Gibson who shot Mussolini and is buried a few hundred yards from where I write.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:My Ship name is a tribute to two public-spirited women: Charlotte Corday, who stabbed Marat in his bath (don't know whether Al Stewart's song is about her), and Fanny Kaplan, who was imprisoned and flogged by the Romanovs, and executed by the Bolsheviks for trying to assassinate Lenin.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I don't!
quote:The reason it's strange is that 'relativist' is used as a boo-word by conservatives, who don't care what the real implications are and then liberals say they're relativists, without thinking through the implications, on the principle that anything that shocks the conservatives that much must be a good thing.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
But Dafyd's idea of the archetype relativist position was sufficiently strange to warrant comment.
quote:A lot of our culture thinks that you can't be moral unless you're objectively moral. The relativist thinks that's a mistake, based on confusing an erroneous meta-ethical position (moral universalism) with culture-dependent substantive ethical norms. For 'objectively moral' read 'moral' throughout. And for 'objectively wrong' read 'wrong' throughout.
Originally posted by Russ:
The difficulty for the relativist is that our culture says it's wrong to attack people unless you thereby prevent them doing something that's objectively evil. Something that you happen to dislike doesn't count.
quote:Quite. "Deserve" is the wrong word. Moral relativists decline to judge on such issues because it is inconsistent to do so. They accept that any feeling of moral superiority they or their culture hold cannot cross cultural boundaries. In a Taliban bombing ballot, the moral relativist abstains. Besides, there are always moral objectivitists on hand to do the dirty work. As has been noted, out and out morally relativist individuals are rare, and morally relativist cultures unheard of.
If moral relativists cannot think they have any grounds for judging that another culture deserves to be bombed, they equally cannot have any grounds for judging that another culture deserves to live in peace. "That culture deserves to live in peace" is just as much a moral judgement on the other culture as "that culture deserves not to live in peace".
quote:And of course all the first year ethics text books state that the archetypal relativist position is "those fundamentalist Taliban over there can't be convinced using reason (relativism), therefore we have to bomb them until they are no longer a threat."
On the other hand, if you do a philosophy course this stuff is basic first-year ethics.
quote:I'm not a philosophy graduate or anything, unlike, I presume, your good self, but I imagine they get on to this stuff in the second year.
Either the whole range of moral judgements are possible, or none are.
quote:Nah. It's simply a place that gathers up the last of the worlds lefty oddballs, peace-first tossers and the odd lonely Marxist.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would think that this forum itself is an expression of postmodernism. It sets out to disturb, to ruffle feathers, to lift up fences, to see what's underneath them, to interrogate, and so on. AmIrite?
quote:Orsini Cadoudal von Stauffenberg has a nice ring to it.
Originally posted by Gildas:
Next time there is a Hosts and Admins day can I respectfully petition the Powers That Be to rename him Harmodius Aristogeiton.
quote:Let's face it, in practice everyone, right across the spectrum, consciously or unconsciously, jumps between relativism and absolutism all the time as it suits us.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The reason it's strange is that 'relativist' is used as a boo-word by conservatives, who don't care what the real implications are and then liberals say they're relativists, without thinking through the implications, on the principle that anything that shocks the conservatives that much must be a good thing.
quote:Or as it is merited. Some things are relative, some things are absolute, etc.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
in practice everyone, right across the spectrum, consciously or unconsciously, jumps between relativism and absolutism all the time as it suits us.
quote:'Any feeling of moral superiority cannot cross cultural boundaries.' - the relativist holds that as stated that sentence is nonsense. For the relativist, that statement must mean 'According to the relativist's culture, any feeling of moral superiority they or their culture hold cannot cross cultural boundaries'. That might be true; it is far more likely to be false.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:Quite. "Deserve" is the wrong word. Moral relativists decline to judge on such issues because it is inconsistent to do so. They accept that any feeling of moral superiority they or their culture hold cannot cross cultural boundaries. In a Taliban bombing ballot, the moral relativist abstains.
If moral relativists cannot think they have any grounds for judging that another culture deserves to be bombed, they equally cannot have any grounds for judging that another culture deserves to live in peace. "That culture deserves to live in peace" is just as much a moral judgement on the other culture as "that culture deserves not to live in peace".
quote:If I'm right that nationalism is effectively a form of relativism, then there have been plenty of relativist cultures.
As has been noted, out and out morally relativist individuals are rare, and morally relativist cultures unheard of.
quote:It is somewhat depressing how many professional philosophers who espouse some form of relativism are eager to refute the idea that they cannot condemn other cultures. But they regularly do. And they're right: they have validly refuted the idea.
And of course all the first year ethics text books state that the archetypal relativist position is "those fundamentalist Taliban over there can't be convinced using reason (relativism), therefore we have to bomb them until they are no longer a threat."
quote:One of the reasons for being rigourous about these things is to catch ourselves and other people when we or they rationalise like that.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Let's face it, in practice everyone, right across the spectrum, consciously or unconsciously, jumps between relativism and absolutism all the time as it suits us.
Often it's tangled up with other concepts such as "lesser of two evils" and "means justifying ends".
quote:Let's flesh this out. Here's an explanation of morality that a relativist might plausibly hold.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Where on relativist premises is the inconsistency? Spell it out logically.
quote:I'm sorry, but that just doesn't follow. A moral law being absolute doesn't hinge on whether everyone knows about it; and saying that "we" must be relativists as a result of that doesn't follow either.
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
Please express one useful morally absolute statement, accepted by all societies on earth, at all times, without exception.
Nothing I can think of* fits that simple criterion, so it seems to me that in reality we must be relativists.
quote:Heheheheheheh.
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
Isn't this whole argument like the emperor's new clothes?
I'd be perfectly willing to accept there are moral absolutes, if I could see an example.
Please express one useful morally absolute statement, accepted by all societies on earth, at all times, without exception.
Nothing I can think of* fits that simple criterion, so it seems to me that in reality we must be relativists.
(Now I'm probably going to get my head handed to me, but I've wanted to ask this for years.)
*Except, perhaps, "Might makes right."
quote:Thank you. That really helps me quite a lot. And gives me something to think about.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
How about "You are responsible to others beside yourself"? The particular "others" may vary from culture to culture, but no culture agrees that it's okay to do whatever the hell you personally want without regard to anyone else, ever.
quote:It's certainly important to be aware of it in ourselves and others because it can be harmful, but that is not invariably the case.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:One of the reasons for being rigourous about these things is to catch ourselves and other people when we or they rationalise like that.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Let's face it, in practice everyone, right across the spectrum, consciously or unconsciously, jumps between relativism and absolutism all the time as it suits us.
