Moral Relativism

[jonfawkes]

It is the only logical conclusion to your proposal, jon.

I think you see the absurdity of your position. If our morality comes from “shared biology”, then we ought to be similar, morally, to chimps.

There are similarities, they’re just not the same.

 

[PRmerger]

There are similarities, they’re just not the same.

We have similar morals to chimps?

This discussion has been reduced to a farce, jon.

When you proposed that “obvious patterns exist in human morality because we share the same biology” I think you made that statement in ignorance.

It was not a well thought out proposition, eh?

 

[jonfawkes]

We have similar morals to chimps?

This discussion has been reduced to a farce, jon.

When you proposed that “obvious patterns exist in human morality because we share the same biology” I think you made that statement in ignorance.

It was not a well thought out proposition, eh?

I stand by it. Morality is the code of conduct that we use to support the things we value.

 

[PRmerger]

I stand by it. Morality is the code of conduct that we use to support the things we value.

Huh? This is a totally new proposition. And, who could disagree with the above?

 

[PRmerger]

I stand by it. Morality is the code of conduct that we use to support the things we value.

Clearly, your arguments that the source of morality is
-society
or
-biology

have been refuted.

If it’s not society, and it’s not biology, what is it, then?

The source of our morality is Divine Law, as revealed to us through Jesus Christ in His Body, the Church.

 

[larkin31]

There are similarities, they’re just not the same.

Jon, there is no need to follow PR to these extremist claims. Obviously, humans share more biology between themselves than they do with chimps. Primate cultures have codes of behavior that govern their conduct and group relations. Should we call it “morality”? I don’t know. But we all know what you meant. Well, all but PR. That humans share basic ethical values is likely a combination of the instinct for survival within the same species and the learned knowledge of how groups (families, tribes) find stability. None of this is a persuasive argument that the supernatural exists, or that out there somewhere is an objective moral realm. Moreover, over time, humans have had very different values on some key points. Bewildering at times.

 

[jonfawkes]

Huh? This is a totally new proposition. And, who could disagree with the above?

Exactly, that’s what everything I’ve been saying is an example of that statement. We as humans have things we value. Our morality supports that. There are things that we have a shared value for because we are all human. There are also things that are different because of society and religious differences.

You may see a relationship with Jesus Christ as the greatest good, your morality stems from that. The Catholic Church is the structure that gives you the means to that relationship. So you defer to the Church to protect and preserve the greatest good - a relationship with Jesus.

A Hindu doesn’t value a relationship with Jesus as the greatest good so he doesn’t defer to the church.

You both share values as humans but they aren’t the same because of religion and society.

Chimps don’t have human morality the have chimp morality. There are similarities because we share similar biology. They are social beings and they have “rules” to their society. Again, it’s not human morality.

 

[PRmerger]

Jon, there is no need to follow PR to these extremist claims.

Indeed. They are extremist. And absurd. But they are the logical conclusion if one posits that our morality is determined by biology.

Obviously, humans share more biology between themselves than they do with chimps.

Indeed.

Primate cultures have codes of behavior that govern their conduct and group relations. Should we call it “morality”? I don’t know.

We would NOT call it morality. Morality is a choice to do good or do evil. To follow the Divine Law or to reject it.

No one yet has been able to demonstrate that chimps can articulate any choice in their “conduct or group relations” that is governed by an urge to do good and avoid evil.

But we all know what you meant. Well, all but PR. That humans share basic ethical values is likely a combination of the instinct for survival within the same species and the learned knowledge of how groups (families, tribes) find stability. None of this is a persuasive argument that the supernatural exists, or that out there somewhere is an objective moral realm. Moreover, over time, humans have had very different values on some key points. Bewildering at times.

Absolutely not.

This is simply not true that morality varies across cultures and changes over time. Well, acknowledged that some perceptions of morality have changed, but objective good and objective evil have not.

Thus, while some societies say that polygamy is licit, NO CULTURE has ever claimed that it’s ok to take anyone’s wife should one feel like doing so.

