Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, one does not have to be a theist to believe in moral objectivism. You've given me a few tips on how to flourish under a social contract, but not any argument for relativism. Also, I'm afraid your definition of relativism is confused, judging what to do on case basis is not a proof of relativism, it's a view called moral situationism. This is completely compatible with moral objectivism.
I couldn't really extract an argument for relativism anywhere in your post. Your points deal with altruism, self-interest and contract. Relativism is an ontological thesis, it suggests that moral values are social/individual constructions, not an objective feature of our universe. Is this what you want to argue?
I got the impression of making a semantic difference rather than an actual one. Could I perhaps pass the ball to you and ask just what apart from 'moral situationism/social-individual constructions' one can point to as the basis for an objective morality, let alone an absolute morality? Don't be shy. If I can be proven unsound, I will thank you for it.
I am aware of basics that it is wrong to kill, steal, rape etc but they are instincts of self -preservation and don't always apply to others we may not care about too much (especially if they are perceived as a threat to our national security and their females are not bad -looking) and thus of course it becomes a bit relative, as I say.
Over to you.
Btw Thanks for your words, Nate. (1) I thought you said it better than I did, but I was trying to point out that you and beep were actually talking the same thing.
Ps. I would have thought that we could take it for granted that human moral codes and behaviour were not an objective feature of the universe except in the evolution -derived existence of natural physical processes, but then one could say that of literature, music and art. As to 'ontological' I am not sure if the term even applies but I will re-check the definition and think about it.
Ok. It is about what exists, essentially. So what does 'exist' mean? Morality exists as a humans construct (based as I say on some evolved instincts which are not in themselves either absolute or necessarily moral -the codes were invented to introduce a way of reducing conflict of interests escalating into real conflict -as it so regrettably frequently does) just like art, music, writing, architecture, civilization. It all 'exists' sure, but it is not objective. It is what we have devised, based on these as yet imperfectly understood natural impulses which are common to us all - we all have art, music, dance and literature- or story - telling at least, but they are only existent because we are. They are real, but if we did not exist, they would not. They are not an objective feature of the universe. They are the constructs ONLY of humanity, even though they are indeed common to humanity and look objective and have even been regarded as originating from God.
The ontological argument is (as I suspected at the start of the post) essentially the same as the one I made and makes no difference.
(1) A phooptnote! A phoopnote! I don't have a blog. Anything other than computer as a typewriter with a screen instead of a sheet of paper frightens the bejaysus outa me. And I spend too long in front of the laptop lecturing all you young whippersnappers with my rambling opinions...
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-23-2012 at 03:18 AM..
First, I wrote a blog about (and to) Leah Libresco. I'm hoping she'll respond, but we'll see. It's a lot to chew...
Second, about morality... I'll simply quote what I said in that blog here:
Quote:
To end, I actually struggle, like you, with morality. I tend to believe that morality is relative, and I argue constantly from that perspective. However, I do admit that there’s an arbitrariness of morality if it is relative that I am constantly struggling to square away. So I can appreciate your dilemma from that regard.
However, I simply can’t believe that morality is objective because of humanity. No matter what, it seems quite obvious that morality is, indeed, relative. Different cultures have different morals, as do different time periods. When you study both human history and culture, you realize that morality is a zeitgeist. Things that were once considered moral are no longer so today, things considered moral today were not considered so once upon a time, and even in the present, different people have different ideas of what is and what is not moral (consider the current fight over abortion: it is certainly a moral issue from the point-of-view of those who are “pro-life”).
Hitler is a popular argument against moral relativity, but I always point out that Hitler himself did not believe he was evil. He truly believed that what he was doing was moral, good, and right. He truly believed that he what he was doing was best for Germany and the world. He was not some comic book villain who did it all “in the name of evil.”
The only reason I think Hitler was wrong is because of my belief that you have the right to do whatever you want as long as you do not violate the right of somebody else to do whatever they want. Hitler violated that very right of nearly 13 million people. I don’t believe he should have. But if I could argue with Hitler today, I know he’d disagree with me.
