 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What's the point of anger, protests, indignation, petitions and justice...
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
... if morality is entirely subjective (as has been suggested here, and elsewhere on this thread)?
If morality is merely a matter of opinion, merely a matter of taste (even "collective taste", aka consensus), then moral indignation could be likened to my feeling incensed at someone for eating broad beans (which I happen to dislike) and not broccoli (which I happen to like). And those greedy bankers committing fraud are only "eating their broad beans", and therefore it seems rather childish and churlish of me to feel any kind of indignation at their behaviour, if morality really is nothing more than a matter of personal opinion!
And if morality is merely a matter of upbringing, then I suppose I should feel angry at someone's background, which almost sounds like a form of racism. Or if it's merely a matter of genetics, then perhaps I should also campaign against the size of another person's ears!
Doesn't the deep sense we have that moral anger possesses validity just demonstrate how absurd it is to say that morality is subjective? How can we justify moral indignation - and sorrow - on this basis? In fact, such opposition to other people's morality (no matter how obnoxious it may seem) would be just another form of discrimination.
Which of course is total BS.
There has to be an objective basis to our collective moral sense in order for our moral responses to have any validity. Logic.
Those who claim that morality is ultimately subjective need to explain something called "reality".
Discuss.
[ 02. November 2012, 20:30: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
You say 'merely' a great deal in that OP. Our morals are very much a matter of our culture and upbringing.
I know Muslims who have a deep sense of moral outrage because I wear a swimming costume in the presence of men. Our local baths have 'women only' sessions because of this.
Does that make them objectively right?
If not, why not?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
Our morals are very much a matter of our culture and upbringing.
So therefore you would agree that to reject another person's morality is a form of cultural and racial discrimination, yes?
Therefore it is wrong to feel any kind of anger at female genital mutilation or the banning of female education?
I am not suggesting that all forms of morality are equally valid. That is the opposite of what I am saying. But how can we feel any kind of indignation at any moral position if morality is simply (or "very much" - to use your words) a matter of our culture and upbringing?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Boat Boy
Shipmate
# 13050
|
Posted
If you believe that there is an ultimate moral authority, could you tell us what that is?
Posts: 151 | From: The deep south (of the Home Counties) | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
What is the point? It matters to that starfish.
Harm is not entirely subjective. Harm is visible and demonstrable in some cases. If I cut your hands off at the wrists, that is a matter of objective fact and I have harmed you. You are less than you were.
Growth and healing are not entirely subjective. My little sister is alive through major heart surgery. Someone I know is no longer spending 8 hours a day in tears through medicine. Someone else can walk again. They are all more than they were.
Now there is opinion involved in morality because no human has or can have perfect knowledge. And I only have my instincts and my reason to go on. All of us are flawed, and all of us can end up in dead ends. So as Marvin said, any of us can call something good because we've made a mistaken.
The morality is seen as subjective because we have imperfect knowledge. The facts are objective and as Marvin pointed out . And what we do matters to that starfish.
Part of atheist moral discourse involves accepting that we can be wrong and that others can be wrong on moral issues and pointing out where they are.
Reality exists, but how we piece together reality is clearly subjective. And our morality derives from how we piece together reality and however hard we struggle to make it match to reality it is always going to be subjective. Which doesn't make reality exist less.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
Because sometimes when enough people protest the powers that be take note and and protesters get what they wanted. So the answer is practical results.
Let's say for example that the local library was going to close. I don't need to navel gaze and try and come up with a valid reason that fits into a world view before I decide to do something. I want to keep the library open because it benefits me and my family and because I like library's. While debates about subjective/objective morality are fascinating in reality I don't really make moral decisions by contemplating philosophy I just sort of get on with it.
I think the main problem I have with objective morality is that I think it's vital that moral questions are decided on a case by case basis. For example there are many occasions where lying is the wrong thing to do but some occasions where it's the right thing to do. Question for the smarter than me people on the ship. Does objective morality allow for lying to be both right and wrong?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
Morals are also based on community and what is in the best interests of the community, so when bankers or any other entity/person does something that harms the community there will be outrage, petitions, protests, etc. I think your viewpoint is that morals are from Christianity and anything else isn't valid or is questionable, which isn't true. Not to mention even Christians don't always agree on what is moral and what isn't.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
There are standards. Stuff is either "good", or not.
The flexibility and the grey areas come from our personal (frequently slanted and incomplete) perceptions and circumstances.
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Harm is not entirely subjective. Harm is visible and demonstrable in some cases. If I cut your hands off at the wrists, that is a matter of objective fact and I have harmed you. You are less than you were.
That A has cut off B's hands at the wrist is an objective fact. That it is harm is more difficult. If both hands are gangrenous then it may be the only way to save your life - under those circumstances I think we would hesitate to call the surgery harm.
It's true that in that case we could say that the harm had been done already. We can't imagine a situation in which we wouldn't judge that losing one's hands was the result of harm at some point along the line. But merely because a reaction is universal doesn't necessarily mean it's not subjective. (It's generally thought that colour sensations are subjective.)