Often it's tangled up with other concepts such as "lesser of two evils" and "means justifying ends".
quote:To Lamb Chopped's example, I'd add that courage is better than cowardice.
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
I'd be perfectly willing to accept there are moral absolutes, if I could see an example.
Please express one useful morally absolute statement, accepted by all societies on earth, at all times, without exception.
Nothing I can think of* fits that simple criterion, so it seems to me that in reality we must be relativists.
quote:I believe you're confusing two separate questions here, and it's as well to keep them distinct.
I don't intend to steal, to take one commandment as an example. But if I were in Jean Valjean's shoes, would I steal to feed a starving child? Would it be wrong if I did? How is that not a relativistic decision?
quote:OK, let's go through it step by step. I can't guarantee that it will hold up completely because I ain't no philosopher.
Where on relativist premises is the inconsistency? Spell it out logically.
quote:... it might be efficient, but it clashes with MMR. Individuals who accept MMR, accept MMR regardless of what their culture finds efficient. They can't judge their values superior because there is no standard by which they can do the judging. They cannot advocate tolerance or intolerance from a relativist position alone. This is pretty much what I meant in my first post when I said moral relativists have to disappear up their own arses to to take any sort of action in this area.
So clearly you need to have morals and rules and customs that govern interactions with outsiders. And you need to fend off outsider values that undermine your values. One efficient way of fending off outsider values is by judging them to be inferior to your values, by the standards of your society; that's efficient because you don't need any new standards then.
quote:Nothing to stop 'em. But moral relativism it ain't.
Why can't a member of society who explains morality in that way use that morality to judge other cultures inferior?
quote:And if my aunty had bollocks she'd be my uncle.
If I'm right that nationalism is effectively a form of relativism, then there have been plenty of relativist cultures.
quote:All perfectly valid up to this point.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
MMR is, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,the view that "the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons."
Now, at his point it is important to remember that embracing MMR puts no prescriptive burdens on the adherent. But it is, if you like, an absolute truth claim. And that truth claim is that all claims to absolute moral truths are false.
quote:Sumner might have argued that, but was his argument sound?
Within societies, that is not a problem, members of that society can happily justify their morality within that society. But it has implications for trans cultural relations.
According to the flawed but useful fount of some knowledge, an influential proponent of this idea was William Sumner in his 1906 work Folkways. He argued that since there is no higher moral standard than the local mores of a culture, no trans-cultural judgement about the rightness or wrongness of a culture's mores can be justified.
quote:Here you're trading on an ambiguity. 'Across cultures' could mean 'using an absolute standard belonging to neither culture'. Or it could mean 'making a judgement about one culture from within another culture'. The relativist thinks the first is impossible. But - and this is the crucial bit - the second has no logical dependence on the first and therefore the relativist can do it.
To the meta ethical relativist they are both mistaken, because there is no such thing as superior and inferior morality across cultures.
quote:Yes there is. There's the standards of their culture.
quote:... it might be efficient, but it clashes with MMR. Individuals who accept MMR, accept MMR regardless of what their culture finds efficient. They can't judge their values superior because there is no standard by which they can do the judging.
So clearly you need to have morals and rules and customs that govern interactions with outsiders. And you need to fend off outsider values that undermine your values. One efficient way of fending off outsider values is by judging them to be inferior to your values, by the standards of your society; that's efficient because you don't need any new standards then.
quote:They can't do so from a relativist position alone. But the whole point of being a relativist is that you also accept the moral standards of your culture. If your culture tells you to be tolerant, relativism cannot advocate intolerance. But if your culture tells you to be intolerant, relativism cannot advocate tolerance.
They cannot advocate tolerance or intolerance from a relativist position alone.
quote:And at what step of the argument was moral relativism abandoned, or a premise introduced that was incompatible with moral relativism?
quote:Nothing to stop 'em. But moral relativism it ain't.
Why can't a member of society who explains morality in that way use that morality to judge other cultures inferior?
quote:Does moral relativism as you describe it imply that there is upon each individual an absolute moral obligation to follow the rules of their culture or society ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
A lot of our culture thinks that you can't be moral unless you're objectively moral. The relativist thinks that's a mistake, based on confusing an erroneous meta-ethical position (moral universalism) with culture-dependent substantive ethical norms.
quote:Helpful question. No it doesn't.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Does moral relativism as you describe it imply that there is upon each individual an absolute moral obligation to follow the rules of their culture or society ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
A lot of our culture thinks that you can't be moral unless you're objectively moral. The relativist thinks that's a mistake, based on confusing an erroneous meta-ethical position (moral universalism) with culture-dependent substantive ethical norms.
quote:Well, a moral relativist(*) could argue that most societies and cultures have internal differences. A moral relativist thinks you can appeal to the premises of your society against a particular rule. (If your society says that all people are created equal, and allows slavery, a moral relativist says that you can argue that the two are incompatible.) What a moral relativist thinks you cannot do is appeal to a standard which is independent of your society, or which isn't ultimately arbitrary.
If there is no "higher" universal principle by which a society's morality can be judged, doesn't that mean that there is no principle by which an individual can judge that this social rule is good and that bad, or this morally obligatory and that optional ? No appeal from the tyranny of the majority ? Or of the dictator if that's the way one's society organises itself ?
quote:I'm not really qualified to say. All I can say is that if the wiki is correct, and Sumner's view is indeed influential in relativist circles, and if your argument rests on that view being false, then you are at odds with many people, philosophers included, arguing from a relativist position. That would make your description of the "archetypal" relativist position somewhat wide of the mark, regardless of disagreements among philosophers on the soundness of Sumner's view and other aspects of MMR. Philosophy ain't physics. It's value lies more in the questions it raises rather than the answers its individual practitioners propose.
Sumner might have argued that, but was his argument sound?
quote:Let me quote from the wiki article you cited:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:All I can say is that if the wiki is correct, and Sumner's view is indeed influential in relativist circles, and if your argument rests on that view being false, then you are at odds with many people, philosophers included, arguing from a relativist position. That would make your description of the "archetypal" relativist position somewhat wide of the mark, regardless of disagreements among philosophers on the soundness of Sumner's view and other aspects of MMR.
Sumner might have argued that, but was his argument sound?
quote:The wiki article does not, as you misrepresent it, link Sumner to normative relativism.