And while some societies may proclaim that public ownership of property is ideal, NO CULTURE has ever claimed that it’s good to take what belongs to another.

As Peter Kreeft says, try to imagine a society in which justice, courage, wisdom, honesty are proclaimed to be evil–you can’t find one, ever, that’s existed. And no society has ever existed that has valued cowardice, fraud, ineptitude, betrayal and ignorance.

And, larkin, your comments about me are puzzling, for I have been always charitable to you, and I have been your friend, since we first conversed.

 

[PRmerger]

Exactly, that’s what everything I’ve been saying is an example of that statement.

We are discussing the source of morality. What is our moral authority. Your generalized statement, while true, does not address these issues.

We as humans have things we value. Our morality supports that. There are things that we have a shared value for because we are all human. There are also things that are different because of society and religious differences.

Yes.

You may see a relationship with Jesus Christ as the greatest good, your morality stems from that. The Catholic Church is the structure that gives you the means to that relationship. So you defer to the Church to protect and preserve the greatest good - a relationship with Jesus.

Ok.

A Hindu doesn’t value a relationship with Jesus as the greatest good so he doesn’t defer to the church.

Right.

You both share values as humans but they aren’t the same because of religion and society.

Exactly. So society is NOT the source of our morality.

What is? Divine Law. And any human being can through the use of their reason have access to this Divine Law.

So, it is NOT society. It is NOT biology.

What is the source then? Divine Law.

Chimps don’t have human morality the have chimp morality.

LOL!

There are similarities because we share similar biology. They are social beings and they have “rules” to their society. Again, it’s not human morality.

:whacky:

 

[JDaniel]

It is the church that gives you the structure to give your morality form. It is the group that you choice to identify with. Are you suggesting that Jews. Hindus, Buddhists etc are immoral?

Actually, Jonmeister, I had a pretty good sense of morality long before I fully immersed myself into the Church. Admittedly the teachings of the Church have no doubt extrapolated additional moral points for me, such as, “Since only God truly creates and has commanded us to go out and multiply, it is, therefore, improper, i.e., wrong, to artificially thwart participation in his creative activity.” But, my earlier predilection for honoring the “rights” of others, pre-dated my full immersion into the Church, back when I was an atheist.

After considering the nature of man in his entirety, as best as I could, I determined that a “right was that which I accorded to others precisely because it was reciprocated.” After immersion in the Church, it occurred to me that that might not be sufficient. That said, God does not hand to us our rights, rather, we draw them out of a consideration of human nature together with our purpose and the factical of reciprocity. In this manner, I cannot rescind my grant of rights to others, at least not morally.

You do give society authority - you choose to live by the laws of the land. You submit to societies morality. No one is forcing you to commit adultery and you are permissive with those that do. You submit to that authority even though you may think it is wrong.

A whipped slave also submits. Again, submission does not necessarily betoken alignment with authority. The fact is, I was born here (USA). Here is what I am familiar with. Here, I have learned the ways of the street, so to speak. Here, I’ve learned to duck and dodge, besides learning what is against the law - that might get me into a world of hurt! Though I might not have submitted, per se, my familiarity with here has caused me to become somewhat comfortable here. I do not want to begin a potentially new learning curve somewhere else!

You seem to think that society is stuck in time but it’s fluid.

And that can become, for its citizens, a severe problem.

Even the church has changed over time. (meat on Fridays, limbo, the inquisition, etc)

Somewhat true. The Church is organic. But, it still maintains its overall same-ness. The sources for that sameness may be causes for improvement or correction. For example, although meat is permitted on Fridays now, that derives from a more refined understanding of the entirety of the obligation for abstention. The overarching rule for fasting is still with us, but, a bit modified.

It is still society that makes the change. As the needs of society change, the structure to support those needs changes.

No. It is the people placed in charge who make the changes. In democracies, said changes are made occasionally at the behest of the citizens. Most changes really do not reflect the people’s needs. They usually reflect the selfish wants of a vocal few. who know how to maneuver around the halls of government.