Compare a sex change operation (male to female) would certainly qualify as harm under the above definition if done without consent. The person is less than they were; they lack an organ that they used to have. But if it is done with consent I think only moral conservatives would call the result harm.
Compare again, deliberately deafening or blinding someone. That would seem to qualify as harm. Yet if a couple who were both deaf or blind said that they wanted to arrange it so that their children to be congenitally deaf/blind I don't think it's an open and shut case that they intend harm to their children. (They would say that being deaf or blind has compensations such that it does not count as harm.)
That there isn't a community of handless people advocating the choice of handlessness may be, with that in mind, a fact that establishes no metaphysical significance.
That all suggests that the judgement of harm is dependent upon the moral judgement rather than the other way around. Saying that harm is or is not objective therefore cannot ground a judgement that morality is objective.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Does objective morality allow for lying to be both right and wrong?
An objective morality cannot allow for lying to be both right and wrong in situations that are similar in all morally relevant respects.
Nothing about the objectivity of morality decides whether or not there are morally relevant respects that alter the morality of lying.
In Kantian morality, lying is either always wrong or always permissible. But under classical utilitarianism - which in its Bentham/Mill formulations is certainly an objective system - lying is right or wrong depending upon whether it maximises utility.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Doesn't the deep sense we have that moral anger possesses validity just demonstrate how absurd it is to say that morality is subjective?
Not at all. If morality were a fixed and objective standard as you suggest you'd expect only one side of any given controversy (the "objectively moral" side) to feel moral anger. This doesn't seem to be the case.
I'm also a bit curious about this idea that people don't have strong emotional feelings about subjective issues. Like no one would ever get in a heated argument about the superiority of a particular sports team or why the book was so much better than the movie (or vice versa). The way you claim people behave doesn't seem to match the behavior of actual people.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Morals are also based on community and what is in the best interests of the community, so when bankers or any other entity/person does something that harms the community there will be outrage, petitions, protests, etc.
I agree. There isn't any much morality for one person alone on a desert island to have. But 'community' means we need morals to get along. Morality is essentially a communal enterprise. The problem is that none of us belong to just one community. Some bankers don't feel themselves to be - in any real sense - part of the same community as the rest of us (I tend to reciprocate). I'm aware that I feel close to my local community but also part of, say, the community of men, of mathematicians, of Terry Pratchet fans and so on. In some cases I might put the interests of mathematicians, say, ahead of those of my geographic community. This leads to conflict.
As for subjectivity generally, I'm less certain. How about the following, based on Kant, suppose someone asks you to betray a close friend in some way. They might threaten you or your family if you don't agree to do the act, or maybe offer a bribe. You might accept and betray your friend but could you ever think what you had done was 'good'? The lesser of two evils maybe but wouldn't you rather not be in such a situation?
I can't imagine anyone feeling they have done a good thing if they betray someone (or group or cause) that is close to their heart. That's a good enough example for me.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Doesn't the deep sense we have that moral anger possesses validity just demonstrate how absurd it is to say that morality is subjective?
Not at all. If morality were a fixed and objective standard as you suggest you'd expect only one side of any given controversy (the "objectively moral" side) to feel moral anger. This doesn't seem to be the case.
Sure you would. It just means that at least one of the sides is incorrect in their moral judgement.
I don't think that the strong feelings EE refers to logically prove the existence of objective morality. But I could buy his use of the word "absurd": if we came to believe in our hearts that there was no real difference between good and evil, it would make the world "absurd", if you like. Difficult to see any reason to strive for anything beyond making oneself as comfortable as possible.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There has to be an objective basis to our collective moral sense in order for our moral responses to have any validity. Logic.
This is not the first time that you've announced on the Ship that something is simply self-evident or logical and that you've neatly wrapped it up in the space of a single post. Given your track record - including on topics where I've personally agreed with your conclusions but found your means of arriving there badly flawed - forgive me for not finding myself convinced by your latest offering.
All you've really managed to say is that because on certain topics you can't imagine having a different opinion about them, your opinion is 'objective'.
The first example that leapt to my mind is that there have been cultures, eg Sparta, who found it perfectly acceptable to leave infants outside to die. If you tried to harangue an individual Spartan about this prospect I'd imagine they would find your approach puzzling. Why exactly should they listen to you and your self-evident pronouncement that leaving infants to die is a terrible, horrible unacceptable thing, as opposed to listening to the society and culture they grew up in?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The first example that leapt to my mind is that there have been cultures, eg Sparta, who found it perfectly acceptable to leave infants outside to die. If you tried to harangue an individual Spartan about this prospect I'd imagine they would find your approach puzzling. Why exactly should they listen to you and your self-evident pronouncement that leaving infants to die is a terrible, horrible unacceptable thing, as opposed to listening to the society and culture they grew up in?
Good question. How would you go about it? First of all, should you go about it and if so, why?