(Normative relativists) argue that meta-ethical relativism implies that we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards. Most philosophers do not agree, partially because of the challenges of arriving at an "ought" from relativistic premises. Meta-ethical relativism seems to eliminate the normative relativist's ability to make prescriptive claims. In other words, normative relativism may find it difficult to make a statement like "we think it is moral to tolerate behaviour" without always adding "other people think intolerance of certain behaviours is moral". Philosophers like Russell Blackford even argue that intolerance is, to some degree, important. As he puts it, "we need not adopt a quietism about moral traditions that cause hardship and suffering. Nor need we passively accept the moral norms of our own respective societies, to the extent that they are ineffective or counterproductive or simply unnecessary." That is, it is perfectly reasonable (and practical) for a person or group to defend their subjective values against others, even if there is no universal prescription or morality. We can also criticize other cultures for failing to pursue even their own goals effectively.
quote:Certainly when the answers it gives you are not the answers you want.
It's value lies more in the questions it raises rather than the answers its individual practitioners propose.
quote:Depends which version of nationalism you are working with. The liberal version associated with people like Mazzini and Masaryk wasn't relativist but it's not, currently, difficult to find examples of people who think that bombing civilians is morally neutral when carried out by representatives of one national movement and morally deplorable when carried out by it's enemies. That's a kind of relativism, albeit not the one associated with, say, the anthropological school.
I mean, nationalism, seriously? You don't think the psychological and sociological explanations of the phenomenon are so deficient that we need to mangle a philosophically dodgy meta ethical position usually associated with cross cultural tolerance to explain it?
quote:Go back and have another look. I said lets take it step by step. In the meta ethical step I said MMR has implications for trans cultural relations and Sumner argued that since there is no higher moral standard than the local mores of a culture, no trans-cultural judgement about the rightness or wrongness of a culture's mores can be justified. Ths is a more or less direct quote from the wiki section on MMR:
The wiki article does not, as you misrepresent it, link Sumner to normative relativism.
The wiki article does state that normative relativism is rejected by most philosophers.
The wiki article does give an example of a meta-ethical relativist who not only rejects normative relativism but defends some intolerance.
quote:Your whole argument seems to be that relativists think they can indeed justify the view that their culture is superior. But if they think Sumner is correct, then that is not a rational position to hold.
The American anthropologist William Sumner was an influential advocate of this view. In his 1906 work Folkways he argues that what people consider right and wrong is entirely shaped by the traditions, customs and practices of their culture. Moreover, since there is no higher moral standard than the local mores of a culture, no trans-cultural judgement about the rightness or wrongness of a culture's mores can be justified.
quote:A point that I acknowledged in my normative step. The thing is, most objections centre on the relativists' inability to make judgements on other cultures' mores, not their bomb happy proclivities. And I shall repeat, although I'm sick of saying it, that is an objection that actually has legs.
The wiki article does state that normative relativism is rejected by most philosophers.
quote:1. Sumner isn't necessarily correct. (That would be an argument from authority.)
Originally posted by Grokesx:
In the meta ethical step I said MMR has implications for trans cultural relations and Sumner argued that since there is no higher moral standard than the local mores of a culture, no trans-cultural judgement about the rightness or wrongness of a culture's mores can be justified.
quote:The wiki article says that most philosophers do not agree that metaphysical relativism entails normative relativism. The objection that relativists are unable to make judgements on other cultures has fewer legs than a boa constrictor.
quote:A point that I acknowledged in my normative step. The thing is, most objections centre on the relativists' inability to make judgements on other cultures' mores, not their bomb happy proclivities. And I shall repeat, although I'm sick of saying it, that is an objection that actually has legs.
The wiki article does state that normative relativism is rejected by most philosophers.
quote:Indeed. So you might think I should have said something like, if someone accepts Sumners position, then... Oh, wait a minute, I did.
1. Sumner isn't necessarily correct. (That would be an argument from authority.)
quote:I'm thinking it means what my dictionary says it means: "involving, encompassing, or extending across two or more cultures."
It's not obvious to me that 'trans-cultural' means what you think it means.
quote:Well, you'd better take that up with the wiki. What it says is that according to the meta ethical relativist view, "no trans-cultural judgement about the rightness or wrongness of a culture's mores can be justified." (Whether that's right or wrong is a different matter, but you are questioning my interpretation of the article here). There is no discussion on the multiple viewpoint thing.
Saying that no trans-cultural judgement can be justified by trans-cultural standards is not to say that no culture-specific judgement about another culture can be justified by culture-specific standards.
quote:Indeed it does. What I'm interested in is how you get from there to saying the archetypal relativist position is to bomb the fuck out of cultures with which they have moral disagreements.
The wiki article says that most philosophers do not agree that metaphysical relativism entails normative relativism.
quote:Excusez-moi. Comment pouvez-vous parler le Français en anglais ? Vous pouvez seulement parler le Français en Français. D'un point de vue meta-linguistique, au dehors de l'Anglais ou de la Français il n'y a pas des mots à utiliser. Et si c'est le cas, comment peut un parleur d'une autre langue justifier quel mots utiliser d'un point de vue meta-linguistique?(*)
Originally posted by Grokesx:
But from a meta ethical perspective (say, a French relativist perspective), as far as I can see there is no rational judgement to be made. And if that is the case, how can an English or German relativist justify their opinions from a meta ethical perspective?
quote:I don't think this analogy adds much to the discussion, but it does give me the opportunity to recycle an old joke which may serve to illustrate the themes under discussion here:
Excuse me. How can you talk about the French in English? You can only talk about the French in French. From a meta-linguistic point of view, outside English or French, there are no words to use. And if that's the case, how can a speaker of another language justify what words to use from a meta-linguistic point of view?
quote:Why am I not surprised?
Originally posted by Grokesx:
I don't think this analogy adds much to the discussion
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:People can act in accordance with, or against, their moral principles.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
What I'm interested in is how you get from there to saying the archetypal relativist position is to bomb the fuck out of cultures with which they have moral disagreements.
quote:I'd say here that 'not bombing innocent children' is as much a moral principle of our culture as 'smiting evil'. The problem I think is a little more indirect.
Originally posted by Russ:
If however, you're the sort of moral relativist that Dafyd has described, then the moral question of whether to launch the bombers amounts to the question "is this action in accordance with our own moral principles" ?
quote:I'm not sure that it's as straight forward as that. For one thing the question as to how to prevent, say, FGM is a prudential question. Now even assuming we could get everyone around the table and explain the demerits of FGM until they understood that it was wrong that might be a somewhat lengthy process whilst, in the meantime, you could be locking up parents who procure such operations and doctors who perform them. So a universalist might hold that the urgency of the situation required a twin track approach using both argument and the rigours of the law to discourage the practice. Also, I think, a universalist could hold that bad passions - say fear of female sexuality or ressentiment - might lead a person to ignore good arguments against FGM. So sitting everyone around a table might not be all that as a practical solution.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I'd say here that 'not bombing innocent children' is as much a moral principle of our culture as 'smiting evil'. The problem I think is a little more indirect.
