B
Bradski
Guest
What is generally being said is: ‘As far as I can see, there is no absolute truth’.
Robert George: The Days of Being a Socially Acceptable Christian Are Over
- Status
B
Bradski
Guest
I’m pretty certain I have said on many times that I support the right of people to have and to express different views. Did I say one couldn’t do that? Hang on, I’ll check. Again…
B
Bradski
Guest
Nope. You were wrong. Again.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Yes, of course, to “express different views,” but not to “impose different views.”
Yet, views are being imposed all of the time by the legal system, social mores, social activists and humanity in general, in spite of the fact that you are constantly claiming no one has a RIGHT to impose their views. Yet, you have no issues with that imposition where it aligns with your views and say nothing about impositions of -]those/-] your views, which are done without any legitimate warrant whatsoever if your grounding moral perspective is correct.
Why aren’t you complaining about EVERYONE, without exception, imposing their views on others? That would at least be consistent, but you won’t go there, will you?
No, as long as YOUR views are the ones gaining ascendency or being imposed on others you have no problem using this argument AGAINST those who view things differently, but immediately muzzle your maw when YOUR views are being imposed.
THAT is where your position is inconsistent and arbitrary – you only accuse those you happen to disagree with of “imposing” their views but have no problem supporting those you do agree with imposing theirs.
Sure, you are fine with everyone EXPRESSING their views, but only with some IMPOSING theirs.
And, yet, the grounds for permitting some to impose their views and not others is rather a shaky “subjective” one according to you. Well, if it is THAT shaky then no one ought to impose their views at all upon others. That, at least, would be consistent with your position which is, at ground and at best, arbitrary and capricious AND would lead to obviously unacceptable consequences IF you ever were to hold and apply it consistently, which you won’t
Which is also why you keeping hedging your bets by this little game of deflection from actually consistently holding any moral position except the most vague one which pretends to be a moral position but, in actuality, is inapplicable except to warrant “whatever I decide I want to do provided I do no harm™ to others strictly according to my determination of harm™."
I mean babies can be dismembered all around you and sucked unceremoniously from the sanctuary of their mothers’ wombs, but THAT is not to be called harm™ because the mothers don’t acknowledge it to be.
Since that is an entirely subjective call, then on what basis are the murders of adults by a similar determination by their perpetrators not subject to those same rules of “subjective” determination? The perpetrators who want to murder should be free to subjectively determine their right to kill others BECAUSE morality is purely a subjective affair, no? That would seem to follow from your moral first principles since morality is merely an expression of subjective preference.
Well, THAT would be consistent with your outlook but inconsistent with your sensibilities. Ergo a “right" is contrived out of whole cloth to overrule the subjectivity principle on the grounds that you don’t subjectively agree it ought to apply in this case where you arbitrarily “impose” it on murderers but not abortionists.
How “systematic” of you. And yet you incongruously desire a “system"…
By what objective standard would you determine when time has truly been “wasted?”
No objective grounds exists for such things according to you, right?
The fact that your position is ultimately incoherent, unpersuasive and pointless means that others have been far more generous and indulgent with their time and effort than you realize or would acknowledge even if you did.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Ironic, really, since right and wrong are, according to you, subjectively determined.
How did Solmyr put it?
Oh, yes, such statements…
Essentially, “You are wrong" would mean nothing more than you disagree with me. Again.
Okay.
I like wild cherry ice cream. What is your point?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Here, let me prevent you from wasting any more time…
Parenthetical addition was mine.
B
Bradski
Guest
Did I say that one couldn’t have views imposed upon them? I don’t think I did. Let me check once more.
Nope. I didn’t. Your strike record is becoming something less than stellar, Peter. It might help if you could actually find something I said that backs up what you keep claiming is my position. It would save me having to tell you that you are wrong all the time (and it might help convince others that you actually read and understand what I write).
I remember a discussion on morality some time back in which you participated. I think I brought up a scenario whereby a father was going to kill his daughter for bringing shame on his family. And I said I was quite within my right to impose my will on him and prevent him from doing so because any reasonable person, using reasonable arguments and in full possession of the facts would consider what he was doing was wrong.
What the…? Bradski says something is wrong?! But…I mean…how …surely that’s not possible…I don’t understand. He’s an atheist!
Well, maybe you haven’t been paying enough attention to what I write.
S
Solmyr
Guest
**Your post is extremely important. It should be a sticky. **
Of course atheists and moral relativists CAN and DO say that certain actions, in very well defined set of circumstances ARE morally wrong. What we deny is that there are INTRINSICALLY EVIL actions, which are ALWAYS wrong, no matter what the reason and what the circumstances are.