You could try to persuade them on the basis of some other piece of morality that you share. You could try "You should treat others as you would like to be treated". Or a different angle like "It is ignoble for a strong person to kill a defenceless person". Or even "This baby might look useless, but actually he might come in handy someday". But you probably need to appeal to some shared principle that you both see as self-evident - even in the last case, "being useful to society is a good thing"
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
^ Agreed. You would have to find some 'deeper' principle. And it's not immediately obvious to me that you could be guaranteed of finding one. Because if you could, it begs the question as to how that culture ever found child abandonment to be acceptable in the first place (if it's somehow contrary to a 'deeper' moral principle that they shared with us).
There is of course a fair amount of difficulty in empirically testing this. Finding access to a culture that's sufficiently different from our own is not an easy task.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
I don't think it's a big puzzle that a culture could fail to live up to its core principles, and become inured to practices that were contrary to them. Surely it happens all the time. I suppose it's the cultural equivalent of what on an individual level used to be called "the searing of the conscience". In this case the encounter would be a "wake-up call" leading to guilt and (hopefully) contrition and amendment or (tragically) denial and perhaps even deliberate abandonment of the core principle.
But my main point is - to make progress, the cultural norm of exposing infants has to be examined in the light of a higher authority - in this case, a deeper principle that both sides agree is true.
I suppose this isn't an "objective morality" yet - it's just a "shared morality".
What do you do if you can't find a deeper principle that you agree on though? Does that mean it is OK for them to carry on leaving out the babies? If not, why not?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo
This is not the first time that you've announced on the Ship that something is simply self-evident or logical and that you've neatly wrapped it up in the space of a single post. Given your track record - including on topics where I've personally agreed with your conclusions but found your means of arriving there badly flawed - forgive me for not finding myself convinced by your latest offering.
"Given your track record"
Oooh ouch. (Shall I slink away in a quiet corner and have a little cry?)
Actually... I presume that this is filed away in a little filing cabinet marked "OO" (Orfeo's Opinions). Because unless there is some secret file on me in the subterranean vaults of the Ship charting my extremely dodgy behaviour on board, then I am afraid I haven't a flippin' clue what the hell the above statement means in reality.
(Which is further supported by the fact that you have failed to provide any evidence or argument to back up this grotesque generalisation. Which really doesn't say much for your "track record"!!)
Your logic leaves a lot to be desired, because you say that I have "announced" something on the Ship. OK. So has everybody else, when they express their point of view!! Or perhaps I am not allowed to express a viewpoint unless it's authorised by an anonymous person called 'orfeo'? Furthermore, I have apparently neatly wrapped it up in the space of a single post! Did you bother to read the last word of the post? D-I-S-C-U-S-S. I was inviting discussion - and therefore open to my viewpoint being challenged.
If you are going to come out with a smug, snide put down, then take it to hell, while the rest of us can debate the issue in a respectful way.
[ 18. July 2012, 10:24: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
You didn't answer my question.
Fair comment.
So rewind...
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
You say 'merely' a great deal in that OP. Our morals are very much a matter of our culture and upbringing.
I know Muslims who have a deep sense of moral outrage because I wear a swimming costume in the presence of men. Our local baths have 'women only' sessions because of this.
Does that make them objectively right?
If not, why not?
Obviously those Muslims would regard their moral code as having an objective basis rooted in their religious belief: this is what God has commanded, and God, being God, thus requires this of all his creatures. Therefore they would expect all people everywhere to comply with it. In our culture we would regard their morality as entirely informed by their culture and thus not binding on us.
There are two issues here, which both concern the concept of "objectivity".
Is there actually an objective basis to morality (by which I mean "a basic moral sense")?
Is morality essentially subjective, but it has to be believed to be objectively valid in order to function at all as morality?
Clearly if the Muslims did not regard their moral code as objectively valid - and therefore universally binding - they would have no grounds for indignation at non-compliance (especially by those outside their culture).
And the same applies to "western" views of morality. And this comes back to my initial response to you, and I apologise for "jumping the gun" and not explaining why I had replied in that way.
We, in the west, have our moral views about certain practices in parts of the Muslim word, such as FGM and the ban on female education. I think it is fair to say that most people in our western democracies would regard these practices with revulsion, and we would feel moral outrage. We assume that girls in Afghanistan have a right to an education. But why? If morality is entirely informed by culture, then all we could say is "we don't like what that culture is doing, but we recognise that that is their way of behaving; there is no 'right and wrong' about it - it's just a matter of cultural difference." On that basis, it seems completely absurd to feel any kind of indignation over something entirely subjective - especially if it is something that does not affect us directly (and if it does affect us directly, then our indignation would be entirely driven by self-interest).
Therefore it seems obvious to me that moral indignation only makes sense if - at the very least - we believe that our morality has an objective - i.e. universally valid - basis.