Originally posted by Russ:
If however, you're the sort of moral relativist that Dafyd has described, then the moral question of whether to launch the bombers amounts to the question "is this action in accordance with our own moral principles" ?
Imagine that 'they' practice FGM. Our moral principles tell us to stop FGM from happening. Now if you believe in universal moral principles you believe that in principle there is a right answer and if people of good will sit down around a table and argue about it they will converge on the right answer. Relativism says there is no right answer to converge upon, so there is no point in sitting down around a table to resolve your moral differences. Instead, you move straight onto a more confrontational way to resolve the conflict.
quote:Well, yes, up to a point. But I don't think the ideal case is completely out of touch with the practical case.
Originally posted by Gildas:
All in all, in practice FGM is as intractable for a universalist as for a relativist.
quote:Does anyone really believe in universal moral principles? However strictly applied by either self-imposed force of will or legally enforced sanctions, such "principles" are only a code of conduct from which we can always opt out. To claim otherwise would be to deny our own or someone else's humanity.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
if you believe in universal moral principles you believe that in principle there is a right answer and if people of good will sit down around a table and argue about it they will converge on the right answer. Relativism says there is no right answer to converge upon, so there is no point in sitting down around a table to resolve your moral differences.
quote:Sure, I do.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Does anyone really believe in universal moral principles?
quote:Physical law tells you what you will do, moral law what you ought to do. If you stumble you will fall to the ground. That's physics. If somebody is innocent, you should not kill them. That's morals. That you can murder speaks in no way or form against universal moral law. "Ought/should" implies that you can do other. If you cannot do other, then it is not a moral concern. Choice does not speak against morality, it is the very reason for morality.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
However strictly applied by either self-imposed force of will or legally enforced sanctions, such "principles" are only a code of conduct from which we can always opt out.
quote:Nonsense. What universal moral law claims is that as far as what we ought to do, we are all the same. It says that my choice will not be evaluated by other standards than yours. It does not say that we have no choice.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
To claim otherwise would be to deny our own or someone else's humanity.
quote:Moral principle is exactly about the proper evaluation of choices.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Morality is not in essence about principle but about choice.
quote:That's because most people are morally incoherent. They are moral relativists as long as they don't care about something, and moral universalists when they do. The value of philosophy, to those who love wisdom, is that it exposes this incoherence and potentially motivates one to rectify it.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Universalism and relativism may be useful categories in abstract philosophy. I don't see they have much real world significance in this context.
quote:As absolutes in their own right? Rather than a consequence of some other belief?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Sure, I do [believe in universal moral principles].
quote:It's a widely accepted moral position. That doesn't make it universal. It is quite possible to imagine a situation where killing an innocent person was at least a moral option - if their inevitable slow painful death was the only alternative, for example.
If somebody is innocent, you should not kill them. That's morals.
quote:No, it says that my choice will be evaluated by whoever decides what the universal moral law is.
What universal moral law claims is that as far as what we ought to do, we are all the same. It says that my choice will not be evaluated by other standards than yours.
quote:Those who love wisdom know the limitations of the rule of law. Morality is not about conforming to any code, however it is derived. A moral code, like law, saves us having to go back to first principles for every choice we make. But it is only an infinitely-refined digest of the vastly multi-generational social process ("sitting round a table") by which we have learnt to be viable moral beings. Moral because we take into account, to the degree we have found to be practical, the interests and sensibilities of others in decisions that are ours to make.
most people are morally incoherent. They are moral relativists as long as they don't care about something, and moral universalists when they do. The value of philosophy, to those who love wisdom, is that it exposes this incoherence and potentially motivates one to rectify it.
quote:No it doesn't. Relativism says there are some moral disagreements that are not rationally resolvable. It does not pre-judge which ones they are. Nothing in relativism precludes people of good will sitting round a table and discussing stuff. It accepts, for instance, that one way of rationally solving such disagreements is for one side to accept the arguments of the other side - maybe one side will see a logical flaw in their reasoning or be made aware of evidence that they were previously unaware of. But, it says there are issues that, at a given point in time, may not resolvable in this fashion. You'd have to be particularly Pollyannaish to think that differences over practices like FGM that have evolved over millennia are going to be resolved, rationally or otherwise, over a nice cup of sweet tea.
Relativism says there is no right answer to converge upon, so there is no point in sitting down around a table to resolve your moral differences.
quote:Really? The go to position of a relativist, or anyone else for that matter, when faced with a disagreement with no rational resolution is confrontation? To the relativist the type of differences we are talking about here are in the same category as which colour is better, blue or red, or which word is more beautiful, schmetterling or farfalla. If, as is normally thought in the non batshit insane version of moral relativism usually defended by actual relativists, relativism encourages the idea that the morality of one’s own culture has no special status but is just one moral system among many, then confrontation is just as likely to be low down the list of options as any other ethical stance.
Instead, you move straight onto a more confrontational way to resolve the conflict.
quote:That's because you either don't understand or wilfully misrepresent what relativism actually means. The most common position for the normative relativist, as I have said more than once, is that there is a significant connection between meta ethical relativism and tolerance. As we have said before, most philosophers disagree, because, to quote Stanford: "Recognition of this fact (descriptive moral relativism), by itself, entails nothing about how we should act towards those with whom we disagree. Meta-ethical relativism (MMR) fares no better. For one thing, MMR cannot very well imply that it is an objective moral truth that we should be tolerant: MMR denies that there are such truths."
Also, I don't think there's any meaningful difference between a relativist and a universalist who thinks that anyone who disagrees with them does so because of intractable moral defects.
quote:Dave, I think what you're arguing against here is the proposition that objective moral "laws" have to be simple and context-independent. As in, capable of being written down on stone tablets...
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Universal morality implies at least one choice that will be moral in every situation.
I don't think such a choice exists, because what is right always depends on the context. We can never exclude the possibility that for any particular choice, however apparently universal (like not killing an innocent person), there will be some situation where it would be wrong..
quote:I wasn't meaning to. I was using Ingo's example to illustrate what I think is a fundamental flaw in the principle of objective morality.
Originally posted by Russ:
I think what you're arguing against here is the proposition that objective moral "laws" have to be simple and context-independent. As in, capable of being written down on stone tablets...
quote:The question then becomes who judges that ideal to be just. Right and wrong always imply "according to who". If we think of God as one who makes such value judgements within human experience, then morality can certainly be understood as conforming to God's will. Otherwise, I'm not sure what an ideal of justice means.