It definitely seems like that the “other side” does not pay attention to what is being said. And they keep on saying that whatever God does or allows is morally right. The irony is that THEY are the moral relativists, but they deny it.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Okay, so under what conditions can one have the views of others imposed upon them when they disagree with those views of others?
A principle or set of conditions that would determine the warrant for “imposition" in some consistent way would be what is being sought here. An example or two would also help.
I think I have read enough of what you write to know what is coming (starts with h and ends with m,) but go ahead and surprise me.
B
Bradski
Guest
If you know what the answer is going to be it would seem to be a waste of your time asking me the question.
And an example? I just gave one. It was in my last post. I am becoming more and more bemused by the disconnect between what I write and what you read.
E
Exiled_Child
Guest
We should just learn to relish being socially unacceptable then.
Christ certainly couldn’t have less about being socially acceptable.
Christ certainly couldn’t have less about being socially acceptable.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Okay, let’s go with that one.
By what universally binding moral principle do you have the right to impose your will on the father in this instance?
To say that it is morally right for you to do so implies that it will always be morally right given that relevantly similar conditions obtain – hence there must be an absolute and not relative imperative that would make your imposition the right thing to do, necessarily, in this instance and, therefore, in all like or similar occurrences.
This must be the case in order to justify your claim that it is “right” for you to impose your will in this case as in all like cases, otherwise you are merely being arbitrary this time. If in the next similar case you can decide you no longer subscribe to imposing your will on a different father acting similarly, then you haven’t provided an explication for why you have a right to do so this time.
So, what is it that gives you the right in ALL such cases? What HAS to be the case or obtain for you to rightfully impose your will this time that will apply in ALL such cases?
I am not going anywhere.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Well, your denial needs to be proven.
If certain actions in a “very well defined set of circumstances ARE morally wrong” then they must always be morally wrong under those same circumstances. That is an absolute statement, no different than what any theist would hold.
What you are saying is that the act would be wrong, not based upon the arbitrary whim or determination of a subject but upon what objectively obtains in the real world.
This would entail that you do not think moral issues are purely subjective matters, but are determined by objective facts – that "well-defined set of circumstances” is what makes the action morally wrong irrespective of one’s subjective opinions on the matter. The fact that individual subjects have differing opinions on the matter is neither here nor there. It is the “very well defined set of circumstances” and NOT any subjective opinion that determines whether the action is “morally wrong” or not.
The grounds for making the determination are objective and not subjective, as they would be when someone says, “I prefer pistachio ice cream to wild cherry.” Determinations of subjective claims are grounded in the subject making those claims, not in objective reality.
Above, you basically admit that legitimate moral claims are grounded in objective facts when those objective facts obtain. Hence, NOT fundamentally subjective, at all.
If they were essentially subjective, there could be NO justification for interfering or imposing your views on others because the subjective views of others would not count any more or less “true” than your subjective views. There would be no grounds for adjudicating between you and the others in any real sense.
You essentially said so, yourself…
This is the problem I have with your position (and Bradski’s.) You essentially fluctuate between “morality is subjective” and “morality is objective" when it suits you or when it supports your position on an issue or serves to legitimize what you have to say as a properly “ethical” perspective. Quite malleable and fluid this position of yours – which is the problem with it.
B
Bradski
Guest
Did I say I could do it in all cases? I’m sure I didn’t. I gave one example where all reasonable people, using reasonable arguments and in possession of the relevant information would agree that imposing one’s will on the father would be the right thing to do.
I can’t be certain about what criteria you would use to make the same decision (I’m sure you would), but I’d guess it would be the same as mine. I can’t see you thumbing through scripture or googling the catechism as he’s beating her to death, desperately looking for a reason to stop him.
In such a case, all reasonable people would do the same. It doesn’t matter what religion or what philosophy you follow, there are vary obvious universal methods of deciding what is right and what is wrong.
Not everyone agrees, but in the example I gave, I think it holds. If you think that giving an example where the decision is more complex and nuanced, then that is all you will be doing. Giving an example where the decision is a lot more complex and nuanced.
If, in such an example, you feel the need to quote scripture or proffer words of wisdom from the catechism, then do so by all means. Bring it to the table. all opinions need to be heard.
S
Solmyr
Guest
Playing word games? Or are you genuinely confused?
A moral relativist says: “Action X is always wrong in precisely defined circumstances”.
A moral absolutist says: “Action X is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances”.
To say that these two propositions are the “same” - just because both contain the word “always” is ridiculous. Is it possible that you don’t see this?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
No, you don’t understand the differences you purport to understand.
A strict moral relativist claims that Action X is not wrong or right except as solely determined by a culture (cultural moral relativism) or by the individual (subjective moral relativism.)
