 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What's the point of anger, protests, indignation, petitions and justice...
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... 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
It seems that you've set up something of a strawman. There are some bits of morality that are essentially universal - homicide (generally), slander, rape (generally) and cowardice are condemned the world 'round, regardless of a society's religious grounding or lack thereof, though the exact details may vary (I think C.S. Lewis talks about this early on in Mere Christianity).
But beyond the specifics, a lot of rules are just made up and vary by culture. Observant Muslims consider the consumption of alcohol to be inherently immoral, as do some Christians, but other Christians and, generally speaking, Jews have no prohibition on alcohol consumption beyond a warning against excess. Christians consider remarriage after divorce to be a sin, but the Jews and the Muslims and most other cultures do not. Polygamy was once broadly accepted, and still is in some cultures, but is now condemned by most in the West.
Slavery was seen as permissible until only about 200 years ago, and now it is considered the height of moral depravity to profit in any way from forced labor.
Not even the biggies are universal moral absolutes. Every society prohibits as "murder" certain kinds of killings, but the devil is in the details. Is killing in combat 'murder'? State executions? As recently as the 20th century in countries who base their laws on the English tradition, it was impossible to rape one's own wife, because she had no right to refuse sex to her husband.
The law, even from a "natural law" standpoint, is fluid because at various times in history we view certain behaviors as immoral and at other times we view them as no big deal.
The moral laws that are the longest-lasting and most ubiquitous are those without which civil order is impossible. We can't have order when people regularly engage in vendetta killings with impunity, or where a person's home, possessions and family can be taken from him by a stronger neighbor without recourse. Those laws can just as easily be explained by some sociological or biological imperative to maintain group cohesion and cooperation as they can be explained by the existence of a natural law created by God.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale
Those laws can just as easily be explained by some sociological or biological imperative to maintain group cohesion and cooperation as they can be explained by the existence of a natural law created by God.
If the former explanation is true, then I assume you agree that any concept of "universal human rights" is a myth?
And that any expression of outrage at the morality of another culture - and indeed of another person - has no rational basis? If it does have a rational basis, then presumably there must exist some set of criteria independent of any culture by which we can judge whether any particular moral code is right or not? And if there is no such thing as "right" concerning morality, then what exactly could we become outraged about?
By the way... on the subject of details, context and application, I did actually write the following:
quote:
I agree entirely that the kind of "objective morality" that always prescribes certain fixed principles that are binding in every context, is wrong. Even the Bible does not promote that kind of morality, hence Jesus acknowledging that David was right to eat the shewbread that only the priests were permitted to eat, because he was hungry (the alleviation of hunger therefore trumping religious law). Or the nation of Israel being founded on the twelve tribes descended from men who were the product of bigamy and (technically according to NT teaching) adultery (i.e. Jacob's sexual liaisons). Or Rahab being praised in the New Testament for having performed a work, which involved lying with regard to the spies in Jericho. I could go on and on in the same vein...
--------------------
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:
I was arguing on the assumption that you are a rational being. Of course, you can think what you like, based on what you had for breakfast. But if you want to be logically consistent, then I guess it's not too much to expect you to reveal what your criteria are to judge the status of different moral positions. I've asked for this numerous times, but all I get is: "Because that's what I think. Period."
I mentioned two such criteria here. There are others.
quote:
Fine. You can say that, but at least it assures me that the philosophy which you espouse is irrational.
If you want to define rationality as only that which is codified in an objective external manner, then I proudly claim the title.
quote:
I am talking about putting a rational case, not putting a gun to anyone's head.
I wouldn't be putting forward a rational case in the interview you devised. I would be appealing to the moral sense of the audience in the hope that more of them agreed with me than with my opponent.
quote:
I really find it hard to understand how someone, in this scenario, could admit philosophically that his opponent's morality is just as valid as his own (which is what subjective morality actually implies), and then carry on trying to appeal to his audience to support his position.
Subjective morality does not imply that all moral stances are equal, it merely states that there is no morality outside of the human mind.
Besides which, even if I know that there's no external objective proof for my own moral code, I can still believe in it.
quote:
Going back to my example of Question Time with Nick Griffin: just imagine if Jack Straw or Bonny Greer came out with the following: "Nick Griffin's moral views are perfectly valid, because morality is entirely subjective and relative, but we just appeal to you to reject his policies and his party as evil and vile, even though we know that we cannot appeal to your minds, because we have no philosophical basis for condemning his outlook."
Why on earth would they say something like that, as opposed to "we believe the policies of the BNP are evil and vile"?
Though I'll agree with you on one thing - we can't convince people of our morality with reason. Morality is more of an emotional thing.
quote:
"Please support us in our work to combat child abuse, even though we know - and you also know - that child abuse isn't necessarily wrong. But we just appeal to you to take our side in this unresolvable issue, based on what you happen to feel like right now."
For fuck's sake. If I believe something is wrong then I believe it is wrong. That doesn't change just because I also adknowledge that there is no objective standard of morality to back it up or prove it. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
You've assumed that any act on an unwilling person is unacceptable.
No, I've merely noted that an act on an unwilling person is unacceptable to that person. And being so, it can never be said to be universally acceptable. This looks like elementary logic to me.