And that is the point of moral relativism. I agree that it is not emotionally satisfying, and so I understand why people would judge such a position by saying “you can’t judge if something is good or bad”. I say we can because of evolution, because I do think the fact that we evolved to be a social species, and thus we evolved to be altruistic, and we culturally developed our morals from that basic altruistic instinct, is a good enough explanation of the origins of morality that it satisfies my problems with the idea of moral relativity.
Now you understand why I'm a moral relativist. I think a cursory study of human past and modern culture kind of proves the arbitrariness/relative nature of morality.
I got the impression of making a semantic difference rather than an actual one. Could I perhaps pass the ball to you and ask just what apart from 'moral situationism/social-individual constructions' one can point to as the basis for an objective morality, let alone an absolute morality? Don't be shy. If I can be proven unsound, I will thank you for it.
I am aware of basics that it is wrong to kill, steal, rape etc but they are instincts of self -preservation and don't always apply to others we may not care about too much (especially if they are perceived as a threat to our national security and their females are not bad -looking) and thus of course it becomes a bit relative, as I say.
Over to you.
Btw Thanks for your words, Nate. (1) I thought you said it better than I did, but I was trying to point out that you and beep were actually talking the same thing.
Ps. I would have thought that we could take it for granted that human moral codes and behaviour were not an objective feature of the universe except in the evolution -derived existence of natural physical processes, but then one could say that of literature, music and art. As to 'ontological' I am not sure if the term even applies but I will re-check the definition and think about it.
Ok. It is about what exists, essentially. So what does 'exist' mean? Morality exists as a humans construct (based as I say on some evolved instincts which are not in themselves either absolute or necessarily moral -the codes were invented to introduce a way of reducing conflict of interests escalating into real conflict -as it so regrettably frequently does) just like art, music, writing, architecture, civilization. It all 'exists' sure, but it is not objective. It is what we have devised, based on these as yet imperfectly understood natural impulses which are common to us all - we all have art, music, dance and literature- or story - telling at least, but they are only existent because we are. They are real, but if we did not exist, they would not. They are not an objective feature of the universe. They are the constructs ONLY of humanity, even though they are indeed common to humanity and look objective and have even been regarded as originating from God.
The ontological argument is (as I suspected at the start of the post) essentially the same as the one I made and makes no difference.
(1) A phooptnote! A phoopnote! I don't have a blog. Anything other than computer as a typewriter with a screen instead of a sheet of paper frightens the bejaysus outa me. And I spend too long in front of the laptop lecturing all you young whippersnappers with my rambling opinions...
Yes, many of our disagreements are purely definitional.
relativism- the belief that moral principles are individually or socially constructed. on this view, moral principles are wrong relative to some particular construction.
objectivism(not absolutism)- The belief that moral principles are objective. principle x is wrong irrespective if anyone believes it or not.
Your hang up with objectivism is asking how we ground moral truths. I'm still in the process of working this out, possible explanations are God or abtracta(Atheistic moral platonism). I'll be honest I'm leaning toward God as grounds for moral value, atheistic platonism seems foreign and bizzare(though still possible) to me. Not to make a case for either as my mind isn't made, just giving two examples of eternal non-spatial entities. Most Atheists claim moral truths supervene on human agency.
I'd say we know moral truths via intuition. This intuition is stronger than, say, my preference for strawberry ice cream. When individual X attempts to Murder individual Y he is doing something wrong, not just something me or society find distateful. There is no empirical evidence for this stuff, but I think we intuit these truths through moral experience. In absence of any successful counter arguments we are justified in holding this belief. This is known as "properly basic ".
Also, when I say "intuit" i do not mean a gut feeling. We intuit Logic. For example, "If X is larger than y and y is larger than b, then X is larger than b." We intuit this to be true by simply reflecting on the logical relations. If someone were to state b was larger than X then they'd be incorrect. Morality seems to work in similiar fashion. These are simply foundational beliefs.
