Morality and Subjectivity

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Indeed.

If society is what determines what’s right and wrong, we must ask ourselves: is society always correct? [SIGN1]Must we never disobey society?[/SIGN1] If we can disobey, then what authority can society possibly have over me? (None!!)

So, Nozzferrahhtoo’s argument that “each other” (i.e. society) is our moral authority seems to be a puzzling and peculiar (though common!) claim.

Anyway, who* is *society except other people just like myself?

Humans are never ALWAYS correct.

I, for one, am advocating a system I think is the best one available to us. As I said the best way of deciding how to live with each other IS each other.

At no point in my use of the English language however have I ever seen it suggested that “best” = “perfect”. We are humans, we err, and so any system any of us advocate will fail to be successful all the time.

And also I am not saying you should disobey society either. But you certainly can DISSENT from it. Education, campaigning, debate and more allow you to follow the law while also campaigning to have it changed.

However while working to change a law, you would still respect and follow it. That is why I do. And if my campaigns to change it fail, I just try again until the next vote on it comes around.

But at no point allow yourself to confuse peaceful dissent with disobedience.

 

[PRmerger]

I am not asking any ONE person to have authority over you. I am talking about the majority of the society which you have chosen to remain a member of. The democratic majority has authority on how that society is formed and that society is what has authority over you.

But, Nozz, what* is* society except a bunch of people? How can people–who are the same as I–have *any *authority over me? I don’t understand why I should cede my most precious right–my free will–to a bunch of people.

And, by defintion, 1/2 of them will be below average in intelligence! Yikes!!

However nothing I said suggested that any one person should individually have authority over you. We are answerable to the society and that society is what creates the idea of morality and law and what each of them should be.

Really, Nozz? You will never disobey the majority?

If you will, then, clearly, there is *something else *that’s your authority, something else that informs your morality.

 

[PRmerger]

Humans are never ALWAYS correct.

Then this is a very, very weak foundation for our authority, is it not?

I, for one, am advocating a system I think is the best one available to us.

'zactly! When you have no Superior foundation, you must accept an Inferior one, if that’s the best you’re able to use.

At no point in my use of the English language however have I ever seen it suggested that “best” = “perfect”. We are humans, we err, and so any system any of us advocate will fail to be successful all the time.

Yikes! You’re not making a very compelling case for society as our authority. Why would anyone be convinced by your argument if you’re saying that your foundation for authority is inferior, substandard, and error-prone?

And also I am not saying you should disobey society either. But you certainly can DISSENT from it. Education, campaigning, debate and more allow you to follow the law while also campaigning to have it changed.

That is a very, very dangerous proclamation, Nozz.

If society is my authority and society is flawed and society decides to, say, take all the women and enslave then, you’re claiming we can’t disobey? :bigyikes:

 

[o_mlly]

My apologies if I’m misunderstanding. You did say:

If morality is a subjective set of rules, then there is no one right thing. If there is no one right thing, you seem to be submitting that the best system is for everyone to advocate what they think is right. I’m simply pointing out that this was exactly what happened in Nazi Germany, and the people chose Hitler to lead them.

Relative to the topic, we have experienced the horrendous results subjective morality can inflict on the human race. It would be well, I think, if current U.S. leaders review their 20th century history to learn the nonsense that may emanate from a morality based on the creature’s fallen reason rather than the transcendent and eterenal values of our Creator. Your Nazi example is, among many others, a teaching moment for the politicians.

The Nazis leaders used legal positivism to defend themselves at Nuremberg. The only reason, the Nazis claimed, that they found themselves in the defendants’ chair at Nuremberg was that they had the misfortune of losing the war.

The philosophy of legal positivism prevents arguing for human rights outside the legal system per se. Legal systems cannot criticize each other. Under legal positivism, if legal system A, claims that legal system B is immoral it must do so only from a reference to itself. System B does not recognize the validity of system A, so the criticism by system A of system B is correctly disregarded as baseless by system B.

The Nazis granted that their legal system was different than the Allies, and granted that fundamental German values were different than the Allies, one of which was the supremacy of the Aryan race. They incorporated their values into their laws that included the de-valuing of Jews relative to Aryans. The Nazis argued, therefore, that the systematic elimination of Jews was, in the German legal system, entirely valid. And, since, under legal positivism, the Allies could not judge the Nazis legal system as invalid, the Allies could not judge the defendants acts as criminal.

Jackson, the lead prosecutor, had to depart from and ultimately debunk the philosophy of legal positivism and proceed to a higher authority, a new and higher vantage point to prosecute the legal system of another country. He appealed to the basic principles of civilization in order to prosecute the jurisprudence of the Nazi legal system. To transcend human law, Jackson, of course, had to take recourse to religion, to revelation.

Secular law or positive law, I think, cannot pretend to encompass morality. We need God’s revelation, a vantage point beyond the human condition, to guide us to certain knowledge of human rights, especially the right to life.

 

[sidbrown]

The only reason, the Nazis claimed, that they found themselves in the defendants’ chair at Nuremberg was that they had the misfortune of losing the war…

I think that there is some truth to that.

 

[John21652]

I think that there is some truth to that.