I'm with you. Since the person being done to is part of the universe, an act on them against their wishes cannot be universally acceptable. It would have been clearer to suggest that war rape (as currently defined) could theoretically become an acceptable social norm in all societies in the the absence of objective morality.
If you have a better illustration Alogon, I would welcome it.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If the former explanation is true, then I assume you agree that any concept of "universal human rights" is a myth?
I think that there can be, and is broad consensus on certain human rights. But I don't think the consensus is timeless or immutable. No society (with the exception perhaps of pure authoritarian hellholes like North Korea) around today views slavery as a permissible human state, or torture as an acceptable treatment of prisoners. But in the sixteenth century torture and slavery were commonplace and condoned openly by the churches and powers-that-were. Like I said, murder and theft are both universal and long-standing taboos, but with considerable flexibility regarding what killings were justified.
quote:
And that any expression of outrage at the morality of another culture - and indeed of another person - has no rational basis? If it does have a rational basis, then presumably there must exist some set of criteria independent of any culture by which we can judge whether any particular moral code is right or not? And if there is no such thing as "right" concerning morality, then what exactly could we become outraged about?
A vegetarian who abstains from consuming meat because he considers animal slaughter to be anathema has a rational basis for his outrage, in that as he perceives right and wrong, animals are entitled to a right to live. I don't think that animal slaughter is wrong and I feel no guilt or remorse for enjoying a hamburger. We can safely assume that the vegetarian isn't arbitrarily feigning outrage and that I am not a sociopath. There is no universal moral position on killing animals for food. Does that mean that neither of us is rational?
My moral beliefs are informed in part because of my upbringing, in part because of my Christian faith, and in part because of the society I grew up in. I'm sure that the Holy Spirit guides me to discern right from wrong, but I don't think that Christianity is "proved" by the existence of universal moral principles to which all people subscribe regardless of religion. To the small extent that all of humanity agrees on moral principles, those principles are equally susceptible of secular explanations as they are of appeal to a notion of "natural law."
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
I'll qualify my previous statements. I don't think there is such a thing as universal, immutable rights, but I think that there are certain qualities that are universal. Compassion, honesty, humility, courage, integrity, fairness/justice, temperance, wisdom, etc. are universal values to which a person can appeal to any other person when promoting certain moral and ethical policies.
Where people disagree is the application of these universal virtues to certain behaviors, in part because we come with different cultural assumptions about the character of our behaviors.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't have to go past your rape case, actually, because for a very long time the view was taken that a husband COULDN'T RAPE HIS WIFE. Once she's said 'I do', there was no capacity for her to say on a given night that she didn't.
It was taken as a matter of law, I suppose (perhaps as an effect of divorce being difficult to get and a great social stigma), but I doubt that the average husband was ever that insensitive.
And as a matter of law, I'm not so sure that it's a problem for my statement, as there are other examples. Do they refute me, or merely point up the great importance attached to certain decisions, one of which is marriage? It is understandable if a spouse would rather decline sex on certain occasions; but if these become the rule rather then the exception, he or she should has no right to count on staying married. An old friend, recently deceased on the verge of his hundredth birthday, once told me that long ago his wife had refused to have sex with him ever again. What's a guy to do? I have no idea why this happened, but that he continued to care for her until her dying day, if only for the kids, made him something of a saint IMHO.
If we don't think that we can keep a promise, then don't make it. Buying a house is a similar example. How much patience should a bank have with a borrower who explains that he just doesn't feel like paying his mortgate this month?
quote:
It is also perfectly possible in any particular case to have a situation where a woman is so beaten down psychologically, or even a whole group of women are beaten down psychologically, that they've accepted the idea that their consent doesn't really matter and that if a man wants what he wants, he'll just take it.
The way you put it demonstrates your disagreement with such subjugation, which I share. But there is considerable wiggle room in whom that statement would apply to. Some feminists hold that no woman would ever have sex with a man unless she had been beaten down or deceived psychologically. Age-of-consent has also been grist for some remarkable exercises in Newspeak.
[ 24. July 2012, 19:26: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
And that any expression of outrage at the morality of another culture - and indeed of another person - has no rational basis? If it does have a rational basis, then presumably there must exist some set of criteria independent of any culture by which we can judge whether any particular moral code is right or not? And if there is no such thing as "right" concerning morality, then what exactly could we become outraged about?
A vegetarian who abstains from consuming meat because he considers animal slaughter to be anathema has a rational basis for his outrage, in that as he perceives right and wrong, animals are entitled to a right to live. I don't think that animal slaughter is wrong and I feel no guilt or remorse for enjoying a hamburger. We can safely assume that the vegetarian isn't arbitrarily feigning outrage and that I am not a sociopath. There is no universal moral position on killing animals for food. Does that mean that neither of us is rational?
If I were a committed vegetarian, I would probably feel and express outrage at the practice of animal slaughter. I may not have thought through my views in a philosophical way, and I may be driven entirely by my emotions. But emotions can be conceptualised; in other words, there are ideas behind emotions, even if those ideas are subconscious. So this is what my feelings would be saying: "I am personally repulsed by the practice of animal slaughter. I believe that 'meat is murder'. I find it outrageous and horrifying that animals should be used as food for humans."