Like the Spartan example - The Spartans were a warrior tribe that the greatest good was strength and warrior ship, all morality stemmed from the support of those values. They also kept slaves. As did people in the bible, as did society in the US. None of them do now.

Some values are not moral. Some morals are not values. Some values are even achieved at the expense of appropriate morality. And some morality is achieved at the expense of some values. Consider the value proposition for genital mutilation. It certainly tends to keep women chaste. It permanently removes a God given/nature provided faculty. It is not moral. Morality has to do with intention, impious action, or both. Removing the faculty in advance of any potentiality of giving in to impious actions, is not considering the nature of man in its entirety. Clearly, not all women will give in to such impiousness. But, there, they never get the chance to reach a higher state - by their own volition. It is taken away by men, who appear to have no problem with raping. In fact, they get off the hook by publicly destroying the evidence! That betokens an immoral society from the top down.

Things change.

Let’s pray for it. But, it hasn’t changed there for centuries.

God bless and Merry Christmas,
jd

 

[jonfawkes]

We are discussing the source of morality. What is our moral authority. Your generalized statement, while true, does not address these issues.

What is? Divine Law. And any human being can through the use of their reason have access to this Divine Law.

So, it is NOT society. It is NOT biology.

What is the source then? Divine Law.

Your divine law isn’t the same as the same as the Hindu’s. What about the morality of the godless, like Buddhists?

My only point is We all choose what is the greatest good and make and follow rules that support that choice. There are of course hierarchy of other “goods” that are supported as well. Biology does determine parts of this, Society parts, Religion Parts. They aren’t weighted the same but they all contribute.

Like your statement -

And while some societies may proclaim that public ownership of property is ideal, NO CULTURE has ever claimed that it’s good to take what belongs to another.

It’s conditional - no one supports it for those that they consider part of their group.

The religion, culture and biology of the Vikings supported the raiding of “other” groups and taking their property.

 

[jonfawkes]

I had a pretty good sense of morality long before I fully immersed myself into the Church

So you agree morality can stem from somewhere other than the Church.

After immersion in the Church, it occurred to me that that might not be sufficient. That said, God does not hand to us our rights, rather, we draw them out of a consideration of human nature together with our purpose and the factical of reciprocity. In this manner, I cannot rescind my grant of rights to others, at least not morally.

So our human nature, it stems from biology, reciprocity from society. I don’t see where we disagree.

A whipped slave also submits. Again, submission does not necessarily betoken alignment with authority.

He has the option of death. Submission serves the greater good of self preservation. His internal morality defers and is usurped by the morality of the slave holder. So the only moral precept at play is self preservation.

No. It is the people placed in charge who make the changes. In democracies, said changes are made occasionally at the behest of the citizens. Most changes really do not reflect the people’s needs. They usually reflect the selfish wants of a vocal few. who know how to maneuver around the halls of government.

See the civil rights movement and aparthied. French Revolution etc The people are capable of initiating change.

Consider the value proposition for genital mutilation. It certainly tends to keep women chaste. It permanently removes a God given/nature provided faculty. It is not moral. Morality has to do with intention, impious action, or both. Removing the faculty in advance of any potentiality of giving in to impious actions, is not considering the nature of man in its entirety. Clearly, not all women will give in to such impiousness. But, there, they never get the chance to reach a higher state - by their own volition.

The causation is faulty, it’s to keep women around, so that they breed, so the society has people, so it can be strong. It’s a tribal mentality. I don’t agree with it. I don’t live in a society where lack of population is a problem.

I also have a problem with male genital mutilation but it’s practiced in the U.S. - it seems immoral to mutilate any infant. Let’s pray for the end that as well.

 

[PRmerger]

So you agree morality can stem from somewhere other than the Church.

Yes. It stems from God, in His Divine Law. The Scriptures attest to this, jon.