Seems to me quite possible to have a universal and objective moral code that is as complex as physics, and as sensitive to the cultural expectations of each party in the situation as any human legal practice. A sort of Platonic ideal of justice, to which all human codes of morality imperfectly approximate.
quote:I feel you risk being inconsistent if you maintain first that it is rational for relativists to sit down around tables and discuss ethical disagreement over a nice cup of sweet tea, and then maintain second that it is pollyannaish for them to do so.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Originally posted by Dafyd:quote:No it doesn't. Relativism says there are some moral disagreements that are not rationally resolvable. It does not pre-judge which ones they are. Nothing in relativism precludes people of good will sitting round a table and discussing stuff. It accepts, for instance, that one way of rationally solving such disagreements is for one side to accept the arguments of the other side - maybe one side will see a logical flaw in their reasoning or be made aware of evidence that they were previously unaware of. But, it says there are issues that, at a given point in time, may not resolvable in this fashion. You'd have to be particularly Pollyannaish to think that differences over practices like FGM that have evolved over millennia are going to be resolved, rationally or otherwise, over a nice cup of sweet tea.
Relativism says there is no right answer to converge upon, so there is no point in sitting down around a table to resolve your moral differences.
quote:This misrepresents actual relativists rather severely.
The go to position of a relativist, or anyone else for that matter, when faced with a disagreement with no rational resolution is confrontation? To the relativist the type of differences we are talking about here are in the same category as which colour is better, blue or red, or which word is more beautiful, schmetterling or farfalla. If, as is normally thought in the non batshit insane version of moral relativism usually defended by actual relativists, relativism encourages the idea that the morality of one’s own culture has no special status but is just one moral system among many, then confrontation is just as likely to be low down the list of options as any other ethical stance.
quote:I defined relativism (more precisely meta-ethical relativism, which is the kind I've been talking about) twice in my posts up to this point. You didn't take issue with either definition.
quote:That's because you either don't understand or wilfully misrepresent what relativism actually means.
Also, I don't think there's any meaningful difference between a relativist and a universalist who thinks that anyone who disagrees with them does so because of intractable moral defects.
quote:Yes, you've said this more than once. I understood you. I disagreed. I said why I disagreed. You said this again.
The most common position for the normative relativist, as I have said more than once, is that there is a significant connection between meta ethical relativism and tolerance.
quote:I don't know. Might I have said that a relativist is only required to become a bomb-dropping maniac if their culture requires them to become a bomb-dropping maniac?
These arguments work for whatever normative position you try and wring out of MMR. Just because you can't get an ought to be tolerant out of the is of moral relativism does not mean the relativist is then compelled to become a bomb dropping maniac.
quote:Yes. I did.
A relativist believes bombing the fuck out of other cultures is wrong for a person if and only if that person's culture believes bombing the fuck out of other cultures is wrong.
quote:I would have put that sentence in the past tense myself.
Anyway, I fear I am running out of ways to say the same thing.
quote:According to whom does 2 + 2 = 4 ? Whose judgment makes that sum correct ? We don't need to posit a God of Arithmetic in order to know what getting the sum right means...
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The question then becomes who judges that ideal to be just. Right and wrong always imply "according to who". If we think of God as one who makes such value judgements within human experience, then morality can certainly be understood as conforming to God's will. Otherwise, I'm not sure what an ideal of justice means.
There's also the problem that such an ideal needs to address every moral context in the universe, because a moral ideal will always perfectly account for context. The "right" choice in any context would then be a binary "ideal or not" option. That seems to lose something essential to our humanity: responsibility for assessing a situation in the light of its context (including whatever moral code may apply) and deciding for ourselves what is right.
quote:Arithmetic generates outcomes that can be verified using well understood and accepted "laws of logic" that are a feature of physical reality. Other things being equal, anyone can check my sums.
Originally posted by Russ:
According to whom does 2 + 2 = 4 ? Whose judgment makes that sum correct ? We don't need to posit a God of Arithmetic in order to know what getting the sum right means...
quote:Of course not. Arithmetic is a well-defined and universally accepted system of symbols and logic. It provides demonstrably correct answers.
The laws of arithmetic don't need to address explicitly every possible sum that may be performed in the universe. And they don't take away from the need for calculation by every individual with a numerical issue to solve.
quote:Perhaps. Or perhaps right answers to moral questions are only ever attempts by someone to impose their will on someone else.
Perhaps you're confusing the existence of moral right answers with the existence of known and easy answers ?
quote:Are you being deliberately obtuse? The fact that there are some disagreements that are not rationally resolvable doesn't mean they all are. And one way to find out if a disagreement is not rationally resolvable might be to try and rationally resolve it.
I feel you risk being inconsistent if you maintain first that it is rational for relativists to sit down around tables and discuss ethical disagreement over a nice cup of sweet tea, and then maintain second that it is pollyannaish for them to do so.
Is it rational for relativists to be pollyannaish or not?
quote:I'd say our difference lies in how this definition actually plays out in the (somewhat simplified for our pseudo philosophical purposes) world.
I defined relativism (more precisely meta-ethical relativism, which is the kind I've been talking about) twice in my posts up to this point. You didn't take issue with either definition.
quote:I'm not sure you made clear why you disagreed that the most common form of normative relativism is tolerance. You just keep making assertions as if it isn't. I'll just quote a couple of definitions from about the place to say why I keep repeating it:
Yes, you've said this more than once. I understood you. I disagreed. I said why I disagreed. You said this again.
quote:I'd understood from what was said earlier that moral relativism yields a definite moral imperative about how to act towards others - the imperative "do whatever your culture says is right". Because your culture can never be wrong (there lies universalism) and never be able to be set aside for individual preference (there lies nihilism). But maybe I misunderstood...
Originally posted by Grokesx:
The most common position for the normative relativist, as I have said more than once, is that there is a significant connection between meta ethical relativism and tolerance. As we have said before, most philosophers disagree, because, to quote Stanford: "Recognition of this fact (descriptive moral relativism), by itself, entails nothing about how we should act towards those with whom we disagree.
quote:Well, yes. But there's a matter of probable success. And a relativist will think the probability of success is lower than a universalist will.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:Are you being deliberately obtuse? The fact that there are some disagreements that are not rationally resolvable doesn't mean they all are. And one way to find out if a disagreement is not rationally resolvable might be to try and rationally resolve it.
I feel you risk being inconsistent if you maintain first that it is rational for relativists to sit down around tables and discuss ethical disagreement over a nice cup of sweet tea, and then maintain second that it is pollyannaish for them to do so.
Is it rational for relativists to be pollyannaish or not?
quote:The reason I didn't make that clear is that I don't disagree with that. A normative relativist is by definition tolerant. I am arguing that meta-ethical relativism does not imply normative relativism. Indeed, I think meta-ethical relativism counts against certain considerations that would favour normative relativism.
quote:I'm not sure you made clear why you disagreed that the most common form of normative relativism is tolerance.
