Moral Absolutism

[mschrank]

Mirdath, I know what Kant says, I went to college and I’m sure you did too. I also know you know that Kant is pretty much discredited among modern moral philosophers. Even Rawls’ “original position” which is like a souped up version of the Categorical Imperative is not exactly seen as being bulletproof although it has some adherents (risk adverse? I don’t think so look at abortion being legal!).

The categorical imperative would be to act as if your actions would be a universal rule binding on everyone. Thus, stealing or murdering is something that obviously, you wouldn’t want everyone doing.

However, this breaks down perfectly when it comes to the Tanzanian woman-cutter. He thinks that this is good, and that everyone ought to do it. It doesn’t matter if not everyone wants to do it or not. He believes that it is a better, healthier, and purer way of being. Actually, most of the time in this case it is the “shes” that do it- it is not actually a male activity, but a thing women to do other women. So they truely believe it is a good thing.

 

[Mirdath]

Mirdath, I know what Kant says, I went to college and I’m sure you did too. I also know you know that Kant is pretty much discredited among modern moral philosophers. Even Rawls’ “original position” which is like a souped up version of the Categorical Imperative is not exactly seen as being bulletproof although it has some adherents (risk adverse? I don’t think so look at abortion being legal!).

There are certainly many valid criticisms of Kant, just as there are of anyone else’s work. Philosophy is one of the few fields in which no agreement need be reached, after all ‘Discredited’ is news to me, though.

However, this breaks down perfectly when it comes to the Tanzanian woman-cutter. He thinks that this is good, and that everyone ought to do it. It doesn’t matter if not everyone wants to do it or not. He believes that it is a better, healthier, and purer way of being. Actually, most of the time in this case it is the “shes” that do it- it is not actually a male activity, but a thing women to do other women. So they truely believe it is a good thing.

If the cutter applies the Imperative properly, it’s not a good thing. Individual preferences don’t matter: cutting peoples’ bits off is wrong. It’s the superfluous removal of a functioning part of the body – which alone puts it on shaky ground – and leads to a whole host of problems I doubt I need to enumerate.

However, practitioners and supporters of genital mutilation aren’t looking at the issue through the Categorical Imperative at all: they’re applying a morality based in ‘natural law’. Like I said earlier – ask three people what the natural law is, and you’ll get three different answers. Objective, schmobjective.

 

[mschrank]

Well, I do think he’s discredited and I think most philosophers who get paid to think about things do too. So, agree to disagree.

And cutting those bits off is only superflous if you don’t agree with their reasons for doing it.

I mean really buddy, using Kant to try to prove a objective morality that is valid for all people regardless of beliefs, you do understand you’re barking up a particularly high tree here- maybe not the wrong one, but one that you just can’t climb. I mean, this has been tried by more philosophers than I can count and not a one has really made a strong case.

All I can say is that where I went to school, outside the USA, we put a great deal of effort into studying non-western cultures and civilizations and most everyone who went through it was convinced that morality was relative because it really is that vast. I mean, in some cultures, they percieve the basic fabric of reality itself as being different.

I can’t see anyone seriously taking your point of view since the 19th century. You have read Neitzche and Heidegger right, not to mention Wittgenstein- don’t you think they kind of killed off the belief in “Human Reason” (that is, Reason as a position and a method and being able to infer morality from it).

 

[Mirdath]

I mean really buddy, using Kant to try to prove a objective morality that is valid for all people regardless of beliefs, you do understand you’re barking up a particularly high tree here- maybe not the wrong one, but one that you just can’t climb. I mean, this has been tried by more philosophers than I can count and not a one has really made a strong case.

At least I’m trying to climb it – more than I can say for the ‘God said it, I believe it, that settles it’ crowd. Whether or not you agree with my selection of branches has little to do with whether or not they’re there. If agreement were a prerequisite for ethical validity, nobody would have any hope of being right

I can’t see anyone seriously taking your point of view since the 19th century. You have read Neitzche and Heidegger right, not to mention Wittgenstein- don’t you think they kind of killed off the belief in “Human Reason” (that is, Reason as a position and a method and being able to infer morality from it).

Nietzsche yes; Wittgenstein and Heidegger, not yet. I don’t have nearly as much time to read as I’d like

While I admire Nietzsche quite a bit, I disagree with his moral philosophy.

