V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others…
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
Huh?All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others…
G
Gorgias
Guest
Ahh… but that’s exactly the problem – you’ve just couched it in different terms. Instead of asking for a judgment call on what’s moral, you’ve instead asked what the criteria is upon which one is to be judged a ‘reasonable person.’ In asserting the subjectivity of a moral code, you’ve merely replaced it with a subjective judgment on reasonableness.
Nope. Doesn’t work. :nope:
So, sadly, we’re back to square one: if there’s no objectivity in morality, then there’s only convention. Therefore, if you want to argue against an objective morality, we can argue that your disagreements with it demonstrate your lack of reasonableness.
That’s a problem with the “reasonable person” standard, not the “objective morality” standard – things that are “too hard” get eliminated from the test for reasonableness…
B
Bradski
Guest
So how do you determine the objectively correct answer to problems where there are a multitude of differing opinions?
Unless you are going to suggest that not all moral problems can be couched in absolute terms (in which case you are going to need to explain how do decide which ones are absolute and which ones are not), then we need an answer to this.
It is futile telling me that there is an absolute answer to a moral problem if you cannot tell me how we access it. All I am getting are trite statements followed by a declaration that the scenario given must represent absolute morality because…well, it’s just obvious.
All one has to do is bring up a not-so-obvious scenario and there is a deafening silence.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Before we get to this interesting and worthy tributary, we first need to establish that there are some things in the moral world which are, objectively, wrong.
Do we agree on this?
Or are you going to say that there might be some people who could rightfully conclude: it is permissible to kill my daughter for being raped.
I
inocente
Guest
'A study into the attitude of teenagers in Jordan’s capital city of Amman reveals that almost half of boys and one in five girls believe that killing a daughter, sister or wife who has ‘dishonoured’ or shamed the family is justified. A third of all teenagers involved in the research advocated honour killing. …]
Importantly, the study found that these disturbing attitudes were not connected to religious beliefs.
“While we found the main demographic in support of HKA [honour killing attitudes] to be boys in traditional families with low levels of education, we noted substantial minorities of girls, well-educated and even irreligious teenagers who consider honour killing morally right, suggesting a persisting society-wide support for the tradition”’. - cam.ac.uk/research/news/belief-that-honour-killings-are-justified-still-prevalent-among-jordans-next-generation-study-shows
Deuteronomy 22:20-24, for instance, authorizes honor killings.
M
Mort_Alz
Guest
That would be relevant if and only if our non-absolute scientific laws were non-absolute because they were based off our opinions. But, they are not. Our scientific laws cause things to behave as they do regardless of what we think. It is my position that the same is true of morality. One person among two who differ on a moral position can be closer to the truth than another. That is not possible if morality isn’t objective in some way. But no one thinks that North Korean culture is morally superior to modern western culture. Except, of course for some North Koreans and a few others, but we think they are mistaken; and we think they are mistaken not just because we arbitrarily decide they are mistaken. Thinking they are mistaken would be meaningless unless we legitimately think we are appealing to a higher standard than just what society as a group decides.
M
Mort_Alz
Guest
I never actually said anything about morality being innate, just that it is objective. Children have to be taught mathematical truths, that does not mean that 6/3=2 isn’t true. The person who says that it equals 4, instead, is wrong. That morality has to be taught is no obstacle to its objectivity. Just because it must be taught doesn’t mean that it gets its truthfulness from society arbitrarily saying it’s true.Don’t forget to add: “with similar upbringing”.That is why we evaluate those behaviors the same way.
You can ask these questions until you are blue in the face, and you will never get an answer. Only evasions. In certain ancient cultures violence was the norm. Ancient Greeks had no problem with killing deformed babies, after all their society was composed of warriors amid constant fighting with their neighbors. Small children are innately “vicious little brutes”, because they did not develop empathy YET. They torture animals, until they are taught that such behavior is wrong.
It might be interesting to create an isolated society and teach children that torturing animals is fine. If there would be some innate “moral code” against such behavior, they would reject this teaching. But children have no critical skills, they swallow whatever the adults teach them, and that forms their basic attitude toward the world. There is no “mysterious” moral code inscribed on our “heart”.
Actually, such isolated societies exist, even today. The clannish white supremacist groups teach their children that black, Jews, Catholics, Slavs, etc. are inferior people. And to support this teaching they like to do some quote-mining and select texts from the Bible.
