I don’t get you, Tyrion. On the one hand you argue that ethics and morality is relative to the community and culture, on the other hand you say some primates have a “superior ethical system”, as if there were some genuine objective standard by which to judge ethical systems outside of our own culture.
I see no problem. Just like not all behaviors are the same, the “how should one behave”-s (ethical systems) are not the same. The general consensus in any given society ay any given time describes the socially acceptable behavior (moral behavior).
Don’t try to “isolate” me. The preferred system is approximately uniform, though there are exceptions. Most people prefer freedom over slavery, though there are people who prefer security over freedom. There is no absolutely uniform consensus, only in broad terms. People prefer to be well-fed, rather than hungry, even though there are a few exceptions. Most people prefer not to suffer, even though there are a few who prefer to be “crucified” to emulate Jesus’ passion.
For purpose of this discussion, “charity” is not a new one, it is a more precise one. Also, you are misappropriating the use of “delay” from the meaning I intended. It is not, in this case, non-simultaneous. It is possibly giving yet never receiving. Further, when you claim acceptance of delay as “an even higher level of love,” it is clear you intend “charity” as that form of love. What happens for one who gives and gives yet never receives? In the world you suppose (which requires reciprocation), that one is unfulfilled. In the Christian model, that one is fulfilled in the giving (the other who earnestly attempts to give and does receive is also fulfilled in the attempt to give).Bringing in new words, like “charity” does not help. Even a delay does not make someone being “used”. As a matter of fact to accept the delay is an even higher level of love, since it concentrates on the other person, thereby “loving selflessly”. What is so important about simultaneous orgasm? When it happens, it is nice, but most of the time it does not. And it does not subtract anything from the love.
It would be good for you to be “rational and reasonable” as you write you desire in your own signature. The above is neither.
While I agree that there is a general moral consensus, I think suggesting that it is a utilitarian one (based on “usefulness”) is problematic. For one thing, what is the genesis of such a consensus? Is it top-down? Is it from religion? I mean, we don’t reason to moral oughts and ought-nots based on their usefulness, but rather we seem to come to a consensus as a society based on a moral conviction we already have.
What I meant was not to isolate you, Tyrion, but to point out that when you say one ethical system is superior to another, you are simply making a personal preference, whether that preference is widespread or not. It’s akin, really, to saying: “Chocolate is superior to vanilla”. Lots of people might share this preference but it is simply that.
It is a tad more complicated than that. Whether you agree or disagree about the ice-cream flavors makes no difference at all. People will not “praise” or “ostracize” you based upon your preference.
not to be confused with “sob” 
. The point is that we deal with a very complex behavioral system. Some behaviors are enforced by a legal system, others might only carry some “social stigma”, yet others are merely “bad manners”. To expect that all these complicated “rules” would or should be uniform across different cultures is naïve.That is not a hypothetical example. It was reality in the middle ages, when dissent was punished by burning the dissenters at the stakes. Giordano Bruno was, for example. But, if the unlikely event that those times would come back, of course I would pretend to convert, while I would try by best to undermine and overthrow that system. Just because there is a generally accepted social behavior, no one is “obliged” to agree with it - as long as no thought-police is implemented.
Okay, now I’m confused. You said that morality is whatever the general consensus is within a culture, and this is based broadly on what is “useful”. Therefore, if we follow this, in such a medieval society, it would be moral to be Catholic and punish heretics. But you say you would try to undermine this system. So, would you be acting immorally? What do you base this different morality on, apart from personal preference? If so, do you recommend immorality to people? And would people be legitimate in following their own personal morality in a society that disagreed with them? And again, wouldn’t this be “morality by force”, i.e. whoever was the most dominant?
A perfect example why I don’t use the term “morality”. I do not recommend “immorality”, rather to go against the prevailing social custom, if their conscience dictates it. During the slave-holding era in the US, many people went against the social custom, and helped the slaves to escape their predicament.
Do you really think so? Look at the Stanford Encyclopedia’s definition:
The definition I recommend is exactly the one in #1. But if you wish to introduce a different definition, let me see it.
The word “goods” already implies a value system, so it is not absolute. When there is a serious shortage of food, and people rather feed the children than the elderly, it reflects their value system.
It all depends. If, by killing one person would save the life of many others, one should choose the “lesser of two evils”. Yes, I am aware that this might be against the catholic ethical system, but it would be acceptable in other social setups.
Regardless, I still have a problem with defining morality as “socially acceptable behaviour” because that means that what is right or wrong is dependent on society’s acceptance or condemnation of it. I can’t see how we can get away from this meaning persecuting Jews in Nazi Germany is morally okay because it’s socially acceptable behaviour.
Right and wrong still reflects a value system, which might be only yours, or of a social group you identify with. It is exactly “non-absolute” as my own.
jonathan_hili;10836192:
As you wish. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.Anyway, perhaps we’ve exhausted this discussion - at least, my girlfriend thinks so!
Sure, but since “morality” = “socially acceptable behaviour”, we are just playing with words, aren’t we? Either morality is this or it is something above society.
You’re joking, right? What if, by killing two people you could save the lives of fifty? Or three people, the lives of one hundred?
Of course, right and wrong reflects a value system, but it’s one that can condemn Nazi behaviour as really, truly, objectively wrong, regardless of culture, time, space, whatever… It’s behaviour that is always wrong, intrinsically wrong.Right and wrong still reflects a value system, which might be only yours, or of a social group you identify with. It is exactly “non-absolute” as my own.
Absolutely.