 

[Nepenthe]

mschrank:

I can’t see anyone seriously taking your point of view since the 19th century. You have read Neitzche and Heidegger right, not to mention Wittgenstein- don’t you think they kind of killed off the belief in “Human Reason” (that is, Reason as a position and a method and being able to infer morality from it).

Well, I sure did, anyway. And to this day, when I’m feeling a little bitter and down over the state of human affairs, I think of it as ‘feeling kinda Heidegger.’ On the other hand, Nietszche’s wit and optimism makes up for that, at least as moods go.

Now really, this thread is about Moral Absolutism here, yes? I remember a long time ago, when a (very Catholic) philosophy professor asked me how I could consider myself a moral absolutist, since I operate under an internally constructed ‘system’ of morality - he wasn’t questioning whether that was possible or even if it was true, mind you, he just wanted to hear me answer. Being young and shy, I quailed a bit at giving a long verbal answer, but I thought for a moment, and answered ‘Since it is internal and self-enforced and maintained, that’s actually the only way I can be sure it’s absolute in the first place.’ Not very sophisticated in wording perhaps, but he blinked and slowly said ‘ah…very good. I shall enjoy this semester!’ And we both did!

Philosophers and scholars long before the 19th century were investigating the limits of human reason (and non-human, for that matter). A certain William of Ockham springs straight to mind, as a logician (and Franciscan monk) most people here probably have at least heard tell, but there were many others. Yes, any working system has its uses and its breakdown points both - and that IS proven, as definitely as anything can be by mathematics (another logical system)! However, that doesn’t make them useless – hammers aren’t much good for boring holes either, but they pound nails just fine. We still use mathematics too, after all.

We run up against logical breakdowns all the time, my fellow computer users, and you know it! On the other hand, if we keep adding to our knowledge-storage, cleaning up bugs and inefficiencies, and occasionally finding a technically sweet innovation (and very importantly, communicating!), then everything keeps on humming along and even improving. Yes, it takes a lot of work, but it’s so worthwhile. I realize that may seem like a bit of an ah, mechanistic-flavored analogy for some people here, but I don’t necessarily think it is. Perhaps someday we can do a thread about that too.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Except the Categorical Imperative isn’t about ‘I like’ or ‘I dislike’. Universalize the problem! Even the extreme masochist knows that there are people who don’t want pieces taken out of them – and it’s also quite likely the masochist wouldn’t want just anyone doing it to him or her for no reason at all.

What you’ve brought up is a failing of the Golden Rule, but not of the Categorical Imperative…

Mirdath
If your post were correct would not murder, war, and lying all be gone? Or are you secretly saying I have a universal desire to murder, kill my neighbor’s, and ly? Oh wait that should be I secertly want to be murdered, killed by my neighbor, and lied to.

I guess I still do not get it

 

[Mirdath]

Mirdath
If your post were correct would not murder, war, and lying all be gone? Or are you secretly saying I have a universal desire to murder, kill my neighbor’s, and ly? Oh wait that should be I secertly want to be murdered, killed by my neighbor, and lied to.

Nothing of the sort. What I said was that someone who may have an inclination to be treated in a way others consider abusive could still recognize that those other people do not share that inclination. The masochist cannot say ‘this action is universally acceptable’; therefore, there is no justification for his or her doing it to someone. Further, the masochist cannot say ‘this action should be universally acceptable’ – something seen all too often from those who subscribe to ‘natural law’ morality.

I guess I still do not get it

Perhaps your first problem in understanding other ethical systems is that you may have come to think of anyone who does not follow your specific moral code or a near relative as inhuman or monstrous somehow. But no matter how differently we may derive our morals, we’re really not all that different, you and I – both in our good and in our evil. All that practically changes between our points of view is that when you do wrong, you say ‘I’ve offended God and my fellow humans’; I omit the middle. But the end result is probably a lot closer than you think.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Nothing of the sort. What I said was that someone who may have an inclination to be treated in a way others consider abusive could still recognize that those other people do not share that inclination.

and how does he know? how does he know which is and is not in the imperative?what would his imperitive say about the current US war? abortion? etc, etc

The masochist cannot say ‘this action is universally acceptable’; therefore, there is no justification for his or her doing it to someone.

but people do these horrible things, so when did your imperitive break down? Does his social contract not bind him now?

Further, the masochist cannot say ‘this action should be universally acceptable’ – something seen all too often from those who subscribe to ‘natural law’ morality.

really you see masochist who believe Natural Moral Law calls for these actions?

