Moral Relativism

[Betterave]

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.

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).

Well maybe once you get those emotions under control you’ll get around to actually addressing my argument. Until then, merry christmas!

 

[Betterave]

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.

So wisdom is… ignoring those who point it out when you make lousy arguments based on using terms incorrectly? Yikes!

Here’s a suggestion what to do next: no more blindly insisting that you’re right until you’ve made an honest effort to understand why I’ve said that you’re wrong (ask for clarification if you need to).

 

[inocente]

Well maybe once you get those emotions under control you’ll get around to actually addressing my argument. Until then, merry christmas!

Be a dear and repeat which one - just the bare bones to remind me. Plus, any comments on what I just posted about your universals/existentials point? Thanks, and merry Christmas to you too.

 

[PRmerger]

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

As I said, the Scriptures answer this question.

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 2:15[/BIBLEDRB]

And the Catechims addresses this here:

The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:
For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely. CCC 1956

 

[jonfawkes]

As I said, the Scriptures answer this question.

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 2:15[/BIBLEDRB]

And the Catechims addresses this here:

The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely. CCC 1956

This seems to support what I’m saying -

It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal

Our biology dictates because we all share the same nature.

Merry Christmas

 

[jonfawkes]

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.

Yes exactly - This is my explanation of your position namely- "If my boss tells me to I have to but I don’t have to like it. "

There is another choice - not doing it. By doing it you are adopting his morality. You give it authority. The reason you gave “I can’t loose my job let my family starve” is a justification for adopting the new morality. The “preservation of the family” is the ultimate moral good not “stealing is wrong” - you are saying stealing is ok if I have to feed my family. All well and good - it doesn’t show a case for absolute morality that you claim. You are actually saying the contrary.

Merry Christmas.

 

[larkin31]

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.

Thanks, and the same to you. I consider you a wise, patient thinker. The sun has turned the corner in the sky.

 

[larkin31]

“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.

Precisely.

In the realm of “morality” or “the nature of man” (or other such generalizations), I consider the idea to be entirely man-made concept.

 

[PRmerger]

Our biology dictates because we all share the same nature.

I think you have an impoverished understanding of what natural law is, jon.

I will quote from inocente here: *“just because it has “natural” in its name doesn’t elevate it to a brute fact of nature. *

Merry Christmas

Right back at cha! :hug1:

 

[PRmerger]

This seems to support what I’m saying -

Then you are very Catholic when you profess that!

 

[PRmerger]

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.

This is an interesting point. Perhaps you are right and there were cultures that declared that it was indeed moral to take what didn’t belong to them.

At any rate, it presents a dilemma for you. Are you saying, then, that it would have been the moral thing to do, if you were a Viking, to raid another town and rape the women, since that’s what your society did?

Or are you saying that it’s always wrong to raid another town and rape the women?

 

[jonfawkes]

This is an interesting point. Perhaps you are right and there were cultures that declared that it was indeed moral to take what didn’t belong to them.

At any rate, it presents a dilemma for you. Are you saying, then, that it would have been the moral thing to do, if you were a Viking, to raid another town and rape the women, since that’s what your society did?

Or are you saying that it’s always wrong to raid another town and rape the women?

I’m saying morality is conditional to the time, environment, society and religion it is the morality for. As a Viking I would be acting moral to my understanding as a Viking. Pillaging would be a moral responsibility - I am providing for my family, and giving myself a chance to die “properly” so that I could go to Valhalla ( Viking warrior heaven) - I would be a “good” Viking.

BTW our culture has some basis on, taking things - " colonization " and " manifest destiny"

 

[tonyrey]

*1. The fact that cultures have reflected on morality for nearly all recorded history does **not ***

suffice to make them important. It certainly does to me. Go ahead and dismiss them if you wish. I don’t. You’re putting the cart before the horse. Morality is not important because cultures have reflected on it for nearly all recorded history. They have reflected on it because morality** is** important.

                                             2.  It **is **

unscientific not to consider whether other** rational beings** have any rules of conduct similar to ours.
I do consider this. I never said I did not.
You implied it:

Would other rational beings have any rules of conduct similar to ours?

Sure, why not? Research the question and find out. This is an empirical question.