But suppose we hold to a philosophical view that morality is actually ultimately entirely subjective? And yet we also wish to express moral indignation at the practices of others? Are we not then admitting that we need to deceive ourselves in order to be logically consistent? We could say to ourselves: "We know morality is entirely subjective, but we are going to convince ourselves that certain moral viewpoints are objectively valid, so that we can express indignation and therefore pursue policies to oppose that which we regard as immoral."
As far as I can see, this is the position of UK culture vis-a-vis other parts of the world. We like to think that our humanistic western democracy is what other people really need, and we are angry that we cannot transplant this ideology easily into other cultures, but philosophically (i.e. from a humanistic point of view) there is no basis at all to our claims.
This is a huge paradox, and it suggests to me that our fundamental moral sense cannot ultimately be entirely subjective.
Feel free to disagree (especially you, orfeo. You are a free agent.)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But suppose we hold to a philosophical view that morality is actually ultimately entirely subjective? And yet we also wish to express moral indignation at the practices of others? Are we not then admitting that we need to deceive ourselves in order to be logically consistent?
No, we're not.
quote:
We could say to ourselves: "We know morality is entirely subjective, but we are going to convince ourselves that certain moral viewpoints are objectively valid, so that we can express indignation and therefore pursue policies to oppose that which we regard as immoral."
Why would we need to convince ourselves that our moral viewpoints are objectively valid in order to promote them (vigorously, in some cases) to others? All we really need to convince ourselves of is that they're better than the ones we're seeking to replace. Not perfect. Not objectively valid in all times and places. Just better.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Morality is not "entirely subjective". That view is simply wrong - not, 'might be wrong', or 'it depends how you look at it, or 'that's your opinion' - just wrong.
Our take on morality is skewed by our personal and cultural assumptions. That is a very important issue. So, we may regard some things as wrong, which ontologically aren't. We may regard some things as OK which are ontologically wrong. But that is because we see through a glass which is not only dark but also smeary, so that we can't tell where our view is clearer or more confused. But, even though Christian faith is only secondarily about morality, and not primarily, the view that morality is entirely subjective is profoundly incompatible with being a Christian. There is no scope for debate on this.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Why would we need to convince ourselves that our moral viewpoints are objectively valid in order to promote them (vigorously, in some cases) to others? All we really need to convince ourselves of is that they're better than the ones we're seeking to replace. Not perfect. Not objectively valid in all times and places. Just better.
But how would you judge them to be "better"??
That implies that there exists some objective sliding scale that defines the quality of moral principles.
And if you were to suggest that "better" simply means "what we subjectively decide is better" (but there is no measuring stick to define this), then we are back to square one. Indignation is simply an expression of personal taste and nothing more. Which is absurd.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Obviously those Muslims would regard their moral code as having an objective basis rooted in their religious belief: this is what God has commanded, and God, being God, thus requires this of all his creatures. Therefore they would expect all people everywhere to comply with it. In our culture we would regard their morality as entirely informed by their culture and thus not binding on us.
There are two issues here, which both concern the concept of "objectivity".
Is there actually an objective basis to morality (by which I mean "a basic moral sense")?
Is morality essentially subjective, but it has to be believed to be objectively valid in order to function at all as morality?
Clearly if the Muslims did not regard their moral code as objectively valid - and therefore universally binding - they would have no grounds for indignation at non-compliance (especially by those outside their culture).
And the same applies to "western" views of morality. And this comes back to my initial response to you, and I apologise for "jumping the gun" and not explaining why I had replied in that way.
Ah - I am with you now.
There is always a problem when looking from the outside-in to a culture's morals imo. The same when we look back into history.
Those of us who are not sociopaths/psychopaths have a deep sense of right and wrong. We have empathy and hurt when others hurt. What informs that empathy is such a mix of experience/upbringing/worldview/religion/culture that we can't easily unpick it to see how subjective/objective we are being.
But it's a good question, because it goes to the heart of what we believe and how we see God.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
<edited to remove too much quoting>
[ 18. July 2012, 12:07: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Why would we need to convince ourselves that our moral viewpoints are objectively valid in order to promote them (vigorously, in some cases) to others? All we really need to convince ourselves of is that they're better than the ones we're seeking to replace. Not perfect. Not objectively valid in all times and places. Just better.
But how would you judge them to be "better"??
Based on our own moral code, of course.
quote:
That implies that there exists some objective sliding scale that defines the quality of moral principles.
No, it just implies that there exists a society which believes that some actions are better than others. There doesn't have to be an objective measuring stick for the morality of those actions in order for such beliefs to be held.
quote:
And if you were to suggest that "better" simply means "what we subjectively decide is better" (but there is no measuring stick to define this), then we are back to square one. Indignation is simply an expression of personal taste and nothing more. Which is absurd.
It's only absurd if you take "subjective" to mean "every possible view has the same worth". But there is no reason why that has to be the case at all.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But, even though Christian faith is only secondarily about morality, and not primarily, the view that morality is entirely subjective is profoundly incompatible with being a Christian. There is no scope for debate on this.