Yes, you've said this more than once. I understood you. I disagreed. I said why I disagreed. You said this again.
quote:And you know this how? A relativist could just as easily argue that universalists are more likely to be averse to accepting opposing moral arguments because they are more heavily invested in the idea that their culture is superior. After all, moral matters are close to our hearts and it's a rare person who starts off thinking they may be wrong about their moral judgements. And if they believe that they are closer to some exalted moral standard than the other guy at the outset, that's a pretty high barrier to get over.
Well, yes. But there's a matter of probable success. And a relativist will think the probability of success is lower than a universalist will.
quote:But you are just boo-wording from the other end. You are assuming that what your archetype takes from the mere fact of meta ethical moral relativism is that as far as cross cultural relations are concerned, they may as well be moral nihilists with sociopathic tendencies or gung ho moral absolutists happy to crush the faces of the Other beneath their mighty heels. The fact (and it is a fact if you accept MMR) that other cultures' moral proclivities are no less valid in the grand scheme of things than their own doesn't make a dent in their perception or behaviour at all by your account. You just seem to be assuming the worst interpretation of relativism you can build out of a pile of straw and some old clothes and calling it the archetype. That's like saying the Taliban are archetypal universalists.
The archetypal (meta-ethical) relativist, on the other hand, in the sense of the person who best represents meta-ethical ideas put into practice, is not a woolly liberal normative relativist. Quite the contrary, for reasons I have tried to explain.
quote:By definition a universalist believes that ethical beliefs converge on the truth by a process of rational argument.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:And you know this how?
Well, yes. But there's a matter of probable success. And a relativist will think the probability of success is lower than a universalist will.
quote:This is all true of a relativist as well. In fact, a relativist believes there is no moral standard more exalted than their culture, and you can't get a moral standard much closer than that.
After all, moral matters are close to our hearts and it's a rare person who starts off thinking they may be wrong about their moral judgements. And if they believe that they are closer to some exalted moral standard than the other guy at the outset, that's a pretty high barrier to get over.
quote:A moral nihilist is someone who believes that no moral judgements can be justified. You say that a meta-ethical relativist is someone who believes that no trans-cultural moral judgements can be justified.
You are assuming that what your archetype takes from the mere fact of meta ethical moral relativism is that as far as cross cultural relations are concerned, they may as well be moral nihilists with sociopathic tendencies or gung ho moral absolutists happy to crush the faces of the Other beneath their mighty heels.
quote:is quite so difficult to understand?
A relativist believes bombing the fuck out of other cultures is wrong for a person if and only if that person's culture believes bombing the fuck out of other cultures is wrong.
quote:This is like saying that one cat is no less red than another cat when looked at through sonar. Things cannot be more or less red unless you're looking at them through visible light. For a relativist cultures cannot be more or less valid in the grand scheme of things. You can only talk about more or less valid from within a particular culture. And from within any particular culture, that particular culture will necessarily be the most valid.
The fact (and it is a fact if you accept MMR) that other cultures' moral proclivities are no less valid in the grand scheme of things than their own doesn't make a dent in their perception or behaviour at all by your account.
quote:No. That is a way of illuminating moral relativism in the same way as a red strobe light is a way of illuminating open heart surgery.
One way, as you probably know, of illuminating moral relativism, is to look at the statement, "It is raining."
quote:Firstly, statements about the weather do not have implications about the ethical way to treat people with different weather. Ethical systems characteristically do have implications about the ethical way to treat people who behave in ways not sanctioned by those ethical systems.
You are saying the archetypal relativist standing in the puddle will happily have the the guy in the Sahara shot if he doesn't put on a cagoule and wellies every time it rains in Manchester.
quote:is quite so difficult to understand?
A relativist believes bombing the fuck out of other cultures is wrong for a person if and only if that person's culture believes bombing the fuck out of other cultures is wrong.
quote:By that definition a univeralist is either an idiot or immortal. Moral universalism has been a characteristic of societies for millennia and there is still a fair bit of converging to do.
By definition a universalist believes that ethical beliefs converge on the truth by a process of rational argument.
quote:The difference is a subtle one and lies in the realisation that for each party in a trans cultural disagreement the beliefs at issue can be different yet at the same time true for both parties because the moral frameworks within which they are making their judgments are incommensurable.
A moral nihilist is someone who believes that no moral judgements can be justified. You say that a meta-ethical relativist is someone who believes that no trans-cultural moral judgements can be justified.
Therefore, according to you, with respect to trans-cultural moral judgements, meta-ethicial relativists and moral nihilists hold identical beliefs.Am I wrong? In what way do you think the meta-ethical relativist and the meta-ethical nihilist differ in respect to trans-cultural moral judgements?
quote:Easy enough to understand, hard to take seriously. It is a simple matter of observation that cultures' moral attitudes shift over time. Western culture has changed considerably in the last hundred years. Racism is much less open than it used to be, women have greater equality, homosexuality is more accepted and the idea of a civilising empire being a good thing has less traction than it used to. If a culture has a belief that bombing the fuck out of other cultures, that belief comes from somewhere and is subject to change. There is no requirement placed upon relativists to unthinkingly accept the mores of their culture. Meta ethical relativism simply ays the framework within which one evaluates moral questions is local not universal. That what is true in one culture is not necessarily true in another.
A relativist believes bombing the fuck out of other cultures is wrong for a person if and only if that person's culture believes bombing the fuck out of other cultures is wrong.
quote:OK, badly worded. This bit is right. You've got it.
This is like saying that one cat is no less red than another cat when looked at through sonar. Things cannot be more or less red unless you're looking at them through visible light. For a relativist cultures cannot be more or less valid in the grand scheme of things.
quote:Oh bugger, you've lost it again. You can't talk about it within a particular culture, either. Or if you do you are severely constrained. You can judge whether a another culture is consistent with its own moral code for instance.
You can only talk about more or less valid from within a particular culture. And from within any particular culture, that particular culture will necessarily be the most valid.
quote:You are missing the whole point. Relative truths are context dependent. "It is raining in Manchester" and "It is not raining in the Sahara" are, as you say, true the same time, obviously. It is also obvious that you don't put a cagoule and wellies on in the Sahara when it rains in Manchester.
The statement 'it is raining' by someone in Manchester can be instantly turned into a statement that means exactly the same and is true in the general scheme of things by adding 'in Manchester'. A weather forecaster in a studio in Manchester can make true statements about the weather in London, Manchester, and York, and can be perfectly well understood by listeners in London, Manchester, and York, even if those listeners have no idea where the weather forecaster's studio is.A relativist believes that the statement, made from within English culture, that 'it is wrong to jump a queue' cannot be turned into any statement that means the same and is true in the general scheme of things. A relativist believes that there are no statements true in the general scheme of things that mean the same as 'it is wrong to jump a queue
quote:It's that willful obtuseness again. Get a grip. It's an analogy.
