Moral Relativism

[Betterave]

I’ve been on three or four similar threads to this one in my eight months on CAF and after making 800 posts this is the first thread where anyone has said that.

“That”? That’s hardly unexpected is it? Why should anyone ever have said what I just said to you before?

Maybe I just developed some dread brain disease and should see my doctor .

It’s possible, but not at all an inference supported by the evidence.

Otherwise I can’t really buy the idea. It seems more likely that we’re just very different and have yet to find common turf.

You can’t buy the idea?? Let me explain this again - it’s very simple: First, you admit that you have thus far not “disentangled” the meaning of what I have said to you. In other words, you admit you don’t understand my argument against your position. Then, you conclude that we are probably just very different as to our world views and that my argument is probably not sound… Now I don’t think you have to be very smart to see that if you haven’t understood my argument, then you have no grounds for drawing the conclusion you did. Is there anybody who doesn’t see that?

Confirm below:

I will admit to getting lost about the original point in sequences of I-said you-said, which is why I need to go back to where we started our spat. It will take me a while as its Christmas out there and I don’t have any long blocks of time, but hang on to your hat and I’ll try to get back to you as soon as I can. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.

I appreciate your admitting this, and obviously that’s a reasonable kind of reply. Your claiming anything beyond this, however, did not make sense (it was an argument from ignorance).

Maybe you can tell me what you think of this exchange, since larkin31, ever so open-minded, rational, and respectful as he is, apparently has me on ignore:

Originally Posted by larkin31
As a generality, I agree with this. But I see no evidence of it being an “absolute” (true for all places, all times, all conditions). There was a time that humans did not exist, after all.

My comment:
Like inocente, you appear to profoundly misunderstand the terms being discussed here. Absolutism does not entail that there was never a time when humans did not exist. Thus, if the claim “human beings are worthy of respect” is true, it just means that if human beings exist, then they are worthy of respect. It is a universal claim, not an existential one.

I think a lot of so-called relativists are like a guy who had a Hindu friend and thought the Hindu was a nice guy, so he starts calling himself a Hindu, even though he knows nothing about Hinduism.

Now if you don’t understand the difference between a universal statement and an existential one, as larkin31 apparently doesn’t, you’re in deep trouble, philosophically speaking. Do you understand the difference?

Also, you’ve been much more reasonable than larkin31 here, but at the same time please note that an argument of the form “I don’t understand what you said, and so instead of replying to your arguments I will simply conclude that what you said is mistaken” is pretty much equivalent to having me on ignore.

 

[Betterave]

Rave is on my ignore list. I got this kind of response from him/her much more quickly! But then, I also consider you much more patient than I.

inocente, larkin is right here. I also responded to him by pointing out what was wrong with his arguments - after all, this is a philosophy forum, right? Of course his response was not a promise to try to understand my arguments, but instead a decision to plug his ears.

 

[Betterave]

Almost all humans are members of societies. Murder is usually defined as, to kill unlawfully, that is to kill without our society’s approval. My society, like most societies, has steep penalties for killing without its blessing. In my decades in this world I haven’t yet encountered a scenario where the potential benefits (say, monetary gain) outweighed the risks (possible death, years in prison, loss of family, loss of career, etc.). That’s a concrete, practical reason for not commiting murder. Also, again as a matter of self-preservation, I prefer to be a member of a society where killing people like me and my family is investigated and punished, and that’s reflected in my voting record.

Such prudential considerations, however, are usually only required by psychopaths (who make up 1% of the population, they say). Normallly we don’t need to point to an immoral action’s being against our self-interest in order to have a reason to avoid that action.

 

[Betterave]

I think you are misunderstanding me, the societal structure that you are giving authority to is the Catholic Church. By being a member you are saying I submit to the rules and guidance of this communal body.

You also give your secular society authority by choosing to obey the laws of the land.