Oh well, thanks for clearing that up. I guess we can close the thread now. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Morality is not "entirely subjective". That view is simply wrong - not, 'might be wrong', or 'it depends how you look at it, or 'that's your opinion' - just wrong.
Our take on morality is skewed by our personal and cultural assumptions. That is a very important issue. So, we may regard some things as wrong, which ontologically aren't. We may regard some things as OK which are ontologically wrong. But that is because we see through a glass which is not only dark but also smeary, so that we can't tell where our view is clearer or more confused. But, even though Christian faith is only secondarily about morality, and not primarily, the view that morality is entirely subjective is profoundly incompatible with being a Christian. There is no scope for debate on this.
You know, I can't translate the above as anything other than "Our understanding of morality is subjective but morality is objective".
And from my own experience, subjective + objective = subjective. The part you have is your own understanding of morality - the part you see through a smeared glass.
And yet, despite your understanding being entirely subjective you can not accept any sort of debate that emphasises and accepts this subjectivity as necessary. Where as I see absolutely no practical difference between your take and Marvin's.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
That implies that there exists some objective sliding scale that defines the quality of moral principles.
No, it just implies that there exists a society which believes that some actions are better than others. There doesn't have to be an objective measuring stick for the morality of those actions in order for such beliefs to be held.
OK. Let's assume that you are right (whatever the word "right" actually means within a subjectivist epistemology and morality).
It is my personal opinion (and the collective personal opinion of most of the culture in which I live) that it is "right" to give girls an opportunity to benefit from an education. I accept that there is absolutely no objective basis to my - or my culture's - opinion - but I think this anyway. It's a matter of taste. Let's call it my "broccoli" (to use the analogy of the OP).
It is the collective personal opinion of another culture that it is not right to give girls the opportunity to be educated. The viewpoint of this society is also subjective, there being no objective basis to it (even though the members of that society may think there is). Let's call their view their "broad beans" (again the OP analogy).
I think that my "broccoli" is better than their "broad beans". Why? Because, hey, I happen to prefer broccoli!! No objective reason for this. It's just a matter of taste.
And because of my preference for "broccoli" I am going to bomb the shit out of these "broad bean" eaters, and try to force them to eat "broccoli".
In other words, the lesson of subjective morality is this:
MIGHT IS RIGHT.
There is, of course, no way one can reason with another culture, because reasoning requires an objective basis to which one can appeal. You say that such a thing does not exist. Therefore the only way to "persuade" people is by means of something other than reason. Now I wonder what that could be...?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It is my personal opinion (and the collective personal opinion of most of the culture in which I live) that it is "right" to give girls an opportunity to benefit from an education. I accept that there is absolutely no objective basis to my - or my culture's - opinion - but I think this anyway. It's a matter of taste. Let's call it my "broccoli" (to use the analogy of the OP).
It is the collective personal opinion of another culture that it is not right to give girls the opportunity to be educated. The viewpoint of this society is also subjective, there being no objective basis to it (even though the members of that society may think there is). Let's call their view their "broad beans" (again the OP analogy).
I think that my "broccoli" is better than their "broad beans". Why? Because, hey, I happen to prefer broccoli!! No objective reason for this. It's just a matter of taste.
So far so good.
quote:
And because of my preference for "broccoli" I am going to bomb the shit out of these "broad bean" eaters, and try to force them to eat "broccoli".
...and then suddenly, WHAM! Where the hell did that come from ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ? Who the hell mentioned bombing people in an attempt to force them to agree ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ?
quote:
In other words, the lesson of subjective morality is this:
MIGHT IS RIGHT.
No, it's more like "consensus makes right". It's your preference for divinely-mandated objective truth that boils down to MIGHT MAKES RIGHT - specifically the might of God.
quote:
There is, of course, no way one can reason with another culture, because reasoning requires an objective basis to which one can appeal.
No, it doesn't. It requires a certain amount of shared understanding and a lot of patience, of course, but that's not the same thing at all.
quote:
You say that such a thing does not exist. Therefore the only way to "persuade" people is by means of something other than reason. Now I wonder what that could be...?
Have you ever had a discussion about music in which you tried to persuade someone else that your favourite band was really good, even though they disagreed? If not, do you at least accept that such a conversation is possible? I would hope you do, as such conversations happen thousands of times every day. But how can that be when there's no objective definition of what music - let alone good music - even is?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I think that my "broccoli" is better than their "broad beans". Why? Because, hey, I happen to prefer broccoli!! No objective reason for this. It's just a matter of taste.
And because of my preference for "broccoli" I am going to bomb the shit out of these "broad bean" eaters, and try to force them to eat "broccoli".
In other words, the lesson of subjective morality is this:
MIGHT IS RIGHT.
This seems to be the exact opposite of the way people act in real life.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There is, of course, no way one can reason with another culture, because reasoning requires an objective basis to which one can appeal. You say that such a thing does not exist. Therefore the only way to "persuade" people is by means of something other than reason.