Perhaps your first problem in understanding other ethical systems is that you may have come to think of anyone who does not follow your specific moral code or a near relative as inhuman or monstrous somehow. But no matter how differently we may derive our morals, we’re really not all that different, you and I – both in our good and in our evil. All that practically changes between our points of view is that when you do wrong, you say ‘I’ve offended God and my fellow humans’; I omit the middle. But the end result is probably a lot closer than you think.

How could you write this? as Natural moral Law is in all hearts ( except maybe reprobates) so the Church theory is you and I are exactly alike in the regard to morals. It is only identifing the source of the base in which we differ on this issue.

 

[Mirdath]

and how does he know? how does he know which is and is not in the imperative?

Nothing is ‘in’ the Categorical Imperative. It’s a tool, not a box. As such, it’s useless without a user – and it can be misused or lie gathering dust in your neighbor’s garage.

what would his imperitive say about the current US war? abortion? etc, etc

Try applying it and see!

but people do these horrible things, so when did your imperitive break down? Does his social contract not bind him now?

The imperative doesn’t break down, just as your ‘natural law’ doesn’t break down. People do. We always have a choice to behave morally or to behave evilly. It says nothing about the validity of any ethical system.

really you see masochist who believe Natural Moral Law calls for these actions?

You’re pulling that out of context. In the event that you did so unintentionally, I was referring to proponents of ‘natural law’ saying ‘this action should be universally acceptable or reprehensible’ prima facie.

How could you write this? as Natural moral Law is in all hearts ( except maybe reprobates) so the Church theory is you and I are exactly alike in the regard to morals. It is only identifing the source of the base in which we differ on this issue.

No no no, ‘natural law’ is supposedly universal, remember? What good would it be if it weren’t?

Sure, we have different ideas on what tool to use to determine the morality of an action. What I was saying is that the end results aren’t all that different. You’ve got a hammer and a nail, I’ve got a screwdriver and a screw. Whichever we use, the picture still hangs on it.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

No, it does not say that. Keep in mind that communication of the naked truth is not unconditional. As I said before we need to define what a lie is first.

The Nazi has no right to that knowledge. A lie includes denying the truth to one who is entitled to that truth.

Because most times people are entitled to the full truth.

Now see, thats what I thought would make this a heck of a lot easier - if the definition of lying meant not telling the truth to one who has the right to know. However, the CCC defines it as

“A *lie *consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”

It doesn’t include the qualifier that a lie is only a lie when the person has the right to know in the CCC or in the definitions that the Catholic encyclopedia gave me.

The CCC DOES say, however,
“The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm

If a lie includes telling something false to someone with the right to know, then why does the Church have to even include the idea of mental reservation? If the person doesn’t have the right to know, why can’t we just flat out not tell the truth?

Thank you everyone, by the way, for your time and patience for answering my questions.

 

[fix]

Now see, thats what I thought would make this a heck of a lot easier - if the definition of lying meant not telling the truth to one who has the right to know. However, the CCC defines it as

“A *lie *consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving.”

This is from the CCC:

2482 "A *lie *consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving."281

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.283

t doesn’t include the qualifier that a lie is only a lie when the person has the right to know in the CCC or in the definitions that the Catholic encyclopedia gave me.

The CCC DOES say, however,
“The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a8.htm

If a lie includes telling something false to someone with the right to know, then why does the Church have to even include the idea of mental reservation? If the person doesn’t have the right to know, why can’t we just flat out not tell the truth?

Thank you everyone, by the way, for your time and patience for answering my questions.

As I said before a lie includes failing to give the truth to one who is entitled to the truth. The quotes from the CCC all need to be reconciled. Nowhere has anyone said one may lie. Mental reservation does not say to lie. It withholds some aspect of the truth from those who are not entitled to it.

 

[john_doran]

keep in mind that the CCC isn’t a work of moral philosophy - it offers basic answers to basic questions of moral conduct, without embarking on a description or defense of first ethical principles or the reasoning that is based upon them.

for example, it can’t be the case that a lie can be committed only when speaking - i can obviously write a falsehood with the intention to deceive.

similarly, the falsity of the proposition cannot be determinative of the moral nature of acts of communication: i can presumably intend to decieve someone by telling them something i believe to be false, that nonetheless, in fact, turns out to be true; and i can also intend to deceive someone by telling them something that i both believe to be true and that is true.

ultimately, and as a first approximation, i would say that a lie is something one does with the intention of getting others to believe something one doesn’t believe oneself (with any and all of the applicable caveats of the principle of double effect).