So let me ask now(using the definition above). Why are you a relativist?
oh, let me respond to your evolutionary point: I'd agree. we have come to know moral truths via evolution. This, however, can not be used as an argument against moral realism/objectivism. The origin of a belief can not explain away the truth of a belief. it can only decsribe method of how we derived a belief. For example, if came to knowledge of math by something unreliable like astrology, this wouldn't count against the truth of math just my method of belief in math.
on your view things like murder and rape are simply taboo. What if one can think beyond the evolved herd morality throughout history and still maintain an evolutionary advantageous path. If an aplha male chooses to rape a disabled women then exposes of her to cover up his hideous act to the world. Who is this wrong to? He gets away with it and continues to have a clear conscience. Your moral view isn't broad enough to cover stuff like. Morever, murder and forceful copulation goes on a good bit in the animal kingdom. Why is it wrong for us? Also, why is human flourishing the standard here? your saying whatever contributes to human flourishing is whats best? this is arbitrary. There is all sorts of biological life out there.
I think it is obvious that evolution doesn't give us moral truths. It can describe our predispositions, but is insufficient in giving us moral oughts.
Your hang up with objectivism is asking how we ground moral truths. I'm still in the process of working this out, possible explanations are God or abtracta(Atheistic moral platonism). I'll be honest I'm leaning toward God as grounds for moral value, atheistic platonism seems foreign and bizzare(though still possible) to me. Not to make a case for either as my mind isn't made, just giving two examples of eternal non-spatial entities. Most Atheists claim moral truths supervene on human agency.
I'd like to chime in, if that is alright. I have had this sort of discussion with several folks before, and I think you are doing an admirable job of not strawman-ing so far.
For me this "grounding" is a major problem. If I am going to posit an objective morality, then it should be objectively verifiable. The only way I know to objectively verify really anything is through repeated tests and observations, i.e. the scientific method. By definition, both of the bases for an objective morality, are untestable. We cannot objectively verify them, and thus have nothing on which to hang our objective morality. As you say this is not just about a god belief, I have the same struggle with Categorical Imperatives, or with whatever Ayn Rand called her foundations of objectivism.
If we cannot establish an objectively verifiable foundation for the objective morality, then even if one existed no one can be sure if they are correct about what it is. They have to formulate their best guess, based on their own experience, emotions, and cultural norms and go with that, which looks an awful lot like moral relativism if each actor is honest and admits they cannot objectively prove that their concept of morality is the right one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meep
I'd say we know moral truths via intuition. This intuition is stronger than, say, my preference for strawberry ice cream. When individual X attempts to Murder individual Y he is doing something wrong, not just something me or society find distateful. There is no empirical evidence for this stuff, but I think we intuit these truths through moral experience. In absence of any successful counter arguments we are justified in holding this belief. This is known as "properly basic ".
Also, when I say "intuit" i do not mean a gut feeling. We intuit Logic. For example, "If X is larger than y and y is larger than b, then X is larger than b." We intuit this to be true by simply reflecting on the logical relations. If someone were to state b was larger than X then they'd be incorrect. Morality seems to work in similiar fashion. These are simply foundational beliefs.
I do agree that we intuit our moral positions. We do so in the framework of a particular society in a particular time, however. To me an indication that there is no objective morality is that across history and geography we have an incredible number of variations on morality. The only way we can see a consistency is to make very narrow definitions and ignore the outliers. For instance, murder is wrong only approaches a universal moral idea when we constrain it, by saying murder is not self defense, killing property like slaves, wives or children doesn't count, killing for religious reasons doesn't count, killing in service of king or country doesn't count, etc... If we think of moral codes like mathematical vectors, recorded history would look like a hedgehog, bristling in all sorts of directions. If there is an objective morality, one would hope that over time these vectors would slew around and converge on at least an approximation of true morality, by virtue of rational thought, and exploration of the Moral Intuition. Instead, as I read history, major changes in regional and cultural morality are accomplished by bloodshed, exploitation, and cultural imposition. Divergent cultural moralities were "brought into line" not with reason, but with the sword, or more subtly, economic coercion, and usually this was for someone or some group's economic benefit.