Wouldn't this make the adherents of obective morality more likely to resort to force? After all, they've taken the trouble to explain why you're worshipping the wrong god, or having sex in the wrong position, or using an inherently immoral economic system, or whatever, and yet you persist in your immorality despite having it proven to you, in objective terms, how evil you're acting. Wouldn't this intellectually perverse rejection of objective reality be a clear demonstration that anyone with a different moral code is simply not willing to listen to reason?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
On the contrary, EE. Might Makes Right is an objective system of morality. And is pretty much the only actually objective system of morality that works in this world. "I have the might therefore I say what is right." It's perfectly objective. And even testable with an innate way of deciding what happens when two people both claim to have right - test the might.
"Because my God commands this" is not an objective system of morality unless you have a God right there that can be objectively demonstrated. It is subjective. You are subjectively trying to interpret something - the commands of your God.
And the real irony to your post is that the morality displayed in the bible is seldom anything but Might Makes Right. God has the might. Therefore doing what God says is right. And if we don't he sends flood or plague. It's pure undiluted Might Makes Right.
Subjective morality on the other hand says "Things may be worth dying for or even killing for but we need to be very careful about enforcing things because we can never be completely sure we are right." And we have jumped straight to bombing over brocolli because we are trying to use an objective system of morality - i.e. Might Makes Right.
[ 18. July 2012, 14:59: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I think certain posters are confusing two senses of the word "objective".
In sense 1, which is I think how EE means it, something is "objectively true" if it is true whether or not anyone believes it. Drinking caustic soda will kill me regardless of whether I believe it. "Caustic soda is poisonous" is therefore true whether or not I agree with it.
In sense 2, a process or a method of evaluation is "objective" if it comes to the same result when carried out by different people. So for example, "the best ballet dancer is the one who does the most pirouettes" is an objective way of evaluating ballet dancers, even though "X is the best ballet dancer" is not objectively true.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think certain posters are confusing two senses of the word "objective".
In sense 1, which is I think how EE means it, something is "objectively true" if it is true whether or not anyone believes it. Drinking caustic soda will kill me regardless of whether I believe it. "Caustic soda is poisonous" is therefore true whether or not I agree with it.
In sense 2, a process or a method of evaluation is "objective" if it comes to the same result when carried out by different people. So for example, "the best ballet dancer is the one who does the most pirouettes" is an objective way of evaluating ballet dancers, even though "X is the best ballet dancer" is not objectively true.
I'm not sure that's a meaningful distinction in this context. I'm not even sure it's a distinction at all. For instance, doesn't the caustic soda test yield the same result regardless of who does it? And I'm pretty sure the number of pirouettes actually performed by various ballet dancers can't be changed by citing a contrary opinion.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
I think the difference is that in sense 1 the whole judgement is objective (it will happen regardless of what anyone thinks about it, even if you deny the existence of caustic soda), but in sense 2 the criteria by which one judges are subjective (who ever said number of spins is the only way to measure a good ballet dancer?), but once those criteria are agreed and set then the judgements themselves are objective.
Which, of course, still makes sense 2 subjective for the purposes of this thread.
[ 18. July 2012, 15:32: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think certain posters are confusing two senses of the word "objective".
In sense 1, which is I think how EE means it, something is "objectively true" if it is true whether or not anyone believes it. Drinking caustic soda will kill me regardless of whether I believe it. "Caustic soda is poisonous" is therefore true whether or not I agree with it.
In sense 2, a process or a method of evaluation is "objective" if it comes to the same result when carried out by different people. So for example, "the best ballet dancer is the one who does the most pirouettes" is an objective way of evaluating ballet dancers, even though "X is the best ballet dancer" is not objectively true.
I'm not sure that's a meaningful distinction in this context. I'm not even sure it's a distinction at all. For instance, doesn't the caustic soda test yield the same result regardless of who does it? And I'm pretty sure the number of pirouettes actually performed by various ballet dancers can't be changed by citing a contrary opinion.
Marvin has it (and I don't know where you inserted the word "test" from, and your last sentence seems merely to be repeating what I said in the post you quoted).
OK, let's try and find some examples where sense 1 and sense 2 are in conflict.
50 years ago, Edwin met Rosa in the church of St Clement Danes. Today, all the people concerned are old and their memories are failing. Edwin thinks it was in St Lawrence Jewry, Rosa thinks it was in St Mary-le-Bow.
It is objectively true (sense 1) that Edwin met Rosa in St Clement Danes. Their conflicting memories do not in any way change this fact. However, young Ricardus, investigative journalist, is tasked with finding out where they did meet. All he has to go by are their failing memories and the equally failing memory of the octogenarian parish clergy. Now memory is clearly not objective (sense 2) - because it's coming to different conclusions for different people.
Now consider ballet dancers. Liking pirouettes, and preferring one ballet dancer to another, are matters of personal taste. "The best ballet dancer is the one who does the most pirouettes" is only true as long as people believe that pirouettes are important, i.e. as long as people believe it is true. It is not therefore objective in sense 1.