You are subject to the society - if you step out of line, you can be “corrected.” People can also correct the structure. “you know, stoning seems wrong, lets stop doing that”

This notion is at the heart of civil disobedience and rebellion. It is a willful act of the people rescinding their submission to the authority.

It’s a two way street. The society protects the individual (strength in numbers) and the person protects the society.

jon, with due respect, this is a whole lot of nonsense. The Church obviously has a role to play as a moral authority - at least prima facie, insofar as she says she has such a role/mission -, but this doesn’t follow simply from the fact that the Church is a kind of society or communal body. If I’m in a criminal gang and there are rules for the members which I follow, my following those rules does not imply that I recognize those rules as moral rules - I might, which would be weird, but there’s certainly no entailment.

 

[jonfawkes]

jon, with due respect, this is a whole lot of nonsense. The Church obviously has a role to play as a moral authority - at least prima facie, insofar as she says she has such a role/mission -, but this doesn’t follow simply from the fact that the Church is a kind of society or communal body. If I’m in a criminal gang and there are rules for the members which I follow, my following those rules does not imply that I recognize those rules as moral rules - I might, which would be weird, but there’s certainly no entailment.

Sure they are moral rules. It is how you conduct your behavior. Something like “no snitching”. It is a code of conduct. It is a group shared vale. Breaking it has consequences with in the group.

 

[davidv]

Sure they are moral rules. It is how you conduct your behavior. Something like “no snitching”. It is a code of conduct. It is a group shared vale. Breaking it has consequences with in the group.

For the purpose of this thread, your definition of moral is incomplete. With respect to Catholism, “moral” extends the rules so that expected behaviors to adhere to the rules established by God, the Moral Law.

I invite you to read the section on moral law in the CCC beginning at article 1950.

 

[jonfawkes]

For the purpose of this thread, your definition of moral is incomplete. With respect to Catholism, “moral” extends the rules so that expected behaviors to adhere to the rules established by God, the Moral Law.

I invite you to read the section on moral law in the CCC beginning at article 1950.

That’s the “no true scottsman” fallacy. A variation of a circular argument.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

“Only true morality comes from God. If it doesn’t come from God then it’s not morality.”

There are moral societies that aren’t Catholic.

 

[davidv]

That’s the “no true scottsman” fallacy. A variation of a circular argument.

Please explain how my post meets this definition. I don’t get it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

“Only true morality comes from God. If it doesn’t come from God then it’s not morality.”

There are moral societies that aren’t Catholic.

No argument. To the extent they are moral they are in compliance with Catholic teaching.
Which still points to the fact that without an anchor (God), any claim of morality is purely opinion.

 

[jonfawkes]

Please explain how my post meets this definition. I don’t get it.

No argument. To the extent they are moral they are in compliance with Catholic teaching.
Which still points to the fact that without an anchor (God), any claim of morality is purely opinion.

The part that followed “Only true morality comes from God. If it doesn’t come from God then it’s not morality.” was the paraphrasing of your post.

You were kind enough to do it again - " To the extent they are moral they are in compliance with Catholic teaching."

So, you are saying - the only things that are moral are the things that are in line with Catholicism. That is textbook “no true scottsman”

and then again " without an anchor (God), any claim of morality is purely opinion"

Again you are saying that only God can provide morality, anything else isn’t “real” morality.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

Normallly we don’t need to point to an immoral action’s being against our self-interest in order to have a reason to avoid that action.

Only if the other person agrees with you that the action is immoral. Even then, if the payoff is big enough, many are willing to modify or compromise their morals.

psychopaths (who make up 1% of the population, they say).

‘Psychopath’ is no longer a valid medical diagnoses. The successor is APSD, which according to a Google search constitutes 2% of our population.

Such prudential considerations, however, are usually only required by psychopaths

By your prediction, at most 2% would kill for personal gain given a great opportunity–the 1% you call psychopaths, and at most another 1% who are non-psychopaths.

(You don’t claim that a non-psychopath who follows the above logic can’t exist. It’s trivial to show that following the above logic doesn’t require a diagnosis of APSD).

