Is There A Moral To The Story…?
10 June 2007 by KA
(The title is completely tongue in cheek, as it implies there was an author to our entire story, and that is obviously not true.)
Cartoon courtesy of Jesus and Mo.
As I’ve stipulated before, I’m not a moral relativist. Also as I’ve stated before, I think these discussions about morality are pretty much a waste of time. The last time I posted on this, an individual named Beowulf and I had a bit of a soiree about the whole thing (read it here).
So again, despite the protestations of my fellow atheists, I say it again: I reject moral relativism. It isn’t (nor does it need to be) the default position for those of us who profess an absence of belief.
I find the system bankrupt, to be blunt.
There are is one good reason for doing so.
It has no solid basis for criticizing the actions of others. If there’s a genocide being perpetrated in another country, regardless of the rationale behind it (be it race, color, religion, etc.), it blinds the critical eye and softens the hard word to a voiceless whisper.
A moral relativist cannot, for instance, find fault with biblical events, as said events took place in a time and an environment that was exclusively set ‘back in the day’. By the epistemology of it, projecting our mindset and cultural values on another culture in another age would be primarily anachronistic.
To verify that we’re all on the same page, this is the definition I’m using:
In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.
However, to infer that I’m a moral absolutist would be ridiculous as well, since that would involve a false dichotomy (or even a dilemma, to be pedantic and redundant), as there are multiple -isms to choose from.
Most theists I’ve engaged proclaim themselves to be absolutists (I’d give you an example, but since they’re a dime a dozen in the blogosphere, I leave that to the reader to come up with a few), but tend to veer wildly to the relativism aspect when confronted with obvious contradictions in their wholly bibble book (we’ve probably all heard it on more than one occasion: “Hey, that was then, this is now!” Or some variant thereof. My all time favorite is, “gawd changed his mind!”).
Like most people, I tend to borrow a few values here, a few ‘don’ts’ there, and come up with my own version of ethical stew.
So mix in six parts value pluralism, two parts moral naturalist, some secular ethics, a liberal helping of the Moral Razor, a goodly smattering of reciprocal altruism, and voilà! Apostate soup is served! (The ‘krystals’ are what make it crunchy, hehehehe.)
I’ve said this before; it is harm inferred and harm incurred. It takes no degree to see, that when we willfully harm another, the ripples that disturb the pool of our existence take on a cumulative effect that can be felt for years, even centuries in some cases, and have an ethical impact akin to the butterfly effect in the world around us.
Any questions?
10 June 2007, on 4:44 am
Actually, there isn’t any false dichotomy in moral relativism vs. moral absolutism. You can see this from the definition you provided.
I think that it is important to understand that there are actually two kinds of moral relativism. One is a statement of an observable fact, i.e. morality is a product of various human circumstances. The other is a moral principle stating that various moral standards are morally equivalent. It is quite possible to accept the former as a fact and reject the latter as a reasonable moral principle. That is, accepting that there is no universal means of arbitrating moral principles does not imply that one cannot adopt a specific moral principle and reject incompatible ones.
10 June 2007, on 8:06 am
There are so many things so wrong with this post, that I hardly know where to begin. I will have to cogitate a bit to put things in order.
For the moment, “A moral relativist cannot, for instance, find fault with biblical events, as said events took place in a time and an environment that was exclusively set ‘back in the day’.”
That is simply not true. One can decide that those values at the time were bad or destructive to the society and (some of)its idividuals.
In the definition, only the first part is important, “In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths”.
The second part has no relation to the first. A society’s “moral values” may be its values, but they have nothing to do with morals.
For one thing, there is no such thing as “absolute and universal truths”. Belief in such is just mysticism.
One can criticize the catastrophic results of such mysticism in ancient societies.
“It takes no degree to see, that when we willfully harm another, the ripples that disturb the pool of our existence take on a cumulative effect that can be felt for years, even centuries in some cases, and have an ethical impact akin to the butterfly effect in the world around us.”
Another statement that is not self-apparent. What does “willfully harm” mean? Are you postulating “free will”? Which doesn’t exist by the way.
10 June 2007, on 11:11 am
Flaky:
I was pointing out the false dichotomy of having only 2 choices (which most theists employ).
That’s just a valid observation.
That’s value pluralism.
Bernarda:
So you’re only 1/2 a moral relativist? What’s the other 1/2?;)
I’ve said as much, did I not?
Simple enough.
When someone harms a child (say for instance, abuse), sometimes the child grows up to become an abuser. That’s a smaller example.
10 June 2007, on 11:44 am
I have no problem considering myself a “moral relativist.”
I don’t equate the term with being amoral, and I don’t think it means that one’s worldview rejects that there are basic values that are — or should be — universal in the world.
Killing is bad. Lending a helping hand is good.
But context and relative weighting are essential.
Helping a rampaging shooter reload is bad. Shooting the shooter mid-rampage is good. But what if the rampaging shooter was killing the captors and murderers of dozens of children?
We imperfect people attempt to assess what is justice through a messy process and with our relativistic minds. Was the rampaging shooter guilty of first- or second-degree murder, manslaughter, not-guilty by reason of insanity, or simply not guilty? Was he a hero, or is he a dangerous nutcase? Could he be both?
As an aside, I’m especially amused when fundies exhibit temporal relativism. They argue that the 6 days when God created the Earth weren’t 6 regular days, or the 969 years Methuselah lived weren’t regular years. But the Earth is 6,000 years old, goldarnit!
10 June 2007, on 11:51 am
And then there was the Nicean council’s cherry-picking of the written gospel that led to the discounted value and second-class citizenship of women. And the disposability of children.
That is presupposing that the gnostic gospels are genuine and were ordered destroyed, as rumored, to fortify the power of Men at the expense of everyone else.