Firstly, statements about the weather do not have implications about the ethical way to treat people with different weather.
quote:And relativists incorporate the idea of what is true for me is not necessarily true for you in their ethical systems.
Ethical systems characteristically do have implications about the ethical way to treat people who behave in ways not sanctioned by those ethical systems.
quote:OK, assuming you are getting it's an analogy. So, statements about the weather, if true, have implications about how to deal with weather conditions. Statements about ethics, if you believe them, have implications for your ethical decisions.
Firstly, statements about the weather do not have implications about the ethical way to treat people with different weather.
quote:This is why relativism is more plausible in ethics than it is in the physical sciences.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:By that definition a univeralist is either an idiot or immortal. Moral universalism has been a characteristic of societies for millennia and there is still a fair bit of converging to do.
By definition a universalist believes that ethical beliefs converge on the truth by a process of rational argument.
quote:You've said what you think the difference lies in. What do you think the difference actually is?
quote:The difference is a subtle one and lies in the realisation that for each party in a trans cultural disagreement the beliefs at issue can be different yet at the same time true for both parties because the moral frameworks within which they are making their judgments are incommensurable.
In what way do you think the meta-ethical relativist and the meta-ethical nihilist differ in respect to trans-cultural moral judgements?
quote:This is all true. Now let's look at the implications.
If a culture has a belief that bombing the fuck out of other cultures, that belief comes from somewhere and is subject to change. There is no requirement placed upon relativists to unthinkingly accept the mores of their culture. Meta ethical relativism simply ays the framework within which one evaluates moral questions is local not universal. That what is true in one culture is not necessarily true in another.
quote:Why can't you if the local framework makes it possible?
quote:Oh bugger, you've lost it again. You can't talk about it within a particular culture, either.
You can only talk about more or less valid from within a particular culture. And from within any particular culture, that particular culture will necessarily be the most valid.
quote:You mean, when in Rome, conquer Italy, destroy Carthage and salt the ground, invade Gaul and Britain, and proclaim the superiority of the Imperium Romanum?
quote:You are missing the whole point. Relative truths are context dependent.So, relativists believe, "It is wrong for an English person, in England, to jump a queue" and "It is not wrong for an Italian, in Italy, to jump a queue". Armed with these beliefs, English relativists visiting Italy approach queue related activities differently than would be the case at home if they want to get into museums without fisticuffs. In short, when in Rome they do what the Romans do.
The statement 'it is raining' by someone in Manchester can be instantly turned into a statement that means exactly the same and is true in the general scheme of things by adding 'in Manchester'.(...) A relativist believes that the statement, made from within English culture, that 'it is wrong to jump a queue' cannot be turned into any statement that means the same and is true in the general scheme of things. A relativist believes that there are no statements true in the general scheme of things that mean the same as 'it is wrong to jump a queue
quote:Consider it the other way around.
And relativists incorporate the idea of what is true for me is not necessarily true for you in their ethical systems.
quote:Does that "fact" have ethical consequences or not ?
Originally posted by Grokesx:
The fact (and it is a fact if you accept MMR) that other cultures' moral proclivities are no less valid in the grand scheme of things than their own doesn't make a dent in their perception or behaviour at all by your account.
.quote:Indeed. I believe some philosophers maintain that trans cultural ethical disagreements would simply dissolve if both sides were consistent relativists.
How can there be a trans cultural disagreement if there are no trans cultural judgements that disagree?
quote:Slightly wrong. There is no should. A meta ethical relativist believes that each culture only has its own frameworks available to evaluate ethical questions.
This is all true. Now let's look at the implications.
A meta ethical relativist believes we should use local frameworks to evaluate ethical questions.
quote:Meta ethical relativism is a universal truth. Moral truths are relative truths. When evaluating ethical matters, the meta-ethical truth that there is no universal truth is still hanging around, nudging the relativist in the ribs and saying stuff like, "You know, it's all well and proper for you to tut tut at that queue jumping Italian in your eyes, but in his eyes it is all well and proper for him to nip in ahead of you. So ask yourself, is it rational to get into confrontation with the guy - after all, you believe, meta-ethically speaking, that you're both right."
Meta ethical relativism is a universal framework.Therefore the meta ethical relativist does not use meta ethical relativism when evaluating ethical questions, because meta ethical relativism is not a local framework.
quote:And if they do that, they need never have taken the intellectual and emotional effort to accept MMR in the first place. They are, as noted before by both of us, just doing what a certain sort of moral universalist does, judging the other culture wrong and acting (or more likely, justifying an action decided upon for other less elevated reasons like land or resource grabbing) accordingly.
Should we bomb that neighbouring culture is an ethical question. That it concerns a different culture does not make it not an ethical question.Therefore, a meta ethical relativist evaluates it in the same way as the meta ethical relativist evaluates every other ethical question; they use a local framework
quote:And they might go on to say, "So we might be able to find a way to agree to disagree."
...if somebody says 'why can't we all get along together?' the relativist might have to say, because we have incommensurable ethical frameworks that mean we can never agree on the right way to resolve our conflict
quote:Not to a relativist it isn't. It's a rational response to an inescapable fact.
'When in Rome do as the Romans do' is a truth that is supposed to be true for everyone wherever they are.
quote:And I maintain it is rational for an English relativist to recognise that the Italian is doing nothing wrong when jumping a queue. And it is rational for the Italian relativist to recognise that when English people tut tut, they are justified.
'For an English person in England, it is wrong (for anyone anywhere) to jump a queue', and 'For an Italian person in Italy, it is not wrong (for anyone anywhere) to jump a queue'.
quote:A rational response to an inescapable fact is a truth that is supposed to be true for everyone wherever they are.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:Not to a relativist it isn't. It's a rational response to an inescapable fact.
'When in Rome do as the Romans do' is a truth that is supposed to be true for everyone wherever they are.
quote:If I have it right then Dafyd is distinguishing two positions:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
There is no should. A meta ethical relativist believes that each culture only has its own frameworks available to evaluate ethical questions.
quote:Nothing like a bit of pejorative labelling. But to expand slightly on my earlier comment, I'm still unclear what value ideas like "moral force" and "moral imperative" have, or in what context they are significantly different in practice to your "prudential ought".
Originally posted by Russ:
[One position is:] If there is no "should" anywhere, no moral imperative, then in your system you've abolished morality altogether - there is nothing but custom. The "local framework" has no moral force, only the "prudential ought" - if you want to be on good terms with your neighbours then follow the local custom (which in England means not only not jumping the queue but also not advocating genocide on foreigners). This he calls nihilism.
quote:Three positions, I think.
