I
inocente
Guest
You may be exaggerating the number of active CAF posters just a bit.
- Status
I
inocente
Guest
Do you think there should be zero tolerance of those who advocate violence against women?
M
minkymurph
Guest
That’s a good one.
I’m assuming you are using ‘violence against women’ in the context of domestic violence and synonymous acts - not war?
So we could ask is domestic violence ever permissible notwithstanding defense of one’s own life or one’s children?
P
Peter_J
Guest
I don’t worry about being too precise on that point … but we can probably agree that somewhere between 0.0001% and 0.001% of Catholics are “active CAF posters”.
I
inocente
Guest
I mean rape, sexual harassment, stalking, honor killing, genital mutilation, trafficking, etc., as in the EU’s zero tolerance to violence against women. At a moral level, zero tolerance means it’s wrong, with no possible discretion or exceptions. It’s an absolute standard regardless of context. Which is by definition, moral absolutism. A real-world example of a secular moral absolute. I’m asking a poster who claims they can think of a situation where rape is justifiable, whether they think that claim is compatible with zero tolerance.
A
AgnosticBoy
Guest
I believe that all ethical theories fail at being proven valid in one way or another. While theists have a good foundation (ontology) to ground their ethics on, but it seemingly leads to circular logic. And that’s assuming that an all-good God exists in the first place. Then you have some naturalistic theories, while providing an impersonal foundation (natural selection?) fails in terms of moral epistemology, i.e. knowing all of the moral rules beyond the basic ones. Also, these types of rules tend to be insufficient to apply in complex matters and can also be tainted by cultural influence. If anyone can come up with a theory of ethics that is sound in terms of its ontology, epistemology, and goal/purpose, then I’ll begin to believe that we’re making progress towards a sound theory.
I
inocente
Guest
I found it surprising that Christian posters would endorse utilitarianism.
Jeremy Bentham defined utility as the sum of well-being minus the suffering caused by an act. All acts are permitted in the name of the greater good, and no act is prohibited. So torturing a small child is fine and dandy if it produces the best outcome for the majority.
Even the most secular of people don’t accept unfettered utilitarianism, even if they can only give an emotional revulsion without a rationalization, and I think that revulsion alone is a glowing endorsement for common sense morality.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well again, out of however many millions of them there are, I’d be willing to bet that there exist a handful who do. It’s the old bad apple in every haystack principle.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Excellent post, per your usual. But I’m not sure such a system could ever be objectively derived. What would affect it other than absolute statism?
I think the religious have a better “engine” for affecting their unprovable morality over other unprovable moral schemes. Religion provides a moral system that interfaces both personal meaning and social norms as they are woven into culture and it’s “enforced” divinely when the state fails. Atheism lacks this on any real scale.
The best they provide are non-functioning generalities like “limit harm”, “we’re innately altruistic” and “follow the Golden Rule’”.
Well, “harm” is in the eye of the beholder.
“Innate altruism” is more correctly identified as “reciprocal altruism”, and it still ignores innate human cruelty. Instead of “we’re innately altruistic”, it would be more honest, correct and comprehensive to describe our biologically provided “morality” as “we’re tribal”.
Lastly, the “GR” was used with reckless abandon by colonial powers as they “civilized” more “savage” societies. The GR only reinforces the preexisting moral scheme you nest it in. No more.
On a purely rational basis, I’ll stick with my theism; even if my “theos” is not materially proofed. It solves more real problems than rejection creates.
M
minkymurph
Guest
I echo Volanza - your posts always contain insight and tolerance.
I don’t think anyone will ever come up with a theory of ethics considered sound by everyone in terms of its ontology, epistemology and goal purpose in a contemporary western democracy. It is possible among islanders, tribes, small isolated communities due to close familial and community ties, shared cultural norms, values, goals and objectives and consensus on leadership. Western democracies are melting pots of - among other things - contrasting and conflicting cultures and agenda.
In these circumstances there are two principles that can assist:
**1. ‘Let the other be the other.’
**
If whatever theory we propose involves changing what ‘the other’ (anyone who does not share our views or outright opposes them) thinks or believes, we are obliged to change what they think and believe in order for our objectives to be realized. If we are obliged to change how they think and believe, then we must decide how we are going to do it - by force or persuasion. Neither force nor persuasion are always effective nor desirable and in addition, we still have the problem of what we are going to in the meantime.