However, counting pirouettes is going to come to the same result whoever does it (assuming they do it properly). It is therefore an objective metric according to sense 2.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
And because of my preference for "broccoli" I am going to bomb the shit out of these "broad bean" eaters, and try to force them to eat "broccoli".
...and then suddenly, WHAM! Where the hell did that come from? Who the hell mentioned bombing people in an attempt to force them to agree?
Ever heard of a country called "Afghanistan"?
Ever heard of the concept of "regime change"?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
(Coda to my last post)
... and to drag that screed back on topic: I think Justinian is correct that the only objective (sense 2) way of doing morality is Might Makes Right.
However, I submit that there is a difference between using subjective methods to come to ethical conclusions that you believe are also subjective, and using them in the belief that there are such things as moral statements that are objectively true (sense 1).
[ 18. July 2012, 16:13: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
And because of my preference for "broccoli" I am going to bomb the shit out of these "broad bean" eaters, and try to force them to eat "broccoli".
...and then suddenly, WHAM! Where the hell did that come from? Who the hell mentioned bombing people in an attempt to force them to agree?
Ever heard of a country called "Afghanistan"?
Ever heard of the concept of "regime change"?
No, I don't get where the implication that moral subjectivity inevitably leads to war comes from. If anything moral subjectivity is less likely to lead to war, because it provides people with less reason to want to change another culture in the first place.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
I think that my "broccoli" is better than their "broad beans". Why? Because, hey, I happen to prefer broccoli!! No objective reason for this. It's just a matter of taste.
And because of my preference for "broccoli" I am going to bomb the shit out of these "broad bean" eaters, and try to force them to eat "broccoli".
In other words, the lesson of subjective morality is this:
MIGHT IS RIGHT.
This seems to be the exact opposite of the way people act in real life.
Really?
Apparently some forms of "subjective morality" are more valid than others, and those who refuse to comply are screwed in this wonderful world of "consensus"!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
And because of my preference for "broccoli" I am going to bomb the shit out of these "broad bean" eaters, and try to force them to eat "broccoli".
...and then suddenly, WHAM! Where the hell did that come from? Who the hell mentioned bombing people in an attempt to force them to agree?
Ever heard of a country called "Afghanistan"?
Ever heard of the concept of "regime change"?
... Seriously? You seriously think that the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions were about morality? Rather than revenge for September 11 and about oil?
Yes, I have heard of Regime Change. Have you ever heard of Realpolitik? Or even the Neoconservative movement? And that whole thing was lead by the same people who reject "moral relativism".
For that matter, have you ever heard of the Crusades?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Really?
Apparently some forms of "subjective morality" are more valid than others, and those who refuse to comply are screwed in this wonderful world of "consensus"!
Um ... you know what orfeo was saying about agreeing with your conclusions, but not the method by which you come to them ... ?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Really?
Apparently some forms of "subjective morality" are more valid than others, and those who refuse to comply are screwed in this wonderful world of "consensus"!
I'm sorry EE. I'm sorry that your moral absolutists are no longer allowed to chemically castrate people. And I'm sorry that you consider this wonderful world of consensus in which people aren't allowed to discriminate but instead must live and let live to be intolerable.
But seriously. Claiming there's a subjective morality doesn't mean we can't make any moral decisions. It means we need to be careful about them. And you seem to be considering £3,600 as a massive imposition for hotel owners.
Subjective morality: "Live and let live. And £3600 fines for not letting live."
Objective morality: Kill them all, God will know his own
EE: Trying to claim that subjective morality is bloodier.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus
Um ... you know what orfeo was saying about agreeing with your conclusions, but not the method by which you come to them ... ?
And...?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
Claiming there's a subjective morality doesn't mean we can't make any moral decisions. It means we need to be careful about them. And you seem to be considering £3,600 as a massive imposition for hotel owners.
Subjective morality: "Live and let live. And £3600 fines for not letting live."
Objective morality: Kill them all, God will know his own
EE: Trying to claim that subjective morality is bloodier.
Ah, I see. Some forms of "subjective morality" are more equal than others. So it's OK to impose a certain form of morality on a Christian couple who happen to have views about sexuality.
After all... if morality is entirely subjective, then why can't their moral decision be respected? It was not, and that underlines my point that subjective morality inevitable involves imposition by diktat. I know you may not like the moral position of this couple (and, in fact, I question it as well). But that is not the point. I am trying to get you to be consistent with your claims, which you manifestly seem unable (or rather unwilling) to be.
Even if you think this couple were intolerant, it doesn't matter. Their "intolerance" is still their subjective morality, and therefore it is no worse than your "morality" - because, of course, no value judgments are possible within a subjective morality. (If you think they are, then to what do you appeal to define those values?) And if you fail to respect their morality, then my conclusion that "might is right" is correct: they have been bullied by what "society" has decided constitutes morality.