The polls I’ve found show that more than 2% of the population would be willing to kill for money, contradicting your premise –

surveycentral.org/survey/816.html (45% willing)

rapgodfathers.info/forum/general-talk/551935-would-you-kill-million-dollars-11.html (57% willing)

These are not rigiorous studies. Then again, to demonstrate your original point is false, I only have to show evidence that the percentage of people of people willing to kill for personal gain is greater than 2%.

Also notable, you’re the original claimant, the one with the burden of proof, and you’ve provided zero evidence that your claim is true.

Perhaps the world is not as gentle as you would like to believe.

 

[davidv]

The part that followed “Only true morality comes from God. If it doesn’t come from God then it’s not morality.” was the paraphrasing of your post.

You were kind enough to do it again - " To the extent they are moral they are in compliance with Catholic teaching."

So, you are saying - the only things that are moral are the things that are in line with Catholicism. That is textbook “no true scottsman”

Based on what I read in your link, I did not commit this fallacy.

and then again " without an anchor (God), any claim of morality is purely opinion"

Again you are saying that only God can provide morality, anything else isn’t “real” morality.

Since the Church contains the fulness of Truth, all that is moral is Catholic.

What do you mean by “real”?

 

[JDaniel]

Can’t see the issue, JD. I definitely questioned its (the natural law’s) assumption. In any event that was my only intent - as far as I know your rendition was spot on, which is why I said I couldn’t fault you.

I see the problem now, inocente: you have no doubt heard the expression, in these parts, “brute fact?” Well, the natural law is “brute law.” It is not a rational being, in and of itself. Rational beings have studied nature and recognized the existence of a “brute law” guiding much of the activities in nature.

Perhaps humans have made "assumptions’ based upon this brute natural law. But, perhaps they have actually made real conclusions based upon what they’ve been witness to. I think the latter to be the case.

At the risk of being accused of repeating myself, let me rewrite it: Spiders don’t have any objective purpose. One might conjecture that their purpose is to survive, because they have an instinct not to die, but then they also have an instinct to spin webs, so one could alternatively imagine that as their purpose. But whatever purpose one supposes, the choice is subjective since evolution is purposeless.

So, our knowledge of the things of nature is really nothing more than “assumptions” - not real conclusions - made from our vague and random notions of what’s going on out there? In nature? We do not see regularities? We do not see irregularities? We don’t have anything but a vague idea of what spider-ness is? Or, what bird-ness is. Or, what normalcy is? Wow.

Thank goodness I knew the difference between a spider and a bird, somehow, a priori to my imposing random determinants on them. I might have been bitten! This brings me to normalcy. How is it, do you think, that we know the difference between normal human nature, or activity, and abnormal human nature, or activity? (I am not trying to put you on the spot - I really am trying to understand. )

Oh, and by the way: “Repreater!” “Repeater!” “Repeater!” :dancing:

Spiders don’t have a purpose. Las arañas no tienen un propósito.

Pero, creo que si tu no estas correcto. Esto es exactament lo que estamos buscando. (That’s the best I can do - it’s been a while!)

Spiders are purposeless. The spider, she has no purpose. Purpose is something a spider lacks. Any clearer?

Your words are as clear to me now as they were before. But, the problem remains: you keep saying that evolution is purposeless. If so, then why does it continually seek to make corrections and improvements? Why do creatures advance? Why are we in the condition we currently find ourselves to be in? Which is qualitatively much better than we were in prehistoric times? (Remember, when you respond, assuming you will, I said “condition” not “conditions.”)

I then said we humans have no purpose either, because we came from the same evolutionary process. There’s no common agreement as to the purpose of our lives, even amongst Christians. For example, random quotes from some Christian websites:

“As children of God, we are to become more like the Son of God.”
“I believe the purpose in life is to love, contribute as much to the world as we can and die given away.”
“I think our purpose is something we are constantly learning about and realizing throughout our life.”
“While it’s true some people seem to find their life purpose easier than others, it’s also true that God really does have a plan for every single person, even if it takes a while to see what it is.”
(Personally, 2 Cor 5 may get closer.)