Their dogma ate my future…
10 June 2007, on 4:52 pm
VL:
Of course they are. That doesn’t make anyone a relativist.
I usually tend to steer away from the word ‘perfect’, because it infers an actual criterion that doesn’t exist.
We tend to assess numerous variables that are culture-laden, to be sure. Is there some wiggle room? Sure. How much slack is the real question.
That’s always good for a running gag.
My favorite is when their deity (supposedly) says, “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Naomi:
I’ve never been a huge fan of Heinlein, but he said something that’ll stick w/me for a long time:
Words to live by, & perhaps the only absolute I can agree w/.
10 June 2007, on 4:57 pm
It is EXTREMELY easy to push xians into from high horse moral absolutism into the position of moral relativism. I used to enjoy it on an almost weekly basis.
I enjoy it on a diminishing one now, as I seem to have been abandoned by my friends.
10 June 2007, on 5:09 pm
I think of myself as relative moral absolutist.
Seriously, though. I believe that we must start from a foundation of moral absolutes. Then we can be relativists about it.
For example, I don’t it’s legitimate to say, “When is it OK to kill someone?” unless we’ve made killing an absolute bad thing.
Things like killing, lying, harming others, stealing, etc. need to be sufficiently drummed into our heads as bad, so that we put the necessary effort towards thinking about the consequences of doing it.
A moral relativist who doesn’t think that some things are just really, really bad will be more flagrant in breaking the rules and have way more justifications for things. Not good.
Just my four ha’pence.
10 June 2007, on 5:10 pm
It’s fun to fuck with Christians.
It’s less fun to fuck with Muslims. Those fuckers will kill you.
10 June 2007, on 5:50 pm
Count me among the moral relativitists, too. According to the more or less “universal” morals in today’s western societies, almost every persons five centuries ago would be considered inmoral. According to the more or less “universal” morals of the people from the 25th century, I am guessing almost everybody today would be considered inmoral. I cannot accept that.
10 June 2007, on 8:16 pm
Zipi:
The 25th century? You’re from the future?
Do they have jet-packs yet?
11 June 2007, on 3:45 am
KA, I said “I am guessing”.
11 June 2007, on 6:00 am
Krystalline, “So you’re only 1/2 a moral relativist? What’s the other 1/2?;)”
As I said, there is no other half.
Nature has no moral values.
As to Naomi on the Niceaen Code, that has nothing to do with “morals”. It is simply a set of arbitrary rules for a particular society. Today, nothing prevents us from judging the utility, or even the justice, of those rules. Remembering of course that “justice” is also relative idea, as there is no such thing as “natural” justice.
Marcy, well said, “Things like killing, lying, harming others, stealing, etc. need to be sufficiently drummed into our heads as bad, so that we put the necessary effort towards thinking about the consequences of doing it.”
If that is necessary, and I think it is, it shows that there are no moral absolutes. “Morals” are something we are taught as a societal value. It used to be a societal value to burn witches to save the lives and souls of good god-fearing people.
According to those “moral” values, it was justified to kill a “witch” to save others.
11 June 2007, on 8:06 am
Thirty-forty years ago I was sent so injure and destry people I didn’t know, who had never harmed me, whose names I would never learn. That was “dulce e decorum”. Three years ago my wife and I were the objects of a home invasion which we fought off. Turns out that resisting this with force was at least as big a crime as what was done to us, actually worse.
My native-American daughter-in-law told me about a mountain man who was informed by missionaries that they were there to “save” the savages, they didn’t know right from wrong. Mountain man said just wrong one and stand back and watch what happens. I’m guessing there are certain constants in morality.
11 June 2007, on 8:50 am
Sounds like you’re saying, KA, that labels don’t really serve much of a purpose since they can’t be absolutely applied to anyone.
11 June 2007, on 8:53 am
People get all wound up over moral relativism and it doesn’t need to be. I think a small adjustment to your definition should take the conflict out of it. Moral relativism does not imply that there are no morals or that any action can be justified. I don’t think many readers here will disagree. But stating “moral relativism is a position” implies that there is a falsifiable statement that is open to debate when in fact we’re just trying to clarify a definition. Moral relativism means only that moral choices are made relative to ones cultural perspective. That is a simple concept, one that shouldn’t bring the conflict that it does.
Some actions that are abhorrent to us in the west are perfectly OK in other cultures. That doesn’t mean that WE have to accept them as OK. In some cases there are real objective reasons to choose one value over another. The challenge is to convince the rest of the world to see things from our cultural perspective, and to see things through theirs. If ever there was an absolute morality, I think KA summed it up nicely in the last paragraph.
…harm inferred and harm incurred. It takes no degree to see, that when we willfully harm another, the ripples that disturb the pool of our existence take on a cumulative effect that can be felt for years, even centuries in some cases, and have an ethical impact akin to the butterfly effect in the world around us.
11 June 2007, on 9:26 am
bernarda:
You can’t just change the definition to suit yourself.
It doesn’t? Please elaborate.
See comment #6, in re: the Heinlein quote.
Revenant:
They actually do serve something of a purpose, as they’re structures by which we communicate concepts.
As to ‘absolutely’ being applied, that’s contingent on the individual’s choice.
11 June 2007, on 9:28 am
Zipi - I was just playin’.
11 June 2007, on 9:52 am
The only purpose I see is to put people into a certain box in order to try and explain their behavior. Nothing is that simple.
11 June 2007, on 10:08 am
But what if our gripe was not with the PEOPLE of the time, but with the GOD who is supposed to be timeless and outside of time. And, who being all-powerful and omniscient, could think of alternate ways to deal with matters other than plundering and pillaging in his name.
Yes, i know, we do not believe in this god and therefore should not be concerned with him. However, he gets the credit for any improved morality, when in fact man has become more enlightened through education