Now your only argument against me is an emotional outburst about various evils committed by certain people who called themselves Christians. So what? I am no defender of professing Christians. I am making a philosophical point about the nature of how we relate to our moral sense. It would be good if you could actually address that point, instead of waving straw men in front of me.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
I'm sorry that your moral absolutists are no longer allowed to chemically castrate people.
Who said that I agreed with chemical castration? Please quote something I wrote to justify this comment.
But if you want to trade horrors, then perhaps you might like to explain why the most innocent and vulnerable members of society have no say in this great "moral consensus", which is apparently so peace loving that it considers it right to execute them for committing the sin of being unwanted or disabled.
Yes, subjective morality is certainly about "might is right" (whether it's dressed up in religious language or not).
I prefer something objective like "the love of God", which comes against both atheistic subjectivism and religious fanaticism.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I prefer something objective like "the love of God", which comes against both atheistic subjectivism and religious fanaticism.
Okay, I gotta ask. How do you objectively prove "the love of God" exists? Given the difficulty of proving objectively that God Himself exists, an objective proof of his love would seem doubly difficult? And if its possible to make such a demonstration, why do so many people perversely persist in worshipping other gods?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
And should a statement about the objective nature of morality really start out with "I prefer . . ."? After all, if it's truly objective, your personal preferences should have nothing to do with it. Personal preference seems an awfully subjective measure of morality.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
Oh dear. It all seems to have dissolved into the usual "your worldview results in worser atrocities than mine" mudslinging. But nobody has addressed the question of whether one person (or group) imposing their views on another by force is (subjectively or objectively) wrong. This seems to be taken as given by both camps. Why is that?
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I prefer something objective like "the love of God", which comes against both atheistic subjectivism and religious fanaticism.
Not this side of heaven it doesn't.
People are far too good at claiming God for themselves and putting up their own ideas of morality as 'the love of God'.
Your little book on abortion is a case in point. You call an embryo a person and see no grey areas.
That's the problem, morality is what we do when we find ourselves in a grey area, and choose the best action we can for the sake of others - and there's rarely a cut and dried 'right' or 'wrong' way to go. Context and circumstances make such huge differences.
ETA - I think that's why Jesus, when he was put on the spot, put the question into context by telling a story.
'Who is my neighbour?' is a great starting point.
[ 18. July 2012, 18:39: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Ah, I see. Some forms of "subjective morality" are more equal than others. So it's OK to impose a certain form of morality on a Christian couple who happen to have views about sexuality.
No. It is acceptable to impose a certain form of behaviour on a group of people. That form of behaviour is "You do not get to try to force others away from the table" and applies to everyone. The Christian couple tried to deny the gay couple was a married couple. They were trying to force them away from the table. So they got slapped for it. They could have continued to disapprove silently and not changed their morality and that would have been fine.
Or they could have tried to force the gay couple away from the table, and by doing so broken the peace. And the peacekeepers came down on the head of the people who broke the peace and broke the law.
Tolerance isn't a "We should accept everything" rule. It's a "No kicking" or "No one gets to throw the first stone" sign.
And tolerance is what prevents all such moral issues becoming battles of might. Without the default of tolerance coming down against whichever side tried to use force first we'd be resorting to trench warfare. Instead, with tolerance, everyone gets protected from everyone else. The Christians chose to hit first in the case you linked and so they were the ones causing the breach of the peace.
quote:
It would be good if you could actually address that point, instead of waving straw men in front of me.
I am addressing all your points. And the point you claim is about professing Christians is about how the oxymoron you call "objective reality" actually works. You are just ignoring my points. You are ignoring that Might Makes Right is literally objective morality. You are ignoring that you do not have an objective understanding of
And then you are trying to claim the Afghanistan war to be an act of subjective morality. And then not understanding how tolerance works.
In short you do not have a single coherent argument left on the table.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Who said that I agreed with chemical castration? Please quote something I wrote to justify this comment.
Oh, you don't personally. But I justify the comment by your trying to claim moral subjectivity as a cause of the Iraq war. If you get to fling that one around as something moral relativists do (never mind that it was launched by a bunch of Neocons who emphatically reject what they consider 'Moral Relativism') then I get to fling chemical castration as a moral absolutist thing. And for the record I marched against both Afghanistan and Iraq (for all the good it did).
quote:
But if you want to trade horrors, then perhaps you might like to explain why the most innocent and vulnerable members of society have no say in this great "moral consensus"
1: Abortion belongs in Dead Horses
2: They get literally as much say as they are capable of having. I'd try asking them themselves what they want - but they do not have functional brains (or even brains at all in most cases). Which means they physically can not say anything, or even mean anything coherent.
Now is this the right approach? Possibly not. But asking people what they want is certainly a coherent one.
quote:
Yes, subjective morality is certainly about "might is right" (whether it's dressed up in religious language or not).
And so-called objective morality is nothing more than naked might makes right And claiming an invisible being that doesn't act as automatically stronger than anyone else.
Tolerance, however, takes the might out of the equation and puts it on the side of the keeping of the peace.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