Are these from a children’s website? They seem to be. That’s all on that. Anyway, while they may touch slightly on the more comprehensive purposes of our beings, they fall far short of those comprehensive conclusions. They are parts, particles. Yet, they each derive from one or other of the three natures I mentioned in my earlier post. The comprehensive natures I mentioned are like “sets,” in mathematics. The above are like mere members of a set. Can you see that?

The reason why there’s widespread disagreement may be that we have free-will.

There’s only “widespread disagreement” in your mind. Because you don’t see the derivations.

We make up our own minds about our purpose, and that’s the way God planned it to be.

And, this is how you know for certain God planned it so? -

If He planned otherwise then everyone would probably agree. We can derive our own purpose from our faith (noticing that God was also careful not to provide any absolute proof of His own existence) or from some other angle, but whatever we decide is subjective, just as God intended.

Some things in life really are subjective, and this is one of them. I don’t see anything absolutely wrong with admitting there’s no objective purpose and we make it up as we go along.

Like my mom used to say, “Who died and left you in charge?” I will get to a refutation of your view in a little while.

continued . . .

 

[JDaniel]

continuation . . .

Saying that morality is about personal and cultural values is just a definition:

*The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
   a. some other group, such as a religion, or
   b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
   plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/*

Given the evidence that rational persons in various cultures have reached differing conclusions, the normative definition doesn’t say much to me except that each culture has its own notion of rationality. We may find some common themes, but for example given that until recently one fairly common theme was differential treatment of the sexes, the normative “specified conditions” seem somewhat hypothetical.

That is precisely why a norm of morality must be uncovered and relied upon. Otherwise there will never be a time when a girl born in a Muslim country will not be mutilated!

(I said that good moral standards help both us and our tribe flourish, ultimately aiding our survival, which is probably why we have a conscience in the first place.)

That is certainly not the case. Even in your country, you are being taken over, little by little. There will inevitably come a day when little girls in your country are likewise mutilated - for the sake of the jealous imposition of piety. Don’t you know that? So, the good moral standards of indigenous Spaniards is not helping them to: “…flourish, ultimately aiding our survival, which is probably why we have a conscience in the first place.”

An evolutionary take. If our survival didn’t depend on them, there would have been no pressures for the mechanisms behind conscience and moral decision making to develop in the first place.

That’s not proof. That’s not even good reasoning. It’s reasoning in the back door.

PS: Things have been a bit hectic this week. It’s taken me a day and a half to write just this and the last three posts so sorry if anything is still unclear.

You take all the time you need - I just hope I don’t drop dead in the mean time.

Now, to refute you: A final cause, reason, purpose, raison d’etre, has three essential characteristics: it is that for the sake of which a thing acts; it is the good of the thing acting; and, it terminates the action so that the agent (efficient cause) comes to rest.

We eat to satisfy hunger. We attend school for the goal of obtaining knowledge. Good health is the end of medicine. A house is the purpose of the builder. I know these are not nature’s examples of purpose, but, I wanted you to know what Final Cause, or purpose, or Raison d’Etre actually means, so I provided these.

In order to prove that there are purposes in nature, in order to prove that nature acts for an end, I will ask for help from St. Thomas, perhaps the greatest philosopher of Catholicism. St. Thomas said,

" Were an agent not to act for a definite effect, all effects would be indifferent to it. Now that which is indifferent to many effects does not produce one rather than another. Therefore, from that which is indifferent to either of two effects, no effect results unless it [the agent] be determined by something to one of them. Hence it would be impossible for it to act. Therefore every agent tends to some definite effect which is called its end." - Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, Ch 2

What St. Thomas is arguing is that when an effect repeatedly follows from a given cause, we attain a sufficient reason why this is so only when we admit that the cause was ordered to produce said effect. If B, an effect, repeatedly follows A, the efficient cause, we are justified in concluding (not assuming) that A is determined to produce B; for if A were indifferent when acting (and hence not determined to produce B) there would be no sufficient reason why B, rather than something else completely different, should repeatedly follow from A’s actions.