As I say, these ideas - whether articulated to myself or not - would drive my feelings. Now let's just draw out the logic of these ideas. Would I be saying that I am outraged at the practice of animal slaughter but only as it pertained to me? Would I be expressing revulsion merely at the thought of me eating meat, but I would be quite happy for others to eat it? Of course not! My moral outrage is driven by a deep-seated belief that animal slaughter is wrong for anyone and in any situation. In other words, the legitimacy of my outrage is based on my belief that the slaughter of animals (especially for food) is universally wrong.
And the converse is true. As a non-vegetarian (which is, in fact, what I am), I am (mildly) outraged at the idea that anyone should be banned from eating meat (other than for legitimate medical reasons). In other words, my outrage is based on a belief that it is universally right that everyone should have the freedom to eat meat, while respecting the freedom of those who choose not to. It would be absurd for me to say the following: "I am outraged at the imposition of vegetarian ethics on people, but actually my outrage only applies to me and not to anyone else." How self-centred.
Now, of course, both these rationally held "universal moral principles" are contradictory and they both cannot therefore be true. One of them must be false. And it is quite possible that neither party has any evidence at all to prove that either of these principles is, in fact, universally valid. I guess you could say that the respective principles are held "by faith" - or perhaps "by intuition".
Nevertheless, they are both universal principles within the minds of those who hold them. So I guess you could say that they are "subjectively held universal principles", which sounds self-contradictory.
This is clearly a paradox. How do we make sense of it?
If we believe that morality is merely an emergent property of matter being configured in a certain way by an entirely blind, mindless and amoral process, then it is, by necessity, subjective, since the only conceivable source of morality is the human mind - or brain (to put it materialistically). Since different minds think different things, then this does not help us to perceive a consistent moral position, and even if a universally consistent moral position did emerge materialistically, there would be no necessity for it to do so.
But the reality of our lives shows us that moral convictions make no sense unless those with such convictions believe that their moral position is objectively "right", as I have shown in my vegetarianism example.
In other words, the philosophical naturalist either can have no moral convictions, or he has to lie in relation to his philosophy in order to make his moral convictions work (by claiming that some principles are right and others wrong while believing that morality is essentially subjective). I am well aware that someone like Marvin will say that such a person can just say "I am right about this" while claiming that morality is subjective. Anyone can say anything if they like, just in the same way that I can write here that "Elvis Presley is the Queen of England"! There is no law against that absurd sequence of letters! But I can hardly pretend to be rational by writing this.
This paradox suggests to me that there is indeed an objective basis to morality, but we fallible human beings have to work it out. So we have a strong sense that there must be objective and universal right and wrong (at the level of basic principles), but we disagree on what those principles are - or how they should be applied in most if not all situations.
This arrangement may not seem particularly satisfactory to many people - whether on the naturalistic side or the religious fundamentalist and especially theocratic side, but it seems that this is the reality that God has given us. Reality is inescapably moral, but we have to work out how to live out that morality. I don't pretend that it's easy.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
It seems to me that the subjective/objective split is not the real disagreement in these exchanges. Rather the line is between moral or ethical naturalists and non naturalists.
You may well be right. Certainly I'm coming to the conclusion that the argument is really over whether the letter O is better than the letters SU.
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx
It seems to me that the subjective/objective split is not the real disagreement in these exchanges. Rather the line is between moral or ethical naturalists and non naturalists.
Am I arguing against naturalism in these exchanges? Is that my agenda?
Answer: Yes, most certainly. Guilty as charged.
(BTW... I assume you're the Grokesx from the Beeb?
If so, then you may or may not know that I am your old sparring partner. You know - the Dunning-Kruger one with the stupid Latin name!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Anyway... whether you are or not, welcome to the Ship.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@LSV/EE
Thanks for the welcome
Yeah, you mentioned this place once a while back. Now Will's blog seems to have shut up shop, I thought I'd wibble here instead. I dare say we'll manage to argue long and boringly at the arse end of a good few threads as per usual.
Without the Auntie's moderation policy, I'll try to watch my potty mouth. The typos will be just as bad, though.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't have to go past your rape case, actually, because for a very long time the view was taken that a husband COULDN'T RAPE HIS WIFE. Once she's said 'I do', there was no capacity for her to say on a given night that she didn't.
It was taken as a matter of law, I suppose (perhaps as an effect of divorce being difficult to get and a great social stigma), but I doubt that the average husband was ever that insensitive.
I doubt that the average husband a few centuries back thought there was the slightest need to check whether his wife was in the mood this evening. Being available for sex was part of her job description.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo
If it's possible for a person to rationally reject the principle and choose another one, then how can you say they're objective?
Well, I would want to know why such a person, supposedly of "sound mind", wanted to reject the principle of, say, "do not commit murder". I suspect Harold Shipman was "rational" in a way, otherwise his crimes would not have eluded detection for so long. He was clearly able to think logically about how to cover his tracks.
Just because a concept can be rejected does not mean that it is not objectively valid.
Murder is a dreadful example to pick, because the word 'murder' simply means unlawful killing. It's circular.
