Moral Relativism

[LifeIsAbsurd]

PRmerger:

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

An interesting example of a society believing it was best to allow some infants to die:
Plutarch on Sparta:

If after examination the baby proved well-built and sturdy they instructed the father to bring it up, and assigned it one of the 9,000 lots of land. But if it was puny and deformed, they dispatched it to what was called ‘the place of rejection’ (‘Apothetae’), a precipitous spot by Mount Taygetus, considering it better both for itself and the state that the child should die if right from its birth it was poorly endowed for health or strength.

 

[PRmerger]

An interesting example of a society believing it was best to allow some infants to die:

Originally Posted by Plutarch on Sparta
If after examination the baby proved well-built and sturdy they instructed the father to bring it up, and assigned it one of the 9,000 lots of land. But if it was puny and deformed, they dispatched it to what was called ‘the place of rejection’ (‘Apothetae’), a precipitous spot by Mount Taygetus, considering it better both for itself and the state that the child should die if right from its birth it was poorly endowed for health or strength.

Monstrous. Truly monstrous.

Clearly, society is NOT the norm or foundation for one’s morality.

 

[jonfawkes]

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:

Practically is the key word here. About 96% with chimps per latest studies. There are some big differences like We have 23 base pair and chimps 24. There is a difference hence the societal differences.

 

[jonfawkes]

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.

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.

Indeed. No argument with you there.

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.

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.

That’s good. I concur.

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

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?

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.

You seem to think that society is stuck in time but it’s fluid. Even the church has changed over time. (meat on Fridays, limbo, the inquisition, etc) It is still society that makes the change. As the needs of society change, the structure to support those needs changes.

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.

Things change.

 

[Betterave]

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.

What, “only if the other person agrees with you that the action is immoral”? What does “other persons” have to do with what I wrote? Please try to write coherent sentences that actually respond to what I wrote, instead of meaningless, apparently irrelevant sentence fragments.

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

So what?

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.

I didn’t make any predictions, so what are you talking about?

(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).

So what? (What “logic”?) What are you talking about?

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.

That’s nice, but perhaps you should try to read what I wrote next time and respond to that, instead of a bunch of stuff you made up. My premise was *not *that only psychopaths would be willing to kill for money. To remind you, here’s what I said:

“Normally 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.”

That does not entail the ‘premise’ you attribute to me. (This was not a premise, btw; it was just a statement.)

 

[Betterave]

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.

So let’s be clear here: You seriously want to maintain that there is a valid entailment from “X is a rule for how you conduct your behavior” to “X is a *moral *rule”?? Or from “breaking rule X has consequences with the in group” to “rule X is a moral rule”?? Before saying yes, please try to think of some of the obvious reasons why those are absurd claims.

 

[Betterave]

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.

This is again nonsense, jon. If one submits to the authority of some entity which one thinks is “wrong,” one cannot be submitting to that authority as a moral authority. It would be very stupid to maintain that all submission to authority implies a recognition of the morality of that authority. If you don’t understand this, I can give you some examples to illustrate the point. You should be able to come up with some yourself easily enough though.

 

[jonfawkes]

Being dismissive doesn’t validate your point - so yes please provide examples.

From merriam-webster.com

Definition of MORALITY
1
a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2
a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3
: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4
: moral conduct : virtue

 

[Betterave]

An example: Your boss tells you to do something that you consider immoral. You recognize that your boss has authority over you, so you do what he tells you. You submit to his authority without recognizing the morality of his authority.

(Obviously “being dismissive” doesn’t validate my point - your making irrelevant observations doesn’t validate yours.)

 

[jonfawkes]

An example: Your boss tells you to do something that you consider immoral. You recognize that your boss has authority over you, so you do what he tells you. You submit to his authority without recognizing the morality of his authority.

(Obviously “being dismissive” doesn’t validate my point - your making irrelevant observations doesn’t validate yours.)

The Nurnberg Defense.