 

[davidv]

Your divine law isn’t the same as the same as the Hindu’s. What about the morality of the godless, like Buddhists?

My only point is We all choose what is the greatest good and make and follow rules that support that choice. There are of course hierarchy of other “goods” that are supported as well. Biology does determine parts of this, Society parts, Religion Parts. They aren’t weighted the same but they all contribute.

Like your statement -

It’s conditional - no one supports it for those that they consider part of their group.

The religion, culture and biology of the Vikings supported the raiding of “other” groups and taking their property.

The bolded statement above is categorically false. When we sin we elevate an evil or a lesser good to the false state of the greatest good and therefore do not choose the greatest good.

 

[jonfawkes]

Yes. It stems from God, in His Divine Law. The Scriptures attest to this, jon.

So what about the godless (buddhists) and “other god” worshipers (hindus) - Immoral?

 

[davidv]

So you agree morality can stem from somewhere other than the Church.

Yes. The same place the Church gets it from, God (Divine Law).

So our human nature, it stems from biology, reciprocity from society. I don’t see where we disagree.

Our human nature came from God. He created us in His image and likeness.

He has the option of death. Submission serves the greater good of self preservation. His internal morality defers and is usurped by the morality of the slave holder. So the only moral precept at play is self preservation.

See the civil rights movement and aparthied. French Revolution etc The people are capable of initiating change.

The causation is faulty, it’s to keep women around, so that they breed, so the society has people, so it can be strong. It’s a tribal mentality. I don’t agree with it. I don’t live in a society where lack of population is a problem.

I also have a problem with male genital mutilation but it’s practiced in the U.S. - it seems immoral to mutilate any infant. Let’s pray for the end that as well.

Why? Society has deemed it acceptable.

 

[inocente]

Rave is on my ignore list. I got this kind of response from him/her much more quickly!

Wise words, thanks Wisdom is knowing what to do next - David Starr Jordan

Foolishly I’m not ready to give in yet.

To you and everyone on the thread, an absolute blessing this Christmas: May the long time sun shine upon you, all love surround you, and the pure light within you guide your way on.

 

[inocente]

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.

I don’t use the ignore list, it’s easier to just look the other way.

Due to your particular style, I have to reread your posts until the emotion subsides and your point becomes clear, whereas with most others I just grin at any feigned outrage. Don’t know why, it’s obviously my problem. Then chains of multi-quote posts usually go off at a tangent until both posters become consumed with I-said you-said and the original purpose is lost in a mist, along with me. Again, my problem.

Now if you don’t understand the difference between a universal statement and an existential one … Do you understand the difference?

On this thread I think the central issue is different ways of thinking, what I’ve been calling different worldviews. I tend to want all theory to be based on evidence, so theories from holy books or pieces of philosophy don’t cut much ice unless there’s real-world evidence they are going somewhere. I’m kind of an atheistic theist if you like, different in that way to many religious folk I know. So yes I know the difference but my point isn’t to do with universals or whatever, it’s about absolutes relating to the real world.

For example, granny’s claim that “The human person is worthy of profound respect” sounds entirely reasonable. But then some would add “from the moment of conception” to support their case against abortion, or even, depending on their idea of when conception takes place, their case against ABC. Others would add “unless they are suspected terrorists who we want to water-board”. Others “and this also applies to all other species too”. Others “unless their religion differs from mine” and so on. In other words, any absolute claim is open to abuse.

Then, looking at the claim, is it actually true that those who commit crimes against humanity are worthy of the profound respect we give their victims? Is the claim even absolute in that sense?

I mean it’s a really neat motto to hang over your desk, but then some have “Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty” or “You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars”.

If the truly faithful know how to read their given absolutes, the rest of us don’t. I’ll stick by my claims that moral absolutes are extremely difficult to prove to a skeptic (note, not cynic), unnecessary in the real world, and dangerous (open to abuse).