Originally posted by Russ:
If I have it right then Dafyd is distinguishing two positions:
quote:Giving up your seat on a train to a lady is a prudential ought. Refraining from pushing someone under a train is a moral imperative.
Nothing like a bit of pejorative labelling. But to expand slightly on my earlier comment, I'm still unclear what value ideas like "moral force" and "moral imperative" have, or in what context they are significantly different in practice to your "prudential ought".
quote:I'm not sure that claims about morality and claims for what most people approve of are the same. I think, for example, that the death penalty is morally wrong but I have no idea whether that is a majority view among the population of Great Britain, let alone the rest of the world. It doesn't make a great deal of sense to claim that "the death penalty is morally wrong" is a claim about an "us" of which I am a member, except among opponents of the death penalty, which would be a fairly tautological claim. That the death penalty is something that the majority of opponents of the death penalty oppose is hardly a convincing argument for opposing the death penalty.
Morality is not law. Sanctions for immorality however defined have no inherent structure. I struggle to see how any claim to be morally right is any different to an assertion that "this is what most of us approve of", for whatever value of "us" we're talking about.
quote:Yes, that reflects my impression of how the terms are used. So the significant difference is something like "degree of seriousness"? Causing physical injury rates above the "morality threshold", defying social convention is below?
Originally posted by Gildas:
Giving up your seat on a train to a lady is a prudential ought. Refraining from pushing someone under a train is a moral imperative.
quote:Not in a single-step cause-and-effect way. But as a feature of the "digest of a vastly multi-generational social process" that cultures pass down to successive generations, it seems a plausible theory.
I'm not sure that claims about morality and claims for what most people approve of are the same.
quote:A prudential ought is you ought to give up your wallet without a fight should someone with a knife ask you for it. Or you ought not to make recordings of yourself discussing plans to bug your political opponents.
Originally posted by Gildas:
Giving up your seat on a train to a lady is a prudential ought. Refraining from pushing someone under a train is a moral imperative.
quote:Well, yes, different cultures of that sort exist but no-one actually behaves as if the difference between a motorcycle gang and The Society of St. Francis or the British Humanist Association is merely one of convention. If a member of the Sons of Anarchy pull a knife on you and demand your wallet you, may, to use Dafyd's example, think it prudent to hand it over but you aren't likely to regard the distinction between the Sons of Anarchy and the law abiding public as one of purely anthropological curiosity. I've no idea as to the population dynamics of atheists in foxholes but I am pretty sure that there are no relativists in dark alleyways.
quote:Yes, that reflects my impression of how the terms are used. So the significant difference is something like "degree of seriousness"? Causing physical injury rates above the "morality threshold", defying social convention is below?
Originally posted by Gildas:
Giving up your seat on a train to a lady is a prudential ought. Refraining from pushing someone under a train is a moral imperative.
There will be cultures (for example in a TV drama like Sons of Anarchy) where casual murder is no big thing but disrespect can be an ultimate sin. The scale seems a matter of emphasis rather than any essential difference between the concepts.
quote:That might be an account of cultural formation but it doesn't really hold as a account of moral decision making. It is undoubtedly the case that, for various reasons, the death penalty is less popular than it was in the eighteenth century. To that extent your multi-generational social processes can be invoked but that wouldn't tell you how to vote if Mr Cameron decided tomorrow to hold a referendum on the subject. I think that, say, Lord Tebbit's views on the subject are wrong but it would be otiose to suggest that the fact that they are less popular than they were fifty years ago was some kind of proof of that.
quote:Not in a single-step cause-and-effect way. But as a feature of the "digest of a vastly multi-generational social process" that cultures pass down to successive generations, it seems a plausible theory.
I'm not sure that claims about morality and claims for what most people approve of are the same.
quote:It's this "no-one" I'm querying. There are minority cultures all over the place, from Eton to the East End, that operate codes that clash with each other and with whatever "mainstream" standard of morality we might want to select. Who is to say which is right if not the majority for any given context?
Originally posted by Gildas:
different cultures of that sort exist but no-one actually behaves as if the difference between a motorcycle gang and The Society of St. Francis or the British Humanist Association is merely one of convention.
quote:I think it takes an appeal to external authority to justify the difference. The various threads on morality seem to be dancing round this without getting any closer to an alternative. Some view of God as ultimate moral authority is probably still implicit in most majority western cultures. If for whatever reason God no longer fulfils that role, and we'd prefer not to defer to some human institution, convention and personal moral responsibility seem all that are left.
That might be an account of cultural formation but it doesn't really hold as a account of moral decision making.
quote:It can do.
Does that "fact" have ethical consequences or not ?
quote:I'm not complaining, I'm saying that Dafyd's contention that archetypal relativists ignore cross cultural implications of MMR in favour of going with the local morality is incorrect.
If not, why are you complaining that it doesn't impact on behaviour ?
quote:They clearly can't, which is why normative moral relativism has problems philosophically speaking. Does that mean MMR can't inform moral choices? As far as I can see, that depends more on currently existing convictions than the merits or otherwise of the arguments. It's not as if universalism or nihilism answer all of the meta ethical questions satisfactorily. If one of them did, moral relativism wouldn't be a thing.
If it does, how do those consequences not constitute the sort of universal moral imperative that MMR denies ?
quote:Yes, morality is about choices.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Morality is about judgement and choice. The only possible "right" answer to a moral question is one that conforms to the judgement of some accepted authority in that field. If there is no such authority, I don't see there can be any objectively right answer, only what seems right to us.
quote:Indeed - don't let the rules get in the way of doing what's right.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Perfect empathy would mean that lesser laws are made to be broken.
quote:What exactly do we mean by empathy, though.
Originally posted by Russ:
What if the right answer is what someone with perfect empathy would do ?
quote:I imagine perfect empathy to be more than understanding the other's perspective correctly and completely, to something like owning that perspective alongside one's own, treating the other's pain as of equal significance to one's own. Nothing to do with losing sight of who you are, just taking the other person with full seriousness.
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
What exactly do we mean by empathy, though.
I'm drawn to the idea that it's a dialogue between two perspectives, mine and what I imagine to be someone else's. Perfect empathy would mean imagining correctly and completely, but get no closer to determining which options are better or worse.
Alternatively, if empathy is inhabiting that imagined other perspective, perfect empathy would lose my perspective and turn empathy into something like projection or transference. The moral choice is merely shifted to a different context and remains unresolved.
I suspect perfect empathy is inherently contradictory. But either way I don't see it separates the allocation of rightness or wrongness from the chooser (or whatever moral authority they defer to).