 

[He_Man]

What precisely do you imagine I’ve been talking about through this entire thread, TR? What do you think I’ve said when I’ve discussed the Golden Rule, the Categorical Imperative, and social contracts with you and with others all the many times they’ve been brought up before? On the multiple occasions I’ve recommended reading to you, did something come out garbled? Did you think I referred to the distinguished literary and philosophical tradition of the Martians? If so, allow me to assure you that I have referenced only Earthlings, and that you will not have to decode radio signals to discover their works.

I have been nothing but open and straightforward with you. You, in turn, have been nothing of the sort. Your explanation of your own moral code is, so far as I have seen, no deeper than ‘the Bible said so’, without any kind of interpretation, explanation, or rational inquiry – and you have the gall to tell me I’m not ‘able’ to do something I have been doing here for months?

At this point, TR, you have no excuse for your ignorance. I have tried to help, however fruitlessly – but then, I suppose even Jesus only healed the willing. Remain blind, if you wish; but until you can be bothered to actually read what I say, or to hold your own morals up to a little scrutiny, we have nothing to discuss. Don’t tell me what I can and can’t do, and don’t tell me what I do or don’t believe. You, apparently, have absolutely no clue what those things are.

In this post, we use big words, obtuse language, and circuitous logic to sound important and confuse people who generally just want one or two sentences explaining how a moral code without God is consistent, airtight, and logical.

Stop acting indignant when you intentionally post in ways to confuse people and avoid being called out. If you have a point make it, and make it concisely, so we can stop wasting each other’s time with this song and dance.

 

[Mirdath]

In this post, we use big words, obtuse language, and circuitous logic to sound important and confuse people who generally just want one or two sentences explaining how a moral code without God is consistent, airtight, and logical.

Stop acting indignant when you intentionally post in ways to confuse people and avoid being called out. If you have a point make it, and make it concisely, so we can stop wasting each other’s time with this song and dance.

Where are these big, obtuse words? The largest I think I used was ‘distinguished’ (tied with ‘philosophical’), the most arcane ‘gall’ – none of which is problematic for anyone who speaks English. Where is my circuitous logic? I wasn’t arguing anything.

I was talking to someone with whom I’ve had this discussion several times before – as should have been obvious if you’ve been reading our posts here. Don’t get your panties in such a twist over an internet argument you aren’t even part of.

 

[He_Man]

It just seems you are being intentionally vague.

And as far as not being part of an argument, this is the internet. if you want privacy, go home and talk.

You act as though this is the first topic people have chimed in on.

The fact is, you refuse to be concise in your answering the question, and you are intentionally vague. If you don’t have a solid answer, that’s fine, but stop pretending.

If you do, indulge me, and repaste it; that’s really not that hard to do.

 

[fix]

Thask three people what the natural law is, and you’ll get three different answers. Objective, schmobjective.

That does not mean it does not exist. In fact, it tells me it does exist. It may mean different people have differing levels of insight into the law.

 

[Mirdath]

If you do, indulge me, and repaste it; that’s really not that hard to do.

Nor is reading the thread, which you should have done in the first place. I am not here to do your homework for you.

fix:

That does not mean it does not exist. In fact, it tells me it does exist. It may mean different people have differing levels of insight into the law.

Sure! That’s one of the things I was getting at: disagreement does not impair validity. I have no lack of reasons to think ‘natural law’ a fable, but ‘I disagree with what person X says it covers’ isn’t one of them – and even fables can serve a purpose.

 

[He_Man]

Nor is reading the thread, which you should have done in the first place. I am not here to do your homework for you.

Thanks, I knew you couldn’t do it. You have no point, move along everyone.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please keep the discussion civil with no personal commentary. Thank you all.

 

[fix]

ultimately, and as a first approximation, i would say that a lie is something one does with the intention of getting others to believe something one doesn’t believe oneself (with any and all of the applicable caveats of the principle of double effect).

That sounds right.

Let us use the Nazi example. They come looking for someone to kill. You use a mental reservation. No intention of lying. The information you give is incomplete. The Nazi comes away with a misunderstanding, but that misunderstanding is not because you lied. He holds that misunderstanding because you spoke the truth, but not the naked truth. He was not entitled to the naked truth.