 

[Betterave]

It does though, you are just determining that the cost is too great. It depends on the transgression you are asked to do though doesn’t it. I might feel that stealing because my boss tells me too is a lessor evil than letting my family starve. I might draw the line at killing … or I might not. Point being is that defense of the family is the precessed greatest good - so the morality stems from the defense of the family. The other parts of my morality are put to the side and I replace them with his. Killing is ok because I have to feed my family where I may have thought differently before.

jon,
I really can’t express strongly enough how silly your position is. It implies that it is impossible to act immorally. According to your view, however one acts, and however one consciously assesses that action (including the case where one admits that one’s act was immoral), that action becomes, ipso facto, one`s recognition of the moral rightness of that action (or of the moral authority of the authority enjoining that action). If you really believe this, I can only conclude that you have not the least understanding of the basic categories governing ordinary moral discourse. You might complain that I’m being dismissive in saying this, but I’m only pointing out what is obviously the truth. You are not representing a position of moral relativism, but one of moral nihilism.

 

[inocente]

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.”

“Natural law” is just a name given to a philosophical system of morality, one amongst many. It may underlie part of your faith but just because it has “natural" in its name doesn’t make it so or elevate it to a brute fact of nature. Not for the rest of us. Anyway, I’m told modern Catholic theologians don’t use it to get pat answers but as a way to think about novel situations and particular cases.

As to the “-ness” of things - different worldviews? A standard question from philosophers about consciousness is “what is it like to be the mind of a bat?”. Neuroscientists and behavioral psychologists rarely ask such questions because it doesn’t get them very far.

“Spider-ness” or “bird-ness”, if you must put it that way, result from DNA, shape, habits and so on. Those are the patterns we find in nature. When we make a pot from clay, its “pot-ness” is a quality we ascribe. Same if we then glaze it and anoint it with “glazed pot-ness”. Same if we fill it with water and give it “water-filled glazed pot-ness”. Same if we drop it and give it “dang, broken pot-ness” and “double dang, water-all-over-the-floor-ness”. At a certain time of day the side of the mountain in front of our little farm acquires an “oh-look-there’s-the-face-of-Jesus-ness” and then loses it again as the sun moves around.

All of which is to say we need to be very careful about patterns we think we find. Handing out ness-ness is often relative to our way of thinking, as is going on to merrily donate purposes.

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. )

A professional might use the DSM-IV. Look at the symptoms for diagnosing OCD. Even in this simple case, there is no clear “-ness” to be found.

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!)

I’d have said pero no creo que tienes razón, but got your drift!

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.”)

As you know, the theory is about continual adaptation through dumb mechanisms, lots of little accidents and that kind of thing. Creatures don’t advance towards any end goal, they just adapt. Our condition is the result of that process, plus personal accidents and choices we made. On your last question – a prehistoric hunter-gatherer might say she lives closer to nature, hasn’t brought many species to the point of extinction, has shorter working hours, and is happier for it. I could say other things, relatively.

Are these from a children’s website?

No, I just googled “purpose life christian” and picked the quotes randomly out of the first four hits. My point was that even one group of people don’t share the same idea of common purpose. If you extend the sample to all seven billion of us then of course you may be able to abstract your way back to something common, but whether anything like seven billion would agree with your abstraction is another matter.

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

No, which is why I said everyone would probably agree if there was one purpose. We probably need an atheist or two to join in if we’re going to discuss how we absolutely know the mind of God.

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!

Or a boy in some religions? But given that Muslim clerics are themselves divided on the question of female circumcision, and that absolutists tend to be religious, you need a better example to claim everyone is better off with your norms.

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.

Yikes, let’s not get into tea party nonsense. Out of fear we should send all our African immigrants back to a life of poverty? After, in their desperation, some drowned trying to get to a better life when their little boats failed to cross the Med? Cf. The New Colossus, Emma Lazarus

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

As you know the scientific method works by disproving falsities rather than attempting absolute proofs. If that’s reasoning by the back door, it turned out to work pretty well.

PS: I’ll come back on your refutations and post #275 later.