There indeed is a lot of truth in that. Look up the bombing of Dresden. Then tell us what you’d have done with the organisers of that little exercise if you’d won the war and captured them.

 

[Leela]

Jackson, the lead prosecutor, had to depart from and ultimately debunk the philosophy of legal positivism and proceed to a higher authority, a new and higher vantage point to prosecute the legal system of another country. He appealed to the basic principles of civilization in order to prosecute the jurisprudence of the Nazi legal system. To transcend human law, Jackson, of course, had to take recourse to religion, to revelation.

Really? Jackson claimed to have access to some special revellation as a foundation for his claims? Is there anything that would have prevented the Nazis from making the same sorts of claims? In fact, Hitler actually did claim that his mission was God’s mission, didn’t he? The Jews killed Jesus after all. How do we adjudicate between competing claims to have received special revellation? Is not rational justification the higher authority to which we must always appeal to decide between such claims?

Secular law or positive law, I think, cannot pretend to encompass morality. We need God’s revelation, a vantage point beyond the human condition, to guide us to certain knowledge of human rights, especially the right to life.

It would be nice to have such a God’s-eye-view vantage point so that we could have absolute certainty for our knowledge claims, but most of us have the humility (and good sense) never to claim to have this perspectiveless perspective.

Best,
Leela

 

[John21652]

Relative to the topic, we have experienced the horrendous results subjective morality can inflict on the human race. It would be well, I think, if current U.S. leaders review their 20th century history to learn the nonsense that may emanate from a morality based on the creature’s fallen reason rather than the transcendent and eterenal values of our Creator. Your Nazi example is, among many others, a teaching moment for the politicians.

The Nazis leaders used legal positivism to defend themselves at Nuremberg. The only reason, the Nazis claimed, that they found themselves in the defendants’ chair at Nuremberg was that they had the misfortune of losing the war.

The philosophy of legal positivism prevents arguing for human rights outside the legal system per se. Legal systems cannot criticize each other. Under legal positivism, if legal system A, claims that legal system B is immoral it must do so only from a reference to itself. System B does not recognize the validity of system A, so the criticism by system A of system B is correctly disregarded as baseless by system B.

The Nazis granted that their legal system was different than the Allies, and granted that fundamental German values were different than the Allies, one of which was the supremacy of the Aryan race. They incorporated their values into their laws that included the de-valuing of Jews relative to Aryans. The Nazis argued, therefore, that the systematic elimination of Jews was, in the German legal system, entirely valid. And, since, under legal positivism, the Allies could not judge the Nazis legal system as invalid, the Allies could not judge the defendants acts as criminal.

Jackson, the lead prosecutor, had to depart from and ultimately debunk the philosophy of legal positivism and proceed to a higher authority, a new and higher vantage point to prosecute the legal system of another country. He appealed to the basic principles of civilization in order to prosecute the jurisprudence of the Nazi legal system. To transcend human law, Jackson, of course, had to take recourse to religion, to revelation.

Secular law or positive law, I think, cannot pretend to encompass morality. We need God’s revelation, a vantage point beyond the human condition, to guide us to certain knowledge of human rights, especially the right to life.

great post. The last paragraph is where you refer to Natural Law, which is grounded in something other than subjective desires and organised rules arrived at through the mutual discourses of consenting legislators. We had it once. A powerful influence on the development of natural law theory was St. Thomas Aquinas. His approach to Natural Law and Justice was predicated on the existance of God. More so, it was predicated on the underlying assumption that the final goal of a rational being would be beatification before God. Secularism has broken the link between Aquinas’s Natural Law and our contempory legislation. In many ways we are like the Nazis, with their use of Positivist Law making. Morality and Law are drifting apart acording to the subjective desires of our societies. Sometimes, law making is done to assuage the subjective desires of noisy opinion groups. The more diverse our society becomes, the more likelihood of having multiple noisy opinion groups. We are on a slippery slope. In todays modern, developed society it is difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint a set of moral values shared by all. A few generations ago, values were more common and less diverse. Today, diversity is welcomed and so the problem of a shared morality is more problematic. Small tribal groups are likely to share a moral code, but a society such as our own, where individuals differ widely in social status, income, occupation, ethnic background and so on, its members are unlikely to share identical moral values, even if they largely agree on some basic points. Hence, secularisation.

Where will secularisation take us? A wonderful insight can be had from one of Britain’s finest jurists, Patrick Arthur Devlin, Baron Devlin. In an essay entitled "Morals and the Criminal Law, " Lord Devlin wrote:

"Society means a community of ideas; without shared ideas on politics morals and ethics, no society can exist. Each one of us has ideas about what is good and what is evil; they cannot be kept private from the society in which we live. If men and women try to create a society in which there is no fundamental agreement about good and evil they will fail; if, having based it on common agreement, the agreement goes, the society will disintegrate.
"For society is not something that is kept together physically; it is held by the invisible bonds of common thought. If the bonds were too far relaxed. the members would drift apart. A common morality is part of the bondage. The bondage is part of the price of society; and mankind, which needs society, must pay its price "—
The Philosophy of a Law, ed. R.M. Dworkin, Oxford Press, (1977).