Try 'do not kill'. And you will find a variety of opinions as to the exceptions to this rule, and which ones are justifiable so that the killing is not murder. Self-defence. Defence of others. Capital punishment. War. Provocation (an excuse which is now being eliminated in many places).
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo
Murder is a dreadful example to pick, because the word 'murder' simply means unlawful killing. It's circular.
Well waddya know! You're right! My bad.
But since you clearly tacitly acknowledge that logic is objectively valid (otherwise you would not have been able to call me out on my little bit of circularity), perhaps you may also like to preach the gospel of logic to those on this thread who are implicitly saying: "I adamantly believe this is right. I express my moral indignation at those who hold a contrary position. But actually I admit that they're not wrong!" (Which is what the protests and moral indignation of the moral subjectivist boils down to).
Yes, you've got me on a little error. Now show some integrity and go for the biggy.
Or are there different rules for different people?
--------------------
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:
Nevertheless, they are both universal principles within the minds of those who hold them. So I guess you could say that they are "subjectively held universal principles", which sounds self-contradictory.
What you're really describing is the subjectively-held belief that something should be a universal principle. There's no contradiction or paradox when it's phrased that way.
quote:
If we believe that morality is merely an emergent property of matter being configured in a certain way by an entirely blind, mindless and amoral process, then it is, by necessity, subjective, since the only conceivable source of morality is the human mind - or brain (to put it materialistically).
Indeed
quote:
Since different minds think different things, then this does not help us to perceive a consistent moral position, and even if a universally consistent moral position did emerge materialistically, there would be no necessity for it to do so.
1) why do we need to percieve a universally consistent moral position?
2) if such a position does in fact exist (as I think can be argued for morals like "don't murder"), does it matter whether it was necessary for it to do so?
--------------------
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 EtymologicalEvangelical:
...those on this thread who are implicitly saying: "I adamantly believe this is right. I express my moral indignation at those who hold a contrary position. But actually I admit that they're not wrong!"
I adamantly believe that sweetcorn is disgusting. I cannot understand how anyone could find it to be delicious. Nevertheless, I do not think those who do find it delicious are wrong to do so - but that doesn't stop me wanting to rid the world of its hideousness!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo
Murder is a dreadful example to pick, because the word 'murder' simply means unlawful killing. It's circular.
Well waddya know! You're right! My bad.
But since you clearly tacitly acknowledge that logic is objectively valid (otherwise you would not have been able to call me out on my little bit of circularity), perhaps you may also like to preach the gospel of logic to those on this thread who are implicitly saying: "I adamantly believe this is right. I express my moral indignation at those who hold a contrary position. But actually I admit that they're not wrong!" (Which is what the protests and moral indignation of the moral subjectivist boils down to).
Yes, you've got me on a little error. Now show some integrity and go for the biggy.
Or are there different rules for different people?
I actually think Marvin has addressed this as well as it can be addressed. There's a subtle but logically critical difference between arguing for your favoured point of view because of what you consider to be its advantages, and arguing for your favoured point of view because it's objectively right.
And that word 'believe' in there is also important. 'I believe' is a subjective statment. It can be a really, strong, passionate belief, but the form of words 'I believe' is at its core about your opinion.
And the reverse of that is inevitably to say 'I believe you're wrong' not to flat out say 'you're wrong'. For you to turn that into 'I admit they're not wrong' is really just to turn it into a form of 'they're not objectively wrong because I don't think there's an objective standard'. In no way would it preclude arguments along the lines of 'I think you should change your mind and here's why'.
The fundamental difference here is simply that the goal of a subjective argument is to persuade, and the goal of an objective argument is to prove.
PS Logic is 'objectively' valid... that's a whole other can of worms right there. And it's giving me minor flashbacks to previous conversations, because logic, like so many other fields, relies on axioms - things that are assumed and not capable of being separately proved.
Also, it's not clear to me that my argument was one of 'logic' so much as one of definition...
PPS How exactly do you measure the size of logical errors, anyway?...
[ 25. July 2012, 09:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
"I adamantly believe this is right. I express my moral indignation at those who hold a contrary position. But actually I admit that they're not wrong!"
There is only a logical inconsistency there if you insist on taking 'right' and 'wrong' in antithetical senses. But that's not what the moral subjectivist does. The moral subjectivist means by 'right' 'right according to my moral standards', and by 'wrong' 'wrong according to the view from nowhere's moral standards'. And so there is no inconsistency.
There is, of course, an inconsistency from the point of view of the listener - who doesn't need to care about the moral subjectivist's moral standards - which is a problem for moral subjectivism. But that's a different problem.
--------------------
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
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I actually think Marvin has addressed this as well as it can be addressed. There's a subtle but logically critical difference between arguing for your favoured point of view because of what you consider to be its advantages, and arguing for your favoured point of view because it's objectively right.
This mention of favoured views and advantages also points to another aspect which is perhaps why EE so often ends up where he does. He seems to be painting questions of morality as a black and white duality of absolutes where one answer is "right" and the other "wrong". But actually in most scenarios we hold a position because we think it is better than alternative views. In that case there is every chance that we may be persuaded that a further, new, alternative may be better still, or than one of the existing alternatives may seem better with reconsideration of the evidence (or stronger tugging on the emotions).