And, of course there is no “innate moral code” against nudity, against contraceptive sex, against meat eating, against factory farming, and zillions of other behaviors - which some people find “morally wrong” and others find perfectly acceptable. But “other side” is unwilling to face these questions, and they constantly try to evade with “torturing baybees is wrong, is it not?”
M
Mort_Alz
Guest
Thank you for bringing us back to the actual question. We are not arguing if morality is objective. We are arguing whether it is rational behavior to get morally outraged while also thinking that moral statements are only true because some societies arbitrarily decide that they are true.
It is possible that morality is not objective, but, if that is the case, then we really ought to change our behavior IF we want to say that we are truly “rational.”
M
Mort_Alz
Guest
We can cross that bridge whenever my actual original thesis is addressed. To repeat myself, my thesis is that it is irrational behavior to become morally outraged by anything while also thinking that society arbitrarily decides the truth of certain moral statements and that it goes no higher than that.
M
Mort_Alz
Guest
No, we don’t have to agree with their code, but unless we disagree with it because it is, in fact, wrong, then it is irrational behavior to do so. Differing opinions should be able to back up why their opposing views are correct over and against the other. “From my point of view, it is unacceptable.” is not good enough.Just one example: "in the ancient Roman times the whole family of deposed rulers was executed (to protect the new rulers, obviously). However, to execute a VIRGIN girl was not allowed according to their peculiar “moral” code. So the executioners first raped the girls, and THEN executed them. From our perspective this practice is horrendous. From THEIR perspective, it was fine. Do we have to agree with THEIR code? Of course not. From our point of view it is unacceptable.
Let me give another example. You proposed a way to solve the question of whether racial discrimination is acceptable or not. You also came to the conclusion that the only practical way to find a solution is to take it into the legal realm. But, that’s not how it actually works. History on this specific question demonstrates that. Abolitionists in the time of William Wilburforce were in the legal minority once upon a time. With no practical benefits to the party in power for legitimizing the personhood of black people, why would they change the laws to forbid slavery? Abolitionists fought for change based on the objective IMMORALITY of the slave trade. Slavery was not practically detrimental to society or to any persons who were in power. The abolitionists who could actually affect change were white and therefore not subject to the evils which slavery produced. By your system, slavery was a perfectly acceptable moral practice because the legal system of the established society allowed for it. Changing it was an irrational move unless the abolitionists were objectively correct when they said that the slave trade was wrong.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I’m thinking out loud here, but I wonder whether a distinction is in order at this point in the discussion:
Can we distinguish – reasonably and logically – between ‘objective morality’ and ‘subjective understanding and acceptance of moral questions’? This would seem to resolve a couple of problems, not the least of which is the question of how we contextualize the ‘reasonable person’ conundrum.
This distinction would then allow us to ask questions on the two distinct vectors on which they reside: on one hand, from whence would an objective morality proceed? And on the other hand, how can we make sense of varied (and often conflicting) answers from earnest people on various moral questions?
I think not. An open question in the sciences is whether all scientific questions can be answered through recourse to the scientific method. The fact that the logical potential for such a sweeping affirmation isn’t helpful – the question is whether answers to all questions are accessible through these means. (In a way, I’m asking a question not entirely unlike computer science’s “P=NP?” question in the realm of morality.)
Therefore, the answer of the question “is there an absolute answer?” is not necessarily identical to the answer of the question “do we know how to access the answer today?”. That’s the assertion that you’re attempting to make, and I’m not certain that it’s a valid assertion. After all, I could turn the assertion around on you and state (quite absurdly), “it is futile telling me that there is an absolute answer to the question of the origins of creation if you cannot tell me how we access it.”
Channeling Persig, I’d answer that this usually means that the wrong question is being asked. I say, “mu! re-ask the question!”
G
goout
Guest
I disagree to an extent.
First you establish that morality is the evaluation of human acts in reference to the good. Otherwise you end up going round in circles about what is prohibited, and there’s always a wild-hair exception to prohibitions. We see this all the time in these discussions.
If morality is an evaluation of acts then it must be in reference to something. Morality does not serve itself for the sake of it’s own prohibitiveness. (did i just invent a word?)
Since morality is an evaluation, it can’t be unhinged from objective reference points. If morality is indifferent, then it’s not an evaluation. That would be nonsensical, not reasonable.