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it thusly…
Note that if the “moral standard” is relative to “some person” or “group of persons” the defining feature of moral relativism is that the subjective determinations of that person or group is what defines the ground for making moral decisions. It is that shifting ground – the fact that morality is determined wholly by the subjects involved under the principles of moral relativism – that makes morality “relative” in this view.
The fact that you don’t understand this very useful basic distinction in ethics is what is causing YOUR confusion.
If “Action X” is ALWAYS wrong, that is an absolutist position of some flavour. The question is: “What are the conditions which make an action always wrong?”
This, essentially, is the Catholic position (from memory):
There are three dimensions to determining the morality of an act…
- The nature of the act itself including its subsequent ends.
- The circumstances under which the act was committed.
- The motives of the agent for carrying out the act.
Intrinsically evil acts are, very simply, those where neither circumstances nor motives can possibility ever justify committing them. Basically, this means that there can never be any “precisely defined circumstances” which will ever render some actions, like Action Y, the right thing to do.
Of course, this is an arguable position, but if you are willing to state that “Action X is always wrong in precisely defined circumstances,” then you cannot, in principle, deny that some actions might exist which could never be justified by any ** precisely defined circumstances**. Again we could argue what those actions might be, but as soon as you are willing to allow that some actions will “always be wrong,” then the possibility exists for some actions to ALWAYS be wrong in ALL circumstances. The question is, “Which actions are those?” It is those which an absolutist would claim are the intrinsically evil ones. You can’t just assert than no such beast exists, in principle, just 'cause you don’t like the idea. That is not an argument.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Apparently, you missed the point. If it is the “right thing to do” in the case you proposed, then, logically speaking, it would be right to do it in ALL SUCH CASES where the circumstances are relevantly similar. Otherwise, ‘right’ is a meaningless determination, morally speaking.
The point being that “all reasonable people” wouldn’t just “do the same” in “such a case,” but ALSO in ALL such cases. Correct?
Yes, there are in ALL such cases regardless of your religious beliefs or your atheism. Morally wrong acts would be morally wrong for anyone, whether religious or not. So correct morality can be imposed, whether by theists or atheists upon everyone because morally wrong acts are wrong in ALL such cases, irrespective of who (theist or atheist) commits the act.
Yes, and the moral thinking, principles or “universal methods” which would determinably make the example you gave the “right thing to do” could be used to determine other acts as right or not, which is why I asked you to provide those principles or “universal methods” by which any such determination could be made by the subject.
The fact that you haven’t done so implies two possible reasons…
- You suppose the act was “the right thing to do” – ultimately – MERELY because the subject determined that it was. Or
- You implicitly get that as soon as you spell out those “principles,” “universal methods,” or “thinking behind the decision,” then that will commit you to deciding about other similar acts which would ALSO be the “right thing to do,” but you don’t want to actually commit yourself to having a moral position which you cannot back yourself out of, if you choose to.
Scripture can provide rich and nuanced examples of situations, motives and acts which help us to understand morality at a deeper level than you might be willing to go.
It is very safe to retain control of the grounds for morality (by insisting that morality is ultimately only ‘subjectively’ determined) at the same time as legitimizing your own brand of morality by showing it has some consistency or apparent substance to it.
By carefully stepping back and forth in this “quantum field” of morality it makes it appear that you are saying something morally important but at the same time your little fluctuation dance permits you to disappear behind a ‘safe’ wall of subjectivity where you are free to determine the nature of morality for yourself AND propose it as “reasonable” at the same time.
S
Solmyr
Guest
Of course I do.
Moral absolutism is very simple. It asserts that certain actions are always, under any and all circumstances are either right (or wrong). No excuse for diversity, differing opinions. No excuse for different circumstances, for different means, for different goals.
Moral relativism is the denial this. Part of it can be due to cultural or individual differences, but that is not all. Any and all circumstances, means and goals must be taken into consideration.
Playing word games again? We are not talking about “flavors”. The moral relativist says something totally different: “Action X under certain circumstances” is ALWAYS wrong. To leave out the all important qualification is intellectually dishonest and cannot be justified.
I am aware of this. Moreover, I agree with it. Let’s make it simple: “the what, the why and the how” all must be evaluated. Of these the “why” is the least important. If one helps someone in need, then it is not important, why he does it.
That IS a relativist position. In other circumstances, with different motives, and different goals the action may have a different evaluation.
Which is a truly “absolutist” position. And, of course that is an empty claim. You must be omniscient to declare that there cannot be ever such goals, methods and circumstances where an action will be right, it will ALWAYS be objectively wrong.
You cannot have it both ways. Either the three “prongs” are all necessary, and then there cannot be “intrinsically evil” acts, or there can be “intrinsically evil” and then the three prongs are NOT necessary. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
S
Solmyr
Guest
My, oh my… we left the original topic far behind.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Just slightly behind your response to my last post.
- Status