If you look at things as comparatives rather than as absolutes such as best, worst, right or wrong then you are much less likely to conclude that morality is objective.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
If you look at things as comparatives rather than as absolutes such as best, worst, right or wrong then you are much less likely to conclude that morality is objective.
No - that doesn't follow (at least not in the sense that EE is using 'objective' and 'subjective').
Comparatives and absolutes are just as meaningful or not if you think morality is independent of you as a moralist or if you think it isn't.
A moral subjectivist is somewhat less likely to think that certain actions should be avoided for their own sake: moral imperatives - e.g. you may not torture even terrorists, you may not ever have sex with someone other than your spouse, etc - are less likely to appeal to a subjectivist. But that's not a hard and fast rule.
Counterintuitively, I think the most likely kinds of deontological rule to be adopted by asubjectivist might adopt are those where an action is accompanied by a strong 'yuk' reaction. So, subjectivists, abstracting from historical reasons, are just as likely as moral objectivists to have stringent rules about what kinds of sexual activity are acceptable.
--------------------
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
It seems to me that the subjective/objective split is not the real disagreement in these exchanges. Rather the line is between moral or ethical naturalists and non naturalists.
You may well be right. Certainly I'm coming to the conclusion that the argument is really over whether the letter O is better than the letters SU.
Something like that. In fact I see three camps here and a lot of fire from within the middle camp (the third one below) that more or less agrees with itself.
1: "True Moral Objectivists". Deontologists. People who believe that there is an explicit and codified set of rules that we can follow and the act of following those rules makes it right because those rules are right.
2: "True Moral Subjectivists". People from the extreme school of post-modernism that threw the baby out of the bathwater and believe that there is no such thing as objective reality - everything is a social construction. (Or one or two other possibilities).
3: "The muddling through". People who believe that some things are objectively true, but that we can not ever have enough knowledge ourselves to be able to objectively behave perfectly morally in every situation. We can just do the best we can. We're both part of the muddling through.
Oh, and
4: Nihilists. People who don't believe in morality at all. Or that there's any code that matters beyond "Want, take, have, avoid punishment"
And @Drewthealexander, the rape example is not theoretical. See the example of "conjugal rights"/marital rape.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
1: "True Moral Objectivists". Deontologists. People who believe that there is an explicit and codified set of rules that we can follow and the act of following those rules makes it right because those rules are right.
A deontologist needn't believe that there's an explicit and codified set of rules. See Kant, for an obvious counterexample, or Scanlon or Rawls. For that matter, there's nothing logically preventing a non-realist ('subjectivist') from being a deontologist. (Emotivists generally won't be; contractarians generally will be.)
Other ethical realists ('objectivists') include classical utilitarians and eudaimonists. G E Moore was a consequentialist intuitionist.
The archetypal non-realist ('subjectivist') is David Hume.
I propose talking about realism vs non-realism instead of objectivism vs subjectivism since I think 'objectivism' vs 'subjectivism' raise too many irrelevant associations for most people.
Ethical non-realists:
1. Contractarians(*). Believe moral statements are rules constructed to keep society going. (? Constructed by which part of society for whose benefit?)
2. Emotivists. Believe moral statements are expressions of emotion (approval or disapproval) or else are implicit commands. (? Isn't the point of doing so voided if the other party recognises this?)
3. Fictionalists. Believe that moral statements are fictional as if statements. (? As if what? It's hard to see how you can have fictional moral statements that aren't derived from something non-fictional.)
Ethical realists:
1. Divine Command theorists. Good and evil or right and wrong are what God says they are. (? Which revelation do you pick? Also, few revelations have much in the way of detailed casuistry attached.)
2. Formalists. Believe that moral rules are derived from basic properties of rationality. (? Runs the risk of being purely empty, or set up to give the required answer.)
3. Intuitionists. Believe moral properties or values are out there and we can just sense them. (? How? And how do we explain disagreement then?)
4. Naturalists. Believe moral properties are derived from natural facts of some kind. (? How do we get across the is-ought divide? And what natural facts determine is moral is highly ambiguous.)
The above are meta-ethical divisions: they say what kind of thing ethics is and what it's talking about. Substantive ethics - whether ethics is deontological or consequentialist or virtue-based - is to at least some extent logically independent of most of the above.
(*) Contractarianism and contractualism are used interchangeably to describe what I think are two quite different types of metaethical theory. There are those who think ethics describes what an ideal community of rational agents would decide - Rawlsian contractarians, and then there are those who think ethics describes what a real world group of human beings have implicitly decided - Hobbesian contractarians. I'm referring here to the Hobbesian type. I think it's better viewed as a form of non-realism, although I can see arguments the other way.
[ 26. July 2012, 15:38: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Something like that. In fact I see three camps here and a lot of fire from within the middle camp (the third one below) that more or less agrees with itself.
I'd be tempted to (put/)split 4 with True Nihilists as a subgroup of 2.
And have a subgroup of 1 for Richard III and Huck Finn ("since I have determined to be a villain", "fine I'll go to hell") and other people who believe in a real right and wrong but go against what they perceive it to be.