Pretenses at morality that depend merely on opinion and vague consensi could be one of two things:
- ignorance/indifference
- attempt to tear down the reference point (the good).
There’s a lot of both going around.
B
Bradski
Guest
The fact that you seem to think that questions on factory farming are hard moral problems is revealing. The simple ones appear to be the ones where there are consensus – genocide, torture , rape. But ask a Catholic if we should keep chickens in a shed and it becomes a difficult question.
Fair point. Maybe a better analogy might be maths and absolute morality. Because that what seems to be argued from your side of the fence. That just as there are mathematical truths (the square on the hypotenuse etc), then there are moral truths ‘out there’ waiting for us to find them. Just as it is more the case that we discover these mathematical truths and we can’t individually decide what they should be, then absolute truth is there for us to discover. Somehow.
I don’t believe you are correct. I think that there are valid reasons for choosing the type of society that we live in over that of North Korea and those reasons are valid whether you believe them or not. And in this case we are talking about facts, not morality, so I have no problem in maintaining that there are positions you can take based on those absolute facts. In the same way, there are facts relating to, for example, torture. And we can make a stand saying that it is abhorrent (in almost all circumstances) because of that fact. That doesn’t make torture morally absolute. For it to be so then you would have to argue that it is wrong in all circumstances and my position is that that is not possible.
The argument that keeps getting put forward is that if I can’t find an argument against an act, it must therefore be absolutely immoral. Which misses the point entirely.
Here I depart from Vera’s position. I do say that it is innate. It is the position from which I am arguing. Morality doesn’t need to be taught and there are libraries of references I could give you that would indicate this. Children only a few months old exhibit morality. It is part of who we are as a species. We wouldn’t be here without it. It is not correct to propose that an isolated island full of people would grow up without it.
Yes, we can lose the relatively thin civilised veneer that becomes a protective shell which we add to what nature has given us by social convention ( a la Lord Of The Flies) but the underlying instinct is entirely natural. It doesn’t need to be taught no more than a mothers’ protective instincts to her child need to be taught. What we then class as moral actions are already part of who we are. We call what we do ‘moral’ because of that. We don’t discover morality and apply it accordingly.
I don’t see any problem with getting uptight about a question of morals whether you perceive morality to be objective or not. There are reasons for getting upset about certain matters that have nothing to do with whether there is a morally absolute answer to the problem.
I was walking down the coast with my wife on the weekend and there were a couple of whales a short distance offshore that were breaching. Everyone was fascinated. It was spectacular. Now if a boat had arrived, harpooned one of them, dragged it around to tire it out then brought it ashore, there would have been a riot. Would that have been because it was objectively bad to do so? Would anyone have put any thought into the nuances of philosophical thought on hunting? I don’t think so. I think everyone would have very concrete reasons for being angry. Those reasons would have made it wrong.
So society doesn’t arbitrarily decide the truth of certain matters. They listen (hopefully) to reasonable arguments and then decide. And some things are not easily determined, so of course it is not irrational to hold a different view on matters that aren’t so black and white.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
You know, this kind of reasoning would be an excellent start, IF ONLY you could follow it through.
You could continue from here. Tell us about that higher standard, and how is it applicable. Because so far you did not offer any argument, except: “we legitimately think…”. And that is not much of an argument. Neither “ethics”, nor “aesthetics” have an objective foundation. Most people agree that rape is “wrong”, just like most people agree that the Ninth Symphony is beautiful. But these are subjective opinions. There is no epistemological method which would separate the “moral” and “immoral” actions, just like there is no method to separate the “beautiful” music from the “mundane”.
Well, saying: “it is not good enough” is just an opinion,
UNLESS you provide something better. You see, I am open to suggestions, I am open to arguments and if you can provide a better way, I will be happy to embrace and accept it. But the argument cannot be something like: “show me a society where raping a child was CONSIDERED moral”. First, because it is not an argument, and second, it is easy to find such an example. In some cultures the concept of “marital rape” is simply nonexistent. The idea that the wife can be reluctant to engage in a sexual act simply does not exist. The wife is supposed to accommodate the husband any time, no exceptions. What kind of objective argument can you present against it?Actually, this is a misunderstanding. I say that the question: “is action X moral” is an irrelevant question, UNLESS you can offer an objective method to separate the “moral” and “immoral” behavior. On the other hand, “is action X legal” is an objective question. Legality has nothing to do with “morality”, and the problem is that no one can provide a good definition of “morality”. At least I have never seen one.