You are validating his morality. By acting in line with his wishes, you are saying that you believe his morality to be superior to yours. Silence implies consent.

You always have a choice. That’s why there are whistle blowers, conscientious objectors, and that’s why there are martyrs. There is always a cost to the choice but there is a choice. Martyrs chose their morality at the cost of their lives.

 

[PRmerger]

Practically is the key word here. About 96% with chimps per latest studies. There are some big differences like We have 23 base pair and chimps 24. There is a difference hence the societal differences.

Ah. So do you have any evidence that our morality comes from the 4% that differs from primates?

 

[JDaniel]

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.

But, Jonner, me lad (or las, as the case may be!), you missed my point (maybe). My point was that attaining a car that produced CO was the by-product of car-building, not the by-product of car-ness. We can certainly build electric cars that don’t emit CO, etc,

To answer your other question as to how we know which one is the right one, I admit that at times that is tough. But, remember Aristotle’s syllogism: “What ever in nature occurs always or at least for the most part happens either by chance or. . .” Extrapolate on that and you get, “Whenever an artificial thing is used always or at least for the most part . . . etc.” Or, when it is the known intention of the maker to make a thing for a specific purpose, we be pretty certain that that’s its purpose.

A three-celled flashlight is sometimes (though rarely) used as a defensive/offensive weapon. But, one can easily “see” that that is not what it was made for. The inventor’s intention was that it be used to provide a light source where and when needed. Simply because humans are ingenious enough to pick up whatever is handy to use for another, accidentally imposed purpose, does not, as one can see, commit that thing to that use in a preponderance of instances. (Unless, it turns out to be better than the so-called billy clubs on the market!)

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.

Don’t confuse “property” with “purpose.” The fluid property of water permits it to resolve itself into accidents. (By the way, that’s what they make those basement water pumps for; in case you were confused as to their purpose. )

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

I know. I’m still laughing.

God bless, Merry Christmas,
jd

 

[PRmerger]

It is the church that gives you the structure to give your morality form. It is the group that you choice to identify with.

Ok.

Are you suggesting that Jews. Hindus, Buddhists etc are immoral?

No. Quite the contrary, jon. The reason that Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc can be moral is because they submit to an authority that’s OTHER than their society.

Again, you are doing very well in showcasing my point.

You do give society authority - you choose to live by the laws of the land. You submit to societies morality.

Absolutely not.

Your adamantine profession that my society determines my morality is getting quite tiresome.

No one is forcing you to commit adultery and you are permissive with those that do.

Huh?

You submit to that authority even though you may think it is wrong.

LOL!

Again, this proves my point. If I think it’s wrong, then I am not submitting to the moral authority of my society, eh?

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

No. I have never stated that “society is stuck in time.” :whacky:

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

Ok. Meat on Fridays–discipline; limbo–theological speculation; inquisition–Catholic sinners not following Catholic teaching.

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

Ok. But society is not the moral authority of the Church.

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.

Nonsequitor, to be sure!

Things change.

No argument with you there.

 

[jonfawkes]

Ah. So do you have any evidence that our morality comes from the 4% that differs from primates?

That’s not what I’m asserting. I am asserting that because we are different genetically we have a different social structure than chimps. As there are similarities in the DNA there are similarities in the social structures but they aren’t the same.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s not what I’m asserting. I am asserting that because we are different genetically we have a different social structure than chimps. As there are similarities in the DNA there are similarities in the social structures but they aren’t the same.

No, jon. You are asserting that obvious patterns exist in human morality because we share the same biology.

Because we share the same biology.

As we share the same biology with primates, yet we do not have the same patterns of morality as primates, the logical conclusion is that our morality comes from the 4% of biology that we don’t share, right?

 

[JDaniel]

You are validating his morality. By acting in line with his wishes, you are saying that you believe his morality to be superior to yours. Silence implies consent.