1. Important, i.e. moral, expressions in human discourse** do**

refer to objective reality. Depends on what you mean by “refer to.” Of course, many morals “refer to” objective reality. The brain thinking of morals is objectively real (most likely). You seem to equate persons with brains…

1. Morality** is**

primarily concerned with** personal relations**, not physical objects. Perhaps. I have never seen a study on this. But I have no strong reason to doubt this. Physical objects aren’t moral agents nor do they have rights.

 Quote:

5.** Intangible**

intentions, thoughts and decisions **are **evidence that physical reality is not the sole reality. No. They are evidence of brain/neural activity.

It is quite the reverse. Without thoughts and perceptions we wouldn’t know the brain or the physical world exist. Our primary datum is the contents of our mind! We interpret the evidence…

To expand neural activity to be evidence for the supernatural you must argue better than this.

To expand neural activity to be evidence for the sole reality of physical objects you must ignore the basis of all knowledge!

 

[PRmerger]

I’m saying morality is conditional to the time, environment, society and religion it is the morality for.

Well, you are partially correct. We are obligated to do the right thing, in the right way, for the right reason.

So, yes, sometimes the situation (time, environment, society, religion) may dictate what may be moral.

However, it must all be predicated on doing “the right thing.”.

So, it is NEVER right–no matter what society you live in–to rape someone. It is NEVER right to commit genocide. It is NEVER right to murder. It is NEVER right to fornicate.

As a Viking I would be acting moral to my understanding as a Viking. Pillaging would be a moral responsibility - I am providing for my family, and giving myself a chance to die “properly” so that I could go to Valhalla ( Viking warrior heaven) - I would be a “good” Viking.

As far as pillaging, perhaps. Raping? Not so much. As if.

BTW our culture has some basis on, taking things - " colonization " and " manifest destiny"

Ok.

 

[larkin31]

You’re putting the cart before the horse. Morality is not important because cultures have reflected on it for nearly all recorded history. They have reflected on it because morality** is** important.

Both, actually.

You seem to equate persons with brains…

Not at all. And I don;t even see the point of your claiming this.

Physical objects aren’t moral agents nor do they have rights

. Of course not. So what?

It is quite the reverse. Without thoughts and perceptions we wouldn’t know the brain or the physical world exist. Our primary datum is the contents of our mind! We interpret the evidence…

I agree. So what? We can’t “know” without our “knowing” organ. This is obvious.

To expand neural activity to be evidence for the sole reality of physical objects you must ignore the basis of all knowledge!

What? This seems purposely obtuse. Why don’t you make your claim clear?

 

[larkin31]

Merry Christmas!

 

[JDaniel]

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.

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.

Then, Mr. Jon, equally, one could assign the purpose of causing pain to the hypodermic needle, especially when it only contains a partial regimen, such as dose # 1 of the multi-dose rabies vaccine, right? Or, one could equally assign the falling out of the sky, crashing, and the killing of all of the passengers, as the purpose of an airplane. Or, one could easily assign as the purpose of prayer, the supplication of God, because people sometimes do supplicate God via prayer. Or, one could easily assign, as a dog’s purpose, the pain we will receive from a dog, as it bites through one’s skin! :bigyikes:

I am not asserting that there are not by-products and confused awarenesses, whenever things are not correctly considered. What I am arguing for is sense as opposed to nonsense (as Merleau-Ponty might suggest), clarity as opposed to gibberish, and sane conclusions as opposed to insane conclusions. If you continue to say that such an endeavor is not possible, I will simply have to have you interred at a sanatorium for a year or two. :whacky:

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

We must. Otherwise life will be insane.

God bless and Merry Christmas,
jd
PS: I guess you can see that I don’t have a life!