But there's definitely many agreement over the actual actions, (in analogy) we might disagree as to whether the earth goes round the sun or the sun round the earth but we can tell which constellation Jupiter is going to be in.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
...those on this thread who are implicitly saying: "I adamantly believe this is right. I express my moral indignation at those who hold a contrary position. But actually I admit that they're not wrong!"
I adamantly believe that sweetcorn is disgusting. I cannot understand how anyone could find it to be delicious. Nevertheless, I do not think those who do find it delicious are wrong to do so - but that doesn't stop me wanting to rid the world of its hideousness!
Say that again, but substitute "child rape" for sweetcorn. Really? You want to compare moral outrage to food preference?
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
1: "True Moral Objectivists". Deontologists. People who believe that there is an explicit and codified set of rules that we can follow and the act of following those rules makes it right because those rules are right.
A deontologist needn't believe that there's an explicit and codified set of rules. See Kant, for an obvious counterexample, or Scanlon or Rawls. For that matter, there's nothing logically preventing a non-realist ('subjectivist') from being a deontologist. (Emotivists generally won't be; contractarians generally will be.)
Point.
quote:
Other ethical realists ('objectivists') include classical utilitarians and eudaimonists.
It might be wise to avoid the term Objectivist when talking about ethics and philosophy as it also refers to a philosophical school of thought - and not one most philosophers want to be associated with.
quote:
I propose talking about realism vs non-realism instead of objectivism vs subjectivism since I think 'objectivism' vs 'subjectivism' raise too many irrelevant associations for most people.
Might be better ![[Smile]](smile.gif) My critique of the categories you outline may just be a personal one - but I'm simulataniously a Contractarian, a Formalist, an Intuitionist, and a Naturalist.
Actually what I am, I think, is a pragmatist. I believe that there are ultimately two schools of ethics - those seeking moral guidance and those seeking moral justification (or "the search for a superior justification for self interest" - I'm sure I'm quoting someone but can't google it).
And ultimately from my observation it doesn't matter where those seeking moral guidance set out from. They almost all appear to end up at a version of The Golden Rule. I get there numerous ways, including atheist epistemology (and know of other ways there that I don't follow; notably Divine Command theory).
And the very diversity of routes there that reassures me that it's the right place for a foundation. (I also distrust the Divine Command group because it appears to only be by coincidence that many of ended up here, and they are scattered all over the map).
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
...those on this thread who are implicitly saying: "I adamantly believe this is right. I express my moral indignation at those who hold a contrary position. But actually I admit that they're not wrong!"
I adamantly believe that sweetcorn is disgusting. I cannot understand how anyone could find it to be delicious. Nevertheless, I do not think those who do find it delicious are wrong to do so - but that doesn't stop me wanting to rid the world of its hideousness!
Say that again, but substitute "child rape" for sweetcorn. Really? You want to compare moral outrage to food preference?
There is at least a theoretical argument that even deciding that child rape is important and that food choices aren't is a moral choice. Heck, look at the Bible. Quite a bit of text spent on foods that mustn't be eaten. Not much text on the age of consent that I can recall.
Our priorities have shifted. What is it that makes current priorities 'right' and theirs 'wrong'?
[ 26. July 2012, 22:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
Say that again, but substitute "child rape" for sweetcorn. Really? You want to compare moral outrage to food preference?
In terms of the mental processes that cause us to come to conclusions about what is right and wrong, yes.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is at least a theoretical argument that even deciding that child rape is important and that food choices aren't is a moral choice. Heck, look at the Bible. Quite a bit of text spent on foods that mustn't be eaten. Not much text on the age of consent that I can recall.
Our priorities have shifted. What is it that makes current priorities 'right' and theirs 'wrong'?
Progress?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
Say that again, but substitute "child rape" for sweetcorn. Really? You want to compare moral outrage to food preference?
In terms of the mental processes that cause us to come to conclusions about what is right and wrong, yes.
There's the little issue of consent here and the one of protecting children - and there are a lot of ways, both empirical and logical, to get to the idea that consent is pretty damn important, and more to the idea that children should be protected.
There is, on the other hand, precisely one mental process that gets you to the idea that sweetcorn should be wiped out.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
There's the little issue of consent here and the one of protecting children - and there are a lot of ways, both empirical and logical, to get to the idea that consent is pretty damn important, and more to the idea that children should be protected.
There is, on the other hand, precisely one mental process that gets you to the idea that sweetcorn should be wiped out.
Absolutely. There are many reasons why child rape is wrong (many of which are themselves products of several individual moral processes (and so ad infinitum)), and only one reason why sweetcorn is wrong. That, I am sure, goes a long way to determining the difference in severity that we perceive between the two issues.
Nevertheless, when all the rationalising has been stripped away it still eventually comes back to "I don't like this" in both cases.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There are many reasons why child rape is wrong (many of which are themselves products of several individual moral processes (and so ad infinitum)), and only one reason why sweetcorn is wrong. That, I am sure, goes a long way to determining the difference in severity that we perceive between the two issues.
Nevertheless, when all the rationalising has been stripped away it still eventually comes back to "I don't like this" in both cases.