Actually, the old precept is, “silence betokens consent.” But, that didn’t stop Thomas More from having is head lopped off! So, I guess that juridical instruction doesn’t always hold. :bigyikes:

You always have a choice. That’s why there are whistle blowers, conscientious objectors, and that’s why there are martyrs. There is always a cost to the choice but there is a choice. Martyrs chose their morality at the cost of their lives.

What Betterave is saying is that the appearance of consent does not betoken material consent. It may merely mean that I do not wish to plunge my family and I into the anguish of unemployment hell, at this moment. As I can, I will just have to find another job.

Sorry, Jon, you can take this job and . . .!

God bless and Merry Christmas,
jd

 

[jonfawkes]

But, Jonner, me lad (or las, as the case may be!), you missed my point (maybe). My point was that attaining a car that produced CO was the by-product of car-building, not the by-product of car-ness. We can certainly build electric cars that don’t emit CO, etc,

To answer your other question as to how we know which one is the right one, I admit that at times that is tough. But, remember Aristotle’s syllogism: “What ever in nature occurs always or at least for the most part happens either by chance or. . .” Extrapolate on that and you get, “Whenever an artificial thing is used always or at least for the most part . . . etc.” Or, when it is the known intention of the maker to make a thing for a specific purpose, we be pretty certain that that’s its purpose.

A three-celled flashlight is sometimes (though rarely) used as a defensive/offensive weapon. But, one can easily “see” that that is not what it was made for. The inventor’s intention was that it be used to provide a light source where and when needed. Simply because humans are ingenious enough to pick up whatever is handy to use for another, accidentally imposed purpose, does not, as one can see, commit that thing to that use in a preponderance of instances. (Unless, it turns out to be better than the so-called billy clubs on the market!)

Don’t confuse “property” with “purpose.” The fluid property of water permits it to resolve itself into accidents. (By the way, that’s what they make those basement water pumps for; in case you were confused as to their purpose. )

I know. I’m still laughing.

God bless, Merry Christmas,
jd

No I got your point, yes we can build electric cars but my non-electric car, produces CO every time I start the engine. It’s not a by product of the making of the car, it is essential to the function of my non-electric car.

when it is the known intention of the maker to make a thing for a specific purpose, we be pretty certain that that’s its purpose.

This is the assumption of intention. If you are trying to determine purpose by empirical evidence you can’t discount the “by-products”.

The conclusion that you draw can be false.

(for the sake of discussion) If I don’t know what a flashlight is - the mag light still functions as a billy club when the batteries are dead. The “designed” function doesn’t. The purpose becomes the function that I assign it, not the designers.

 

[jonfawkes]

No, jon. You are asserting that obvious patterns exist in human morality because we share the same biology.

As we share the same biology with primates, yet we do not have the same patterns of morality as primates, the logical conclusion is that our morality comes from the 4% of biology that we don’t share, right?

You are drawing that conclusion, I’m not asserting it.

But for the sake of discussion - human infants require more care than their chimp counterparts. Humans are more helpless. Our social structure is set up that we can care for that infant more than a chimp needs to. So our sense of “good” supports those things that are “good” for the care of that infant.

The chimp also wants it’s offspring to live and prosper but the needs are different.

My infant needs to wear clothes because I live in an environment that dictates that need. It couldn’t survive without protection from the weather. A chimp doesn’t have this problem so clothes are not a “good” for the chimp. They aren’t necessary.

 

[jonfawkes]

Actually, the old precept is, “silence betokens consent.” But, that didn’t stop Thomas More from having is head lopped off! So, I guess that juridical instruction doesn’t always hold. :bigyikes:

What Betterave is saying is that the appearance of consent does not betoken material consent. It may merely mean that I do not wish to plunge my family and I into the anguish of unemployment hell, at this moment. As I can, I will just have to find another job.

Sorry, Jon, you can take this job and . . .!

God bless and Merry Christmas,
jd

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.

 

[PRmerger]

You are drawing that conclusion, I’m not asserting it.

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.