See: no assumption here. Strictly epistemological. Oh, and natural.

More to follow . . .

God bless and Merry Christmas!
jd

 

[jonfawkes]

Based on what I read in your link, I did not commit this fallacy.

Since the Church contains the fulness of Truth, all that is moral is Catholic.

What do you mean by “real”?

Yer funny - you’re doing it again.

 

[JDaniel]

Dear Inocente:

If St. Thomas’ proof was not enough, then here’s another one. Take this dialectical syllogism from Aristotle’s Physics, Book II, Chapter 8:

I. Whatever in nature occurs always or at least for the most part happens either by chance or for an end.
II. What occurs in nature always or for the most part does not happen by chance.
III. Therefore, such happenings are for an end.

That is far more sufficient for me than saying that “evolution does not act for ends or purposes.” In fact, I can intuit the above scenario. I cannot, do not, and have not intuited nature acting for no reason - except as may be due to my lack of knowingness. This is the answer to my earlier questions regarding why the things of nature progress or advance. So, even evolution, rightly considered, has its purpose(s). The problem with the Evolutionists’ (and some other religionists’) theorem is that it views Evolution as the end. The Christian views it, when it is seen, as the order put in place by God that is a part of the roll out of Creation.

Evolution produces its results seemingly randomly. It appears to operate mostly by chance, which is even worse than randomness! That may be why you view it as purposeless. Evolution, like your earlier examples of purposes, is a rather minuscule member of a much more comprehensive set. That set being the end, or intent, of the Creator in his activity of creation.

That being the case, then, I propose that morality is gleaned from a proper consideration of man’s nature in its entirety, not merely from a consideration of an individual faculty. For example, there are much more moral ways of handling impiety, in our societies, than by genital mutilation. True, more impiety may result, but, to be chattel is not the purpose of women.

One could say, that their men are simply protecting their women’s places in their afterlife. But, this is all the more reason to argue for a norm of morality that encompasses the nature of man in its entirety. It is precisely the arbitrary, relative and subjective assumption that man is by nature impious (only one of his faculties, remember - not one of the three natures I mentioned) that has resulted in the preposterous conclusion that stoning women and their painful mutilation is morally beneficial - not only for the women’s sakes, but also, for their society’s sake. Don’t you see?

God bless and Merry Christmas!
jd

 

[jonfawkes]

continuation . . .

In order to prove that there are purposes in nature, in order to prove that nature acts for an end, I will ask for help from St. Thomas, perhaps the greatest philosopher of Catholicism. St. Thomas said,

" Were an agent not to act for a definite effect, all effects would be indifferent to it. Now that which is indifferent to many effects does not produce one rather than another. Therefore, from that which is indifferent to either of two effects, no effect results unless it [the agent] be determined by something to one of them. Hence it would be impossible for it to act. Therefore every agent tends to some definite effect which is called its end." - Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, Ch 2

What St. Thomas is arguing is that when an effect repeatedly follows from a given cause, we attain a sufficient reason why this is so only when we admit that the cause was ordered to produce said effect. If B, an effect, repeatedly follows A, the efficient cause, we are justified in concluding (not assuming) that A is determined to produce B; for if A were indifferent when acting (and hence not determined to produce B) there would be no sufficient reason why B, rather than something else completely different, should repeatedly follow from A’s actions.

See: no assumption here. Strictly epistemological. Oh, and natural.

Every time I start my car, I produce carbon monoxide. My car’s purpose must be to produce carbon monoxide. Actions can have multiple consequences how are we to derive singular purpose?