Alternatively we can ‘let the other be the other’ in terms not seeking to change what they think and believe and strive for -
2. 'Achieving the best we can in the circumstances we are in.'
Achieving the best we can in the circumstances we are in requiring balancing opinions. This is of course notoriously difficult in western democracies, but accepting the principle ‘let the other be the other’ facilitates this balance through not requiring others to change what they think or believe in order to reach consensus.
There is of course much more that could be said in terms of establishing principles governing achieving consensus in a contemporary democracy, how we curtail ‘the tyranny of majority,’ and establishing ‘interim settlements’ in the absence of consensus, but I’m guessing no one on this thread really wants to read a political theory.
In conclusion I would say outcomes will significantly differ as societies and in those societies fundamentally differ. In addition times and needs change. Thus, in my view what can be agreed as sound and is in fact in one society may result in discord and be ineffective in another, and for these reasons ethical theories constantly undergo reevaluation and refinement and we will never have one that is ‘it.’
I
inocente
Guest
My estimate of the number of regular posters on this philosophy forum still differs from yours by several orders of magnitude.
I
inocente
Guest
You realize of course that is moral relativism or very close to it - “the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances”.There is of course much more that could be said in terms of establishing principles governing achieving consensus in a contemporary democracy, how we curtail ‘the tyranny of majority,’ and establishing ‘interim settlements’ in the absence of consensus, but I’m guessing no one on this thread really wants to read a political theory.
In conclusion I would say outcomes will significantly differ as societies and in those societies fundamentally differ. In addition times and needs change. Thus, in my view what can be agreed as sound and is in fact in one society may result in discord and be ineffective in another, and for these reasons ethical theories constantly undergo reevaluation and refinement and we will never have one that is ‘it.’
Re your principle of ‘letting the other be the other’, I think most people would decide it cannot be a universal maxim. Because, for instance, letting pedophiles be pedophiles is never valid. All that counts is letting children never be victims of pedophiles.
For most people, it’s common sense that child rape is never to be tolerated, can never be justified, and that’s an absolute standard, the act is always bad regardless of context. Which, by definition, is moral absolutism.
So you’re right that there can never be a rule book big enough, and therefore morality can never be reduced to rules.
B
Bradski
Guest
As long as they do not interfere with the way we would like to live. In which case we are back to the Golden Rule.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Sorry innocent but that is not even close to what I meant.
Again inocente this is not where I was going.
‘Let the other be the other’ is a principle in terms of a tool for debate with objective of arriving at a consensus. ‘Letting the other be the other’ does not entail letting the other do whatever they want.
M
minkymurph
Guest
Is the Golden Rule ‘Do onto others’ or did you have something else in mind?
I think there is always going to someone, somewhere interfering in how we lead our lives, but certainly the interference must be justified and necessary. The way the state are interfering with the way motor cycle chapters lead their lives in your part of world is not in my view either justifiable or necessary. Glad to see a lawyer has taken up their case.
O
o_mlly
Guest
It appears the thread concludes that common sense is a valid source for moral norms iff each moral sense pronounced is truly common – held by all in the community as true.
Since that condition – e.g., all agreeing that murder and rape are immoral – has never happened in history (or on this thread) then while common sense may be a valid source, it has not and will not ever be a real source for moral norms.
Since that condition – e.g., all agreeing that murder and rape are immoral – has never happened in history (or on this thread) then while common sense may be a valid source, it has not and will not ever be a real source for moral norms.
M
minkymurph
Guest
I would have to disagree. I was of the opinion it is clear from this thread that whilst common sense plays a role in determining what is moral and immoral in terms of what is obvious and apparent, the extent of deliberation exhibited on this thread and the exchange of views strongly suggests determining moral norms held in common by the community is a complex endeavour and common sense in itself is not sufficient to meet the objective.
O
o_mlly
Guest
You state that you disagree but your explanation agrees. ???
A
Aloysium
Guest
“The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemies, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his daughters and wives.” - Genghis Khan
In this world, different situations call for different solutions. What makes sense in one circumstance is folly in another. While here behind enemy lines still, those who seek eternal happiness should will the good of the other, to make this a kingdom of God. Common sense dictates this when love is in our hearts.
M
minkymurph
Guest
- Status