I think you are being disingenuous here. If you saw a child being raped, every fibre of your being would be screaming for the perpetrator to stop. You wouldn't have that reaction to seeing a person eating sweetcorn, or even to a person encouraging a child to eat sweetcorn. The fact that you dislike both things to varying degrees, does not mean that they are of the same category.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
I think you are being disingenuous here. If you saw a child being raped, every fibre of your being would be screaming for the perpetrator to stop.
Tell that to the Penn State coaching staff...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Nevertheless, when all the rationalising has been stripped away it still eventually comes back to "I don't like this" in both cases.
Like hell it does! In the baby's case it comes back to "This is hurting a living baby." And I consider that to matter more than whatever revulsion I may (and indeed do) have about the abuse.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
An awful lot of you are using circular reasoning to tell Marvin what he would feel, without articulating WHY he would feel it.
That's his point, really.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There is at least a theoretical argument that even deciding that child rape is important and that food choices aren't is a moral choice. Heck, look at the Bible. Quite a bit of text spent on foods that mustn't be eaten. Not much text on the age of consent that I can recall.
Our priorities have shifted. What is it that makes current priorities 'right' and theirs 'wrong'?
Progress?
Arguably, yes. Although 'change' would be a more neutral term that wouldn't involve outright asserting that our priorities are the 'better' ones. Just because we're sure that they are.
For one thing, our food supply is a lot safer. Less to worry about there.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
An awful lot of you are using circular reasoning to tell Marvin what he would feel, without articulating WHY he would feel it.
That's his point, really.
For sure.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian
This mention of favoured views and advantages also points to another aspect which is perhaps why EE so often ends up where he does. He seems to be painting questions of morality as a black and white duality of absolutes where one answer is "right" and the other "wrong". But actually in most scenarios we hold a position because we think it is better than alternative views.
A rather simplistic and naive reading of my comments, which fails to acknowledge that I have affirmed that there are many moral issues which are relative to context, and I have clearly explained that objective morality does not imply any kind of legalistic straitjacket that is imposed without reference to circumstances.
I have also asked (in my post which I linked to above) how it's possible to ascertain whether one moral principle is "better" than another in the absence of any kind of objective criteria by which we can make such a judgment.
I am all for improvement. But what is "improvement"? How is it defined? On what basis, if that basis itself is also entirely subjective?
It's ludicrous to say that "a" is better than "b" if there is no independent standard by which to measure one against the other. I would have thought that was obvious.
--------------------
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's ludicrous to say that "a" is better than "b" if there is no independent standard by which to measure one against the other. I would have thought that was obvious.
Clearly it isn't obvious. Probably because it's complete rubbish.
Is there an independent standard by which to measure how good music is? No. But people still think one band is better than another.
Is there an independent standard by which to measure how good art is? No. But people still think one painting is better than another.
Is there an independent standard by which to measure fashion? No. But people still think one outfit is better than another.
Need I go on? It is quite clearly possible to say that "a" is better than "b" without having an independent standard by which to measure one against the other.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
It's ludicrous to say that "a" is better than "b" if there is no independent standard by which to measure one against the other. I would have thought that was obvious.
Clearly it isn't obvious. Probably because it's complete rubbish.
Is there an independent standard by which to measure how good music is? No. But people still think one band is better than another.
Is there an independent standard by which to measure how good art is? No. But people still think one painting is better than another.
Is there an independent standard by which to measure fashion? No. But people still think one outfit is better than another.
Need I go on? It is quite clearly possible to say that "a" is better than "b" without having an independent standard by which to measure one against the other.
Yes, you do need to go on, because you have not bothered to give an example that actually concerns morality.
Funny, but I thought that that was what this thread was supposed to be about!
I quite agree that you can dream up all sorts of examples that have no moral relevance, which, as you may remember, was what I referred to in the OP concerning taste for different foods. I explained right at the beginning of this thread that it is nonsense to compare moral issues with personal tastes.
Personal taste is something of no relevance to anyone else. Morality is.
So clearly your analogies are totally irrelevant.
Do feel free to have another go...
--------------------
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:
Yes, you do need to go on, because you have not bothered to give an example that actually concerns morality.
You said it's ludicrous to say that "a" is better than "b" if there is no independent standard by which to measure one against the other. I provided three examples of situations where it is not, in fact, ludicrous to say that at all.
Perhaps you should explain why morality is an exception?
quote:
I explained right at the beginning of this thread that it is nonsense to compare moral issues with personal tastes.
No you didn't. What you said in the OP boils down to "because we feel really strongly about (some) moral issues, they must therefore be based on an independent and objective standard".
The logic there is sketchy, to say the least.
quote:
Personal taste is something of no relevance to anyone else. Morality is.
This is an interesting thing for you to have said. Why is your personal moral code any more relevant to me than your taste in clothes or music?
I've long suspected that the underlying question behind all this is not so much "how can we know what's good if morality is all in our heads", but "how can we get others to convert to our moral code without an external authority with which to convince them". This comment of yours seems to support that view.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
Isn't EE's point that a personal moral code is of no relevance to others, whereas we mostly all agree that morality is relevant to the whole of society, which itself points to morality being of a different category to matters of taste.