My mistake, I apologize. I have always been told that there is some “innate moral law”, usually followed by the phrase “inscribed on the heart”. If you wish to distance yourself from this concept, that is fine by me.
On the other hand, do not confuse mathematical truths - which are based upon axioms - with alleged “moral truths”, which are based upon opinions.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
Is it a wrong question: “should one walk stark naked on the beach in broad daylight”? In many western societies public nudity is “indecent” and therefore “immoral”. In other societies it is simply: “ho-hum”… “who cares”?Channeling Persig, I’d answer that this usually means that the wrong question is being asked. I say, “mu! re-ask the question!”
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes!!
:yup::bounce:
P
PRmerger
Guest
But unless you can say: yes, it’s morally permissible for a father to kill his daughter for being raped, because, after all, that’s what his tribe has discerned is the right thing to do…
…and I’m certain that you will NEVER say that…
then the above point you’ve made is otiose.
B
Bradski
Guest
Do that and you have answered the whole question. Tell me what you think the difference is between a matter that you consider to be an absolute truth and one that is just a matter of personal opinion based on available facts.
I’m not suggesting that you have the answer to all problems to hand. Or even that you personally know how to access them. But you do need to admit that there could be a method whereby we could access absolute truths AND know that we are correct when we think we have found them.
I am constantly being told, for example, that honour killings are an example of an absolute truth. If anyone claims that, they are explicitly saying that they have discovered how to access it. They have access to a truth ‘out there’ which would be valid even if there were no-one in existence to whom it would apply.
But the access seems to be nothing more than: ‘well, it’s obvious, isn’t it - how could you possibly disagree?’ Or the way that PR states it, if we can’t claim that something is acceptable under any circumstance, then it must be unacceptable under all conditions and we have arrived at where we need to go.
Well, if that is the means whereby we attain absolute truth, then all we need to do is get unanimous agreement on any matter and Shazam! Absolute truth. But see below where this goes wrong.
Notwithstanding that no-one wants to grasp the nettle and explain which aspects of morality ARE absolute and which are…meh, whatever…pick a card. But I will guarantee one thing. Aspects of morality which someone would describe as being absolute, will always, and I mean will ALWAYS, align with that person’s viewpoint. Even if it doesn’t comply with the rule we just arrived at.
That is, if someone offers a reasonable argument against the position, it is ignored. ‘Sorry, bud. I have access to absolute truth and you don’t’. So how did we get there? Well, personal opinion. Nothing more than ‘I consider it to be an absolute truth so therefore it is’.
V
Vera_Ljuba
Guest
Comparing apples and oranges is an age-old, but still deplorable tactics to evade hard hitting questions.
By the way, the tribe only follows the “absolute and objective moral law, inscribed on their heart” when demanding the honor killing.
But, what the heck. Let’s not look at Pakistan, or other Eastern countries. Let’s look at Brazil, which is a predominantly Catholic society. Use Google to read about “honor killing in Brazil”. And it just so happens that I agree with the husband’s “right” to defend his honor if the wife violates that honor by refusing to bring him a beer, when he is watching his favorite soccer game. (Imagine! Refusing to bring a beer in the middle of a soccer match! Oh, the horror!) Or by going to school to obtain higher education. The absolute minimum is to throw acid in her face. No reasonable person can disagree with this practice. And up until recently all the guy had to do is hide for 24 hours, and then claim that his honor was violated. (There was an interesting segment on “60 Minutes” a few years ago.) But let’s go back to Pakistan, since not too long ago the Supreme Court in Brazil has outlawed the “honor killing”-type of defense. What a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals!
What could be more horrible than dragging down the honor of the family by allowing oneself to be raped? The bare minimum required to wash off the stigma is to kill the vile and disgusting woman who allowed this to happen! Maybe she even encouraged the rapist by having some indecent clothing, like not to cover herself completely. No rational person would disagree that simple killing is not a sufficient punishment for such a deed. More like burning her or burying her alive is more appropriate.
The honor of the family supersedes the life of the woman; any semi-rational person would agree with that! Don’t you agree? If so, then your sense of honor and justice is seriously deformed, and you deserve all the scorn the civilized people can pile upon you!
So what about the “moral” problem of walking nude on a public beach in broad daylight?
- Status