 

[JDaniel]

Every time I start my car, I produce carbon monoxide. My car’s purpose must be to produce carbon monoxide. Actions can have multiple consequences how are we to derive singular purpose?

Jonmeister!

That is not the purpose of a car. That is, unfortunately, an accidental by-product of the nature of car building. The car’s purpose is/was to - as comfortably as possible - carry people to and fro. It is the best we could do under the circumstances of worldly imperfections.

(Funny. What I wanted to come back with was, “You could put your mouth over the tail pipe and prevent it!” But, as funny as the imaginary scene might be, I like you and thought that perhaps saying that would be rather unchristian. . . . but, it’s still funny! :blushing What do you think? BTW, don’t try it. Let the professionals do it! (I think I’m losing it!) :bigyikes:

God bless and, regardless of the world’s economy, have a very Merry Christmas!
jd

 

[jonfawkes]

Jonmeister!

That is not the purpose of a car. That is, unfortunately, an accidental by-product of the nature of car building. The car’s purpose is/was to - as comfortably as possible - carry people to and fro. It is the best we could do under the circumstances of worldly imperfections.

(Funny. What I wanted to come back with was, “You could put your mouth over the tail pipe and prevent it!” But, as funny as the imaginary scene might be, I like you and thought that perhaps saying that would be rather unchristian. . . . but, it’s still funny! :blushing What do you think? BTW, don’t try it. Let the professionals do it! (I think I’m losing it!) :bigyikes:

God bless and, regardless of the world’s economy, have a very Merry Christmas!
jd

We had the advantage with the car because “we” are the designers. We know the purpose by design.

By-product - That was my point - there can be many reactions to one action. How do we derive purpose from the array of reactions. Morality may just be a by product of self-preservation. I’m not saying that definitively but it is a possibility.

Using your paraphrase

when an effect repeatedly follows from a given cause, we attain a sufficient reason why this is so only when we admit that the cause was ordered to produce said effect.

I think it doesn’t follow - I can give multiple examples of consequences that follow a given cause that I’m pretty sure wasn’t the desired effect. I’m pretty sure Rain’s purpose isn’t to flood my basement.

P.S. It was funny Of all the things I’ve lost I miss my mind the most.

 

[PRmerger]

Because we share the same biology.

LOL! We share the same biology–practically 100% of our DNA–with primates. Yet surely we don’t share our morality with these animals that eat their young, eh? :whacky:

 

[PRmerger]

I think you are misunderstanding me, the societal structure that you are giving authority to is the Catholic Church. By being a member you are saying I submit to the rules and guidance of this communal body.

No, jon. As a Catholic the moral norm for me is not a “societal structure,” but Jesus Christ. Jesus, the Head, and Jesus, the Body.

You also give your secular society authority by choosing to obey the laws of the land.

Absolutely NOT. I do not give them any moral authority over me. As if. My society has said that adultery is not illegal. My society has said that abortion is moral. My society has said that fornication is legal.

Nuh-uh. No way. Not a whit of my moral authority comes from this society.

You are subject to the society - if you step out of line, you can be “corrected.”

Indeed. No argument with you there.

People can also correct the structure. “you know, stoning seems wrong, lets stop doing that”

Again, thank you for making my point, jon!

Clearly, if you can “correct the structure”, then it is not the source of your moral authority. You are using something above (or other than) this society’s moral code.

This notion is at the heart of civil disobedience and rebellion. It is a willful act of the people rescinding their submission to the authority.

Yup! :extrahappy::dancing::tiphat:

Thus, society, by your own admission, cannot be the source of your moral authority. You are submitting to something OTHER than this society to determine something is wrong.

It’s a two way street. The society protects the individual (strength in numbers) and the person protects the society.

That’s good. I concur.

BTW I don’t understand the baby reference or how it’s applicable (Moses?) Did someone claim that abandoning babies was moral?

Yes, indeed, some “societal structures” indeed claimed that leaving infants to die in the cold was moral.