Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

[blackforest]

I put a slash mark there because while the words have separate meanings, they do accompany each other. Relativism is based on the notion that morality is relative to the subjective standards of an individual or culture.

 

[SPBlitz]

Poaching causes actual harm or damage, and that is the reason that one can rationally object to it

But this simply is comparing moralities. If you say that a morality that doesn’t cause actual harm is better than a morality that does, then you are in fact comparing moralities.

 

[lelinator]

This may seem counterintuitive, but it would seem that the only way that you can ever know what’s “right” and “wrong”, is if right and wrong are subjective. If “right” and “wrong” are objective, then you can never know what they are.

For example, if I say that thou shalt not steal, does this include stealing to feed a starving child, when no other recourse seems available?

If you maintain that it’s permissible to steal in order to save the life of starving child, then that means that the rule is contextual. It depends upon the circumstances. But in order to properly judge the context one would need to know what the outcomes in every possible scenario would be. I.E would my stealing from you to save my child, mean that your child will die. In that case it might not be right to steal.

But since I can’t possibly know every possible outcome, I can’t possibly discern right from wrong, even if there ultimately is one. The choice then is subject to my internal judgment of the best course of action.

So any objective standard of right and wrong becomes moot, because my lack of omniscience means that I can’t possibly know what it is.

 

[blackforest]

For example, if I say that thou shalt not steal, does this include stealing to feed a starving child, when no other recourse seems available?

This is why were distinguishing between “absolute” - i.e. always and in all cases wrong - vs. objective - wrong regardless of your opinion of it, but with leeway for moral complexity.

Is it wrong to feed a starving child? Yes and no and maybe. Is it wrong to bash somebody’s head in and murder them to get food for your starving child? Is it wrong to steal for a child who’s hungry but not starving? Are you able-bodied and earning a fair wage? Disabled and unable to work? Working but making exploitative wages?

Under certain circumstances, we may consider the stealing objectively wrong. Under others, we’re presented with nuance. This isn’t license for an unfettered position that we’re entitled to determine right from wrong based on our personal feelings. Nobody can hold to that position when backed to a corner.

 

[macska]

If you say that a morality that doesn’t cause actual harm is better than a morality that does, then you are in fact comparing moralities.

No, I am not speaking of moralities, I am talking about actions. And there is a difference between the two.

 

[lelinator]

This is why were distinguishing between “absolute” - i.e. always and in all cases wrong - vs. objective - wrong regardless of your opinion of it, but with leeway for moral complexity.

Actually, that’s what’s causing the problem. If you said that stealing was absolutely and always wrong, then there wouldn’t be any room for doubt. But if you make it subject to the circumstances, then you make it impossible for a non-omniscient being to accurately discern the “right” course of action.

It’s the fact that there are grey areas that makes it impossible for us to definitively agree on right and wrong.

 

[SPBlitz]

No, I am not speaking of moralities , I am talking about actions . And there is a difference between the two.

Not really. All morality is is the determination of what actions you ought or ought not to do. When you say that a certain action is wrong, you are making a moral judgement about it.

 

[SPBlitz]

ctually, that’s what’s causing the problem. If you said that stealing was absolutely and always wrong, then there wouldn’t be any room for doubt. But if you make it subject to the circumstances, then you make it impossible for a non-omniscient being to accurately discern the “right” course of action.

This makes no sense. Just because you don’t no very possible scenario doesn’t mean you can’t know anything about it’s morality. I know that rape is wrong even if I can’t imagine every possible situation it could be in. Saying ‘I don’t know every scenario l, so I can’t know right and wrong’ is a cop out.

 

[lelinator]

I know that rape is wrong even if I can’t imagine every possible situation it could be in. Saying ‘I don’t know every scenario l, so I can’t know right and wrong’ is a cop out.

I don’t have time to debate this at the moment, but there’s one thing that I’ve always found curious, whenever people want to defend morality, they immediately run away from killing and stealing, and head straight for rape, incest, and pedophilia, as if those are somehow greater moral absolutes. I find that to be quite curious.

 

[whatistrue]

whenever people want to defend morality, they immediately run away from killing and stealing, and head straight for rape, incest, and pedophilia, as if those are somehow greater moral absolutes.

If by greater moral absolutes you mean less (or zero) room for nuance or exceptions, then they are. Name one circumstance where rape is acceptable.

 

[macska]

Not really. All morality is is the determination of what actions you ought or ought not to do. When you say that a certain action is wrong, you are making a moral judgement about it.

If you insist on using that word, “yes”, according to my own subjective judgment. But having two different ethical system does not mean that one is “obliged” to accept someone else’s as equally desirable, or praiseworthy. Precisely because it is subjective.

Going back to your poaching example. In my value system poaching is harmful, period. Some poachers may believe that the rhino horn has magical properties, so they consider poaching a “good idea”. There is no way to convince that person about his error, because it is not based upon reason, rather “faith”. I will not accept his value system, so the only solution is get the poacher, and apply some penalty for poaching.

The same is true for different cuisines. Some people like spicy dishes, others may prefer bland concoctions. There is no objective way to decide, which one is “better”. As long as I am left alone to enjoy my dishes, I am fine with the differences. If, however I would be forced to eat a dish which I find unpalatable, I would resist.

Ethics is just as subjective as the taste of dishes.