The quesion then is, how has this category of feelings/behaviour arisen? And one of the proposed answers is that there is an objecive standard, to which we all feel bound in some unconscious way, and this in turn points to the existence of God.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
we mostly all agree that morality is relevant to the whole of society
Only in as much as we want to have a society at all. Having a society requires set rules (laws), and as those rules will apply to everyone everyone will be interested in how they are structured.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
The quesion then is, how has this category of feelings/behaviour arisen? And one of the proposed answers is that there is an objecive standard, to which we all feel bound in some unconscious way, and this in turn points to the existence of God.
Of course, there has been active research into more naturalistic foundations of a moral compass. One of my favorite authors on this topic is Frans de Waal. His book, The Age of Empathy is a wonderful read that I have recommended before. FWIW
--Tom Clune
[ 30. July 2012, 17:05: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
Isn't EE's point that a personal moral code is of no relevance to others, whereas we mostly all agree that morality is relevant to the whole of society, which itself points to morality being of a different category to matters of taste.
From what I can understand of EE's point, it's that there's no such thing as a "personal moral code", there's just one universal morality that everyone follows to a greater or lesser extent.
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
The quesion then is, how has this category of feelings/behaviour arisen?
A more interesting question is how EE manages to distinguish between categories. For instance, he holds dietary preferences (kosher, halal, etc.) or clothing (modesty codes) to be amoral in nature. Yet others consider such things to have a moral dimension. In many cases, a moral dimension dictated by God. What non-arbitrary criteria are used to make this distinction?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
Obviously I can't speak for EE, but to my mind, there is a very clear distinction between moral rules (eg put God first) and how they are expressed (eg don't eat bacon, even though it tastes amazing because God wants you to stand out from other people groups).
There is widespread agreement about moral rules (which basically boil down to the golden rule) but loads of disagreement over the detail of how they are to be applied. Hence, some think state execution is fine, others think not; some enjoy bacon sandwiches without guilt or fear, others abstain.
Incidentally, ther is a moral dimension to food amd clothing, but not in relation to what I find tasty or beautiful. The moral dimension lies in how those things affect others. So I would say it is immoral for me to eat your pet poodle, and also immoral for me to wear clothing that would tempt somebody
to sin. Not because eating dogs or showing off my shapely thighs is wrong in itself, but failing to love others, causing them grief or spiritual harm is morally wrong.
[ 30. July 2012, 18:59: Message edited by: angelfish ]
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
There is widespread agreement about moral rules (which basically boil down to the golden rule) but loads of disagreement over the detail of how they are to be applied.
As I suggested upstream, this seems to confuse language and morality. If you say that everybody agrees that murder is wrong, what you are really saying is that everybody agrees that the word murder includes an aspect of moral opprobrium. To say that murder is right is to fail to understand the language.
If people don't agree on what counts as murder, it is precisely the morality that they do not agree about. This isn't an agreement on a moral principle and disagreement on how to apply it -- it is a disagreement on a moral principle. If you think that honor killings are right and true and I find them to be murder, we disagree on basic moral principles.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
But it seems to me that people who engage in such practices as honour killings don't think they are right and good. Isn't it regarded as a sorry end to a sorry affair, rather than something to delight in? Doesn't a father need to steel himself to do it? Wouldn't they rather not be in the position where they believe it is their duty to perpetrate this act? I don't know anyody who thinks this is a good thing to do, but I just don't believe it would give anyone but the most warped of people any joy or delight.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
But it seems to me that people who engage in such practices as honour killings don't think they are right and good. Isn't it regarded as a sorry end to a sorry affair, rather than something to delight in? Doesn't a father need to steel himself to do it? Wouldn't they rather not be in the position where they believe it is their duty to perpetrate this act? I don't know anyody who thinks this is a good thing to do, but I just don't believe it would give anyone but the most warped of people any joy or delight.
So you think that joy and delight are the hallmarks of moral behavior? We really have nothing in common.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
No, they are the hallmarks of somebody thinking something is, as you put it, "right and true". My point really is that we all from time to time do things that we actually don't feel are moral, due to pressure from others, circumstances etc. I postulate that honour killings fall into this category. If there is squeamishness at carrying out an honour killing, that points to a universally held view that they are, fundamentally, wrong - even though people may be conditioned to think they are necessary.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
No, they are the hallmarks of somebody thinking something is, as you put it, "right and true".
No they are not. Anyone who, e.g., took delight in executing a murderer would probably be seen as unfit for the job, even by those people who believe that executing, say, the Colorado shooter is right and true.
The plain fact is that anything that we find delightful is not moral. It may not be immoral, but morality only applies to those things that we would not care to do otherwise. If we have no interest in stealing a fancy sports car, it is not a moral act for us to refrain from doing so -- it is simply a matter of not being interested in the car.
Those folks who would really love to take that puppy for a spin, and are confident that they would not be caught if they did so, but nonetheless refrain from taking the car are acting morally (you may not share their morality on this, but they are clearly not motivated by narrow self-serving in their behavior). Doing what you want to do anyway is hardly a virtue -- it's just a pleasure.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| 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