But don’t forget that words are powerful weapons, since they supply a value judgment. Example: “the ONLY fact you know is some people wish to overthrow the current political system in some country”. What is the “proper” description of these people? Are they “freedom fighters” or “traitors” (maybe even terrorists)? The answer is simple: “if you agree with them, they are positive heroes, freedom fighters”, while “if you disagree with them, they are traitors or terrorists”. So much for “absolute” morality. What is “truly” good or evil? Of course conscience is established in the young, formative years. But that does not make it irrelevant.
Now we can get into the “lifeboat” types of situations, which are a lot of fun. I am willing, but are you?
Look at the second definition in the Stanford:
Again, it depends what kind of value system you use to find out a system’s “usefulness”.
But this is a pretty poor example, as someone could only be called a “freedom fighter” or “traitor” if there was a standard of absolute morality. Otherwise, they are neither, since how can you be a “traitor” if there is no such moral reality as betrayal, and how can you be a “freedom fighter” if there is no such moral reality as freedom.Absolutely.
Lots of things are “truly” good or evil, that’s pretty obvious to most people. As for conscience, it becomes irrelevant because of what it is: no longer the voice of moral authority, but the voice of conditioned social convention. Whereas many are compelled to follow the first, few would uncritically follow the second.
Sure, because those lifeboat situations are usually answerable: there might not be a morally right decision. Someone might sacrifice themselves, but to deliberately kill an innocent person is always wrong.
I don’t see how an ethical system can be in any way truly “useful” if it cannot genuinely (that is, objectively) condemn evil actions.Again, it depends what kind of value system you use to find out a system’s “usefulness”.
Why needs to be an “absolute” morality? We simply assert that evaluation from OUR standard. And that is why the evaluation is relative.
Please do not add extra assumptions. Your only information is exactly what was given: “some people attempt to overthrow the government”. That is ALL you know. You don’t know the reason, and you don’t know the methods employed. If you say that this information is insufficient to make a valid judgment call, I will agree with you, since then you would understand that the evaluation is relative to the circumstances and also relative to your value system.
Generally speaking, it is good to let others govern their own life. Generally speaking it is wrong to force people to go against their wishes. There are lots of generic principles. But there are always exceptions.
Irrelevant. There is no universal moral authority outside certain religious systems.
Only in your system. It is easy to set up a hypothetical scenario, in which the circumstances will force you to either actively commit or passively allow two different outcomes, and in which the passively allowing something is much more horrific than the result of the deliberate action. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) Yet, many people would choose the way of Pilate, and try to wash their hands, since they did not actively commit the act, “only” passively allowed it to happen. And they claim to be “moral” people.
I can. It can condemn very specific actions as “evil”. But not “evil under any and all circumstances”.
Well, I thought it was obvious. Simply asserting from our standard doesn’t make it true, just as someone who is bad at maths simply asserting 1+1=4 doesn’t make it true. Worse, we know (if what you say is true) that it’s not true. So morality goes down the toilet, since you cannot honestly convince anyone to be moral if there’s no such thing as morality.
Well, if that’s all you know, you are really not in a position to make a moral judgement. Just because someone is labelled a “freedom fighter” doesn’t make him a freedom fighter, for the obvious reason that a freedom fighter fights for freedom. If he doesn’t do that, he isn’t one. Now, he might believe he is a freedom fighter, and so might his friends, but they could be wrong just as (with the maths example) someone could be wrong in addition. It doesn’t follow that morality is therefore relative.
Sure, and these principles are based on morality. If the moral values undergirding the principles was false, so would the principles be. And certainly there are exceptions but when there are exceptions, they too are based on moral values that the general principles would agree with.
Huh? I thought you said social conventions or the “community” was a form of moral authority (and certainly universal within the community)?
) Yet, many people would choose the way of Pilate, and try to wash their hands, since they did not actively commit the act, “only” passively allowed it to happen. And they claim to be “moral” people.
Well, if I was going to respond from your perspective, I could just say, “Who cares about your value system. It’s neither right nor wrong, anyway”. But were you asking my opinion on the issue?
It is evil “in itself” to deliberately kill an innocent human person. So, with your scenario the person being shot might not be innocent. However, I think you always give someone the benefit of the doubt if you don’t know what’s going on. So, if I saw this, I’d try to intervene and stop the person being shot.Here is another bare-bones scenario. There are two people, one of them points a gun at the other, and pulls the trigger. There is no additional data available to you. How do you evaluate this action? Since you keep asserting that there is such a thing as “evil in and by itself, regardless of the circumstances” you should be able to make an “absolute” evaluation and declare the “act” as moral or not. Let me hear your assessment.
That is exactly what follows. Two people look at the same facts, and they come two different conclusions, based upon their “moral” system.
What the heck is “moral value”? The real reason is simple. One uses the principle of reciprocity. That is the reason for those generic principles.
If you really do not see what the word “universal” means, then I am wasting my time.
Do you purposefully misconstrue what I am saying? Circumstances force you to CHOOSE between two (or more) “unpalatable” options. The choice is there, even though there is no choice you would wish to choose.
Again, these people try to redefine the problem. There are ONLY two options, and you MUST choose. The outcome of one of the options is much worse than the other. In my value system one should choose the lesser of two “evils”, even if that requires a deliberate action. In the catholic mentality it is fine to refrain from action, even if the outcome is much more repugnant. And, by the way, it was not Pilate who delivered the death sentence, it was the Sanhedrin, while Pilate simply chose not to interfere. That is the origin of the phrase about “washing your hands”.
How do you define “innocent”? In the US, everyone is considered “innocent” until found guilty. In Catholicism everyone is “guilty” of some “sins”.
Finally an agreement could be reached - but most probably it will not. The “act” itself is always morally neutral, only the “intent” and the “circumstances” can make it morally not-neutral. Observe: “the circumstances”. As such you cannot say that the act is “evil” in and of itself. And no one can imagine all the possible different “intents” and “circumstances”.