 

[PRmerger]

Is not rational justification the higher authority to which we must always appeal to decide between such claims?

Indeed, it is, Leela.

However, Christians appeal to another authority: faith.

We have the advantage of both faith* and *reason. As Pope JPII said, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth”.

 

[PRmerger]

It would be nice to have such a God’s-eye-view vantage point so that we could have absolute certainty for our knowledge claims, but most of us have the humility (and good sense) never to claim to have this perspectiveless perspective.

Best,
Leela

Do you really think it would be nice, Leela? Somehow I am skeptical of that claim, but I am open to my being wrong about this.

What would it take to convince you that we do indeed have access to a God’s-eye-view vantage point?

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

But, Nozz, what* is* society except a bunch of people? How can people–who are the same as I–have *any *authority over me? I don’t understand why I should cede my most precious right–my free will–to a bunch of people.

Simple. As I said you have chosen to be part of this society. The only source a society of people has to best decide how to live with each other IS each other. The societies authority over you exists purely because you have chosen to be part of it and agree to its laws and morals.

You, however, always have the option of heading off to another society or into a cave to live the hermits life.

So where does society get its authority over you? You GIVE it to it by virtue of accepting membership. If you do not accept that, get out and find your own society.

 

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Then this is a very, very weak foundation for our authority, is it not?

Not at all. It is the best we have. We do however recognise that because we are not always right that everything we think and believe should be kept under constant review as new discoveries are made, new arguments thought of, or new data comes in. Hence no law or position is fixed but we constantly review them, but them to the vote of our elected politicians or the pubic and more.

The mistake is to think that there is some kind of immovable unchangeable position. Claims to infallibility and objective morality I leave to a different group.

However as I said it is the best we have. We are an imperfect species. “The best we have” is what we attempt to use in every situation. Nothing we ever use, whether in this discussion or in any other discussion outside that of morality or law, is perfect.

However if you have some authority, system, idea or concept you think is “perfect” please present it and evidence that it a) exists and b) works. So far all I am hearing in its stead is whinging that things are not perfect enough for your liking.

 

[PRmerger]

Not at all. It is the best we have.

Actually, it’s only the best YOU have. Believers have a superior system of authority/morality.

It’s like this: you’ve built an elevator to a skyscraper that’s made out of straw and mud and are inviting me to ride in it, claiming, “Hey! It’s the best I had. See, I only had this dirt and a bale of hay! Isn’t that impressive!” And I’m saying, “No, thanks. You haven’t convinced me, esp when there’s this super-fast elevator made by super-engineers constructed of steel that’s available to me.”

“The best we have”??? And yet you admit we’re imperfect and prone to error? Yikes!!

 

[PRmerger]

Simple. As I said you have chosen to be part of this society. The only source a society of people has to best decide how to live with each other IS each other. The societies authority over you exists purely because you have chosen to be part of it and agree to its laws and morals.

You, however, always have the option of heading off to another society or into a cave to live the hermits life.

So where does society get its authority over you? You GIVE it to it by virtue of accepting membership. If you do not accept that, get out and find your own society.

If you must obey soceity at all times, as it’s your authority, how would you “dissent” when this society decides it’s going to imprison all the women and enslave them? Or take your children from you and put them into a work-camp? Or whatever?

And, if you can “dissent”, then society really has no authority over you, does it? You must have another highter authority that you appeal to.

What is that?

 

[PRmerger]

The societies authority over you exists purely because you have chosen to be part of it and agree to its laws and morals.

Absolutely not. I give society no authority whatsoever in determining my morals.

You, however, always have the option of heading off to another society or into a cave to live the hermits life.

LOL! These are my 2 choices? Cede authority to society or be a hermit? Says who?

(BTW, if you were a hermit, then who or what then becomes your moral authority?)

 

[Betterave]

…St. Thomas Aquinas. His approach to Natural Law and Justice was predicated on the existance of God. More so, it was predicated on the underlying assumption that the final goal of a rational being would be beatification before God.

How so?

 

[PRmerger]

However if you have some authority, system, idea or concept you think is “perfect” please present it and evidence that it a) exists

Heck, Nozz, I can’t even prove that you exist, but I’m pretty sure that you do.

But, if you’d like, I’ll refer you to these arguments (centuries old) proving God’s existence.

 

[PRmerger]

And also I am not saying you should disobey society either. But you certainly can DISSENT from it.

Then, society is not your ultimate authority, is it, Nozz? If one can dissent from an “authority”, then, by defintion, it is *not *an authority.

So, what, as a nonbeliever, is it that you have as your final and ultimate authority?

 

[AntiTheist]

And, if you can “dissent”, then society really has no authority over you, does it? You must have another highter authority that you appeal to.

What is that?

Your own values.

 

[PRmerger]

Your own values.

Bingo! :extrahappy:

That’s exactly what I was trying to get Nozz to admit. When someone argues from the position of “society is our authority”, yet claims that one can disagree with society, it implies either ignorance of his true position, or disingenuity. Not sure which one Nozz is guilty of yet.

Now, that we’re agreed that, really, one’s own values is one’s own authority in a godless universe, then we can begin an honest discourse.