 

[blackforest]

The same is true for different cuisines. Some people like spicy dishes, others may prefer bland concoctions. There is no objective way to decide, which one is “better”. As long as I am left alone to enjoy my dishes, I am fine with the differences. If, however I would be forced to eat a dish which I find unpalatable, I would resist.

Therein lies the problem - confusing preference claims with objective moral claims. I’d prefer not to eat bubblegum-flavored ice cream because I prefer caramel swirl instead.

But I’d never say, “I’d prefer that women in the Afghanistan not get splashed with acid in their faces as punishment for going to the market alone.” I’m going to say that this practice needs to stop.

Name one circumstance where rape is acceptable.

Building on this discussion, there are radical Islamic terrorists group that claim it’s OK to rape captured heathen women. Do we speak out against the practice as a human rights violation? Or do we say that all morality is subjective, and we therefore shouldn’t impose our morality on these rapists?

The entire concept of human rights, by the way, is based on objective morals.

But if you make it subject to the circumstances, then you make it impossible for a non-omniscient being to accurately discern the “right” course of action.

Not really. The only missing ingredient is specificity. Stealing from somebody just to get the thrill of getting away with it is objectively wrong. Stealing food from affluent soldiers when you’re village is under siege and people are starving to death around you would be considered in light of mitigating circumstances. Where this is a Catholic forum, I’ll add here that Catholic moral theology even supports this concept.

 

[macska]

Therein lies the problem - confusing preference claims with objective moral claims.

I don’t see any “objective moral claims”. I only see “subjective moral claims”.

But I’d never say, “I’d prefer that women in the Afghanistan not get splashed with acid in their faces as punishment for going to the market alone.”

I agree, but there is no way to convince the practitioners about the error of their ways. All we can do is forcefully intervene and stop this practice.

 

[SPBlitz]

I don’t have time to debate this at the moment, but there’s one thing that I’ve always found curious, whenever people want to defend morality, they immediately run away from killing and stealing, and head straight for rape, incest, and pedophilia, as if those are somehow greater moral absolutes. I find that to be quite curious.

That’s simple enough to answer - I mainly do that to keep things on topic. Whenever some uses theft or murder as an example, one of the first objections is ‘but what if you are starving?’ Or ‘what if it’s self defense?’ And the whole topic gets derailed as people discuss when murder is or is not acceptable.

With rape, there’s no such tangent. When you say that rape is wrong, no one objects ‘but what if…?’, and no one argues that we can’t know that rape is objectively wrong. Everyone knows it is. It’s a useful example since it helps things stay on topic.

 

[SPBlitz]

here is no way to convince that person about his error, because it is not based upon reason, rather “faith”.

And here, I think, is why your argument fails. You argue that there’s no epistemic way to compare different moralities. But here, you say that morality should be based on reason, not faith. There is your epistemic standard. Morality should be based upon reason. Just because some people don’t base their morality on reason does not mean that there is not basis for morality, or that there’s no way to determine the correct morality. The very fact that you compare a morality based upon reason as being superior to one not based on reason proves that, yes, there is an objective moral standard (on based on reason) and it is possible for us to know it.

 

[blackforest]

I agree, but there is no way to convince the practitioners about the error of their ways. All we can do is forcefully intervene and stop this practice.

And if morals are relative and subjective, why bother intervening?

 

[blackforest]

On the ground that it brings objectively more beneficial results.

I would argue that “more beneficial” is a subjective standard. The Taliban would certainly disagree with your assessment. The women endure excruciating pain and are scarred for life, but they would argue that it’s for the greater good of society and their God, i.e. the utilitarian standpoint. Each ethical system that you’ve enumerated may or may not be the best fit for each ethical situation, and each can be abused. So I’m unable to fulfill your request of prioritizing them.

But remember that a key tenet of moral relativism is that morality is relative and subjective, ipso facto it is wrong to impose your own on others. (Relativists score points for irony on this self-refuting gem).

 

[macska]

I would argue that “more beneficial” is a subjective standard.

The benefit is biological. And that is objective. Sure, there are some people to perform some self-flagellation, of wish to emulate Christ’s passion by having themselves crucified. For them this practice is desirable. Far be it from me to try to prevent them doing it. As long as they do it to themselves, it is none of my business.

Of course the one and only somewhat universal ethical system is the golden rule. But that is only true in an omnivorous biological system. A society composed of herbivores would have a totally different ethical system. And so would be a society composed of carnivores.

Each ethical system that you’ve enumerated may or may not be the best fit for each ethical situation, and each can be abused. So I’m unable to fulfill your request of prioritizing them.

I know. Because they are all subjective. We have agreement. Wonderful!!!

But remember that a key tenet of moral relativism is that morality is relative and subjective, ipso facto it is wrong to impose your own on others.

It is logically and grammatically incorrect to confuse “relative” with “subjective”.

 

[blackforest]

It is logically and grammatically incorrect to confuse “relative” with “subjective”.

For the third time, I don’t consider them synonyms.

For them this practice is desirable. Far be it from me to try to prevent them doing it. As long as they do it to themselves, it is none of my business.

Actually, in my profession (social work), as well as a number of others, we are required to report intent to cause harm to self or others.

The benefit is biological. And that is objective.

Actually, it’s just your opinion that your so-called “biological benefit” should trump their religious or so-called societal benefits. Nobody objects to a human rights violation by proclaiming, “Stop doing that! It isn’t beneficial!!”

 

[GKMotley]

Many radio addresses.