 

[larkin31]

Then, Mr. Jon, equally, one could assign the purpose of causing pain to the hypodermic needle, especially when it only contains a partial regimen, such as dose # 1 of the multi-dose rabies vaccine, right? Or, one could equally assign the falling out of the sky, crashing, and the killing of all of the passengers, as the purpose of an airplane. Or, one could easily assign as the purpose of prayer, the supplication of God, because people sometimes do supplicate God via prayer. Or, one could easily assign, as a dog’s purpose, the pain we will receive from a dog, as it bites through one’s skin! :bigyikes:

I am not asserting that there are not by-products and confused awarenesses, whenever things are not correctly considered. What I am arguing for is sense as opposed to nonsense (as Merleau-Ponty might suggest), clarity as opposed to gibberish, and sane conclusions as opposed to insane conclusions. If you continue to say that such an endeavor is not possible, I will simply have to have you interred at a sanatorium for a year or two. :whacky:

Why call him insane when he is simply pointing out that to determine the primary “purpose” in a complex life of many behaviors and intentions and results we inevitably exercise choosing, and these choices reflect our own biases and thinking? “Purpose” of life is clearly an artificial construct influenced by culture, religion, science, and personal choice. What you call “common sense” is simply another cultural factor that you want influencing the determination of “purpose.”

Does CC dogma limit human “purpose” to a single thing? My guess is that at several locations different “purposes” are stated. I bet the Bible also states multiple purposes, and these get different levels of attention from churches at different times.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Good! But, that does not reduce to opaqueness our inevitable and certain knowledge that the action is, perhaps, highly “immoral.” As you said, it may boil down to a choice of the lesser of two evils!

When the first men appeared, or, if you wish, emerged, on this planet, there were no groups or societies to “train” them not to annihilate themselves. We reasonably intuit that they had no language, a necessary pre-requisite for the sharing and refinement of precepts and mores. Thus, the basic and essential mores had to be attained a priori to such structures. Don’t you think? How would humans have known, if all they had was their initial, rudimentary mental pictures?

God bless and a HUGE Merry Christmas!
jd

 

[JDaniel]

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

Jon:

St. Thomas said, in his master work, the Summa Theologica, I - II, q. 94, a. 6. :

There belongs to the natural law, first, certain most common precepts that are known to all; and secondly, certain secondary and more particular precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first principles. As to the common principles, the natural law, in its universal meaning, cannot in any way be blotted out from men’s hearts. But it is blotted out in the case of a particular action, in so far as reason is hindered from applying the common principle to the particular action because of concupiscence or some other passion . . . But as to the other, the secondary precepts, the natural law can be blotted out from the human heart, either by evil persuasions, just as in the speculative matters errors occur in respect of necessary conclusions; or by vicious customs and corrupt habits, as, among some men, theft, and even unnatural vices . . were not esteemed sinful.

Now, the more general are the (intuited/known) principles, the more it is impossible for them to be unknown. On the other hand, the more particular and determinate they become, the greater is the possibility for ignorance and deception. It seems, the more we think about the process of extracting axioms, as it were, that there is an order attaining to particularization from the first general principle and it is kind of the following. We intuit:

(1) A first moral principle, then, based upon this first principle we immediately derive:
(2) Common general principles or moral axioms, then, we make about them,
(3) Reasoned conclusions, then, we test their,
(4) Particular applicability.

Does this seem appropriate to you? If so, and I think it to be, then there is no essential relation of the one to the many, the man-sans-morality with a group - not with regard to morality. The many certainly can permit us to accomplish # (4), by allowing us the luxury of remote testing. And that’s from where I think confusion can arise as to the source and rigidity of morality. Before language, first principles were written on the hearts of men.

The next questions is, what is this first principle? If we ascribe it to nature alone, then we beg the question as what it is. Is it the live disemboweling of a zebra by a pack of lions? I think it to be more reasonable to ascribe it to that “goodness” (written on men’s hearts) that we derive from the consideration of a real dichotomy in God. When one considers that God is the most powerful exigency in and out of the universe, it is hard to reconcile that without the almost immediate recognition that he is also infinite Love - at precisely the same time. We are, by this recognition, thereby comforted, which increases our practical knowledge of goodness. Thus, the aforementioned first principle must be our alignment with goodness. All other moral axioms are derivative from this overarching principle.

This is the meaning of "divine’ or “eternal” law. It is not so much that which is “forced” upon us as much as it is that which we glean from our right reason derived directly from our natural knowledge, i.e., fear, of Omnipotence. Don’t you think that is so?

Remember, the irrationalities, the dislocations of morality that we see in some cultures, and in cultures that are somewhat prehistoric, are more the products of “vicious customs and corrupt habits.” So, how can our groups be our primary guides? They can be - and often are - just as evil, left to their own devices, as that pack of lions.

God bless,
jd