Thanks. Morality is verified experientially. Logic, propositions and the like are verified by the senses but they are essential to science. But to give you an example from science, many theories postulate entities we can not sense because of the explanatory of the said entity. we explain dinosaur bones by positing different varitions of dinasour, ancient artifacts by positing concious agents,etc. These are valid inferences. In the same way i think we can infer objective moral principles based on our intuitions and reactions to behaviour. one doesn't have verify everything emperically in order to have justification. Lastly, the statement things must be verified in order to be objective purports to be objective and is not empirically verifiable, therefore this view of knowledge is self-refuting.
You say we intuit things in a socio-historical context, therefore this may be evidence for relativism. I'm not so sure. Logic and Maith are intuited and definitely aren't relative. My point here is that this argument can be used against all forms of knowledge, including science, but I'm sure you don't want to relativize that.
You say history shows cases where different people/groups have believed certain acts we take to be immoral as moral. 1.) Someone can be wrong here. So no need to jump to relativism. 2.) Most of these can be explained by differences in worldviews, not morality. For example, culture M may believe it is ok to kill their disabled because it somehow ensures an afterlife of some sort and Culture Y may say this is wrong because it is murder. The dispute here is really between worldviews, it could be the case that if culture M considered the kiling of their disabled to be murder then they wouldn't do it. So both groups here think murder is wrong, they disagree over what actions constitute as murder in this case. This is tge case with a lot of the perceived differences, i think .Lastly, people can be morally blind, some people don't see their until it is them on the receiving end.
as for different situations requiring different behavior. Yes, if someone is going to murder you should defend yourself, it is wrong to murder innocent/or those posing no grave danger to you. In any case, this is compatible with objectivism.
I am not sure I follow. How can one verify Morality? We need a way to test it, but how can you test a morality for truth? Maybe you can test it's effectiveness or resultant behavior, but then you have arrived at consequentialism, where a morality is chosen based on its outcome. using logic you can test for internal consistency, but again not truth. All we have experientially is a measure of how well we think it "works", however we define that, and how it makes us feel. But these have no bearing on objective truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meep
In the same way i think we can infer objective moral principles based on our intuitions and reactions to behavior. one doesn't have verify everything empirically in order to have justification.
And I would argue that our intuitions and reactions are rooted in biology and shaped by our culture. I am firmly of the opinion that biology has nothing to say about inherent right and wrong. It may point to fitness for a purpose, or usefulness for the propagation of the species, but neither of those are moral truth. If morality is cultural, then we are back to the question of who is right, and having no way to objectively determine that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meep
You say history shows cases where different people/groups have believed certain acts we take to be immoral as moral. 1.) Someone can be wrong here. So no need to jump to relativism.
M initial point was if you cannot somehow objectively demonstrate who is wrong, you are left with the same practical result as moral relativism. I don't see practical difference between "somone is wrong, but it is impossible to tell who." and "Right or wrong cannot be objectively applied to morality without referencing some other morality". Thus the need for an objective base for a morality to be functionally objective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meep
2.) Most of these can be explained by differences in worldviews, not morality.
I see this as a semantic game that is kind of silly. A worldview in this case is a morality. The details are its essence. If I redefine charity as killing the less fortunate, we may both say that charity is moral but mean two totally different things. In this case it is not the semantics (charity) that define the morality, but the underlying actions. When we compare like to like, there is tremendous variety.
Any commonalities between moralities, in my opinion are probably rooted in the social instincts and self-preservation instincts that we innately have. As far as I can tell these boil down to variants of "Things I don't like are bad" tempered by "Other people probably feel the same way I do". In other words, personal interest and empathy. These are shaped by our culture into a full blown moral system.
I'll mostly leave this to you, Capo as you have the edge on me in this logical debate area. I'd just say that I could see beep hung up on this idea of an intuitive morality (never mind a reliable one). The analogy (admittedly showing that it was a weaker inclination) of a liking for a particular flavour ice-cream is useful as such likes can change -totally. They are relative, not absolute.
The point about working out that x is larger than y...in fact referring back to the Platonic dialogue about how an uneducated boy can reason out a mathematical/logical problem. Plato (and meep) are inclined to say rather easily 'God gave the ability'. In fact I'd rather look for evolved instincts related to being able to judge distances and spacial awareness of objects and their positional relationships, plus the ability to learn (even squirrels can work out problems of how to get round obstacles to food and remember it, too) and this extra ability which is yet unexplained and is therefore used as a gap for God to think things out knowingly rather than (as we see it) unthinkingly in animals.
I think meep's suggestion that this innate reliability as in working out logical or geometric/mathematical problems also related to an innate knowledge of morality is misconceived -though it would actually suit me very well as an instinctive absolute basis for morality.
The fact is that the objects and even mathematics to which this innate ability to work out what's right and arrive at correct conclusions will not work with morality, simply because morality is subjective. It does not 'exist' (Ontological argument ) in the same way as rock x and boulder y or even as reliably predictable as numbers of or distance between objects (the basis of mathematics and geometry).
True we can rely on logical methods - those are at least somewhere in between mathematics and grammar as regard real/subjective existence, but while we can apply them to questions of morality, there is no objective morality existent, independent from human assementand thus, we are trying to apply logic to something that we are making up as we go along.
Yes, I have said that our basic wants and needs are ingrained (evolved survival mechanism) and we have worked out over 6,000 years of social evolution a variety of moral codes which we are taught and thus think they are innate. They are not.
Morality is a concensus, is subjective and is not innate, absolute or god -given.
I am not sure I follow. How can one verify Morality? We need a way to test it, but how can you test a morality for truth? Maybe you can test it's effectiveness or resultant behavior, but then you have arrived at consequentialism, where a morality is chosen based on its outcome. using logic you can test for internal consistency, but again not truth. All we have experientially is a measure of how well we think it "works", however we define that, and how it makes us feel. But these have no bearing on objective truth.
And I would argue that our intuitions and reactions are rooted in biology and shaped by our culture. I am firmly of the opinion that biology has nothing to say about inherent right and wrong. It may point to fitness for a purpose, or usefulness for the propagation of the species, but neither of those are moral truth. If morality is cultural, then we are back to the question of who is right, and having no way to objectively determine that.
M initial point was if you cannot somehow objectively demonstrate who is wrong, you are left with the same practical result as moral relativism. I don't see practical difference between "somone is wrong, but it is impossible to tell who." and "Right or wrong cannot be objectively applied to morality without referencing some other morality". Thus the need for an objective base for a morality to be functionally objective.
I see this as a semantic game that is kind of silly. A worldview in this case is a morality. The details are its essence. If I redefine charity as killing the less fortunate, we may both say that charity is moral but mean two totally different things. In this case it is not the semantics (charity) that define the morality, but the underlying actions. When we compare like to like, there is tremendous variety.
Toy
Any commonalities between moralities, in my opinion are probably rooted in the social instincts and self-preservation instincts that we innately have. As far as I can tell these boil down to variants of "Things I don't like are bad" tempered by "Other people probably feel the same way I do". In other words, personal interest and empathy. These are shaped by our culture into a full blown moral system.
-NoCapo
justa few responses here.
We can test moral views by how well they correspond with our experience.If moral theory X does a bad job competing with others then it is probably false. As for logic, when you apply it to premises it can test consistency, i agree. My point was simply that logic relations themselves are true(and knowable) in a way that is not strictly empirical. P or Q, not p therefore Q is true mode of inference- it is a valid argument form. One can simply "intuit" this and the way you arguing we wouldn't have a knowledge of memories, self and others. We can know some things without inferring them on the basis of other beliefs or "testing" them. The moral realist says we know moral truths via rational intuition.
I don't think I'm going to persuade you a bit here, unless you are open to the fact that there are properly basic(or self evident) truths.
Also, i wasn't playing a semantic game. Noone is redefining murder mean "loving your neighbor". I'm simply pointing out that one culture could hold murder to be wrong, but differ from us in what they *consider* to be murder. The principle is still wrong, the culture just has a different worldview under which the principle is applied.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) in the same way as rock x and boulder y or even as reliably predictable as numbers of or distance between objects (the basis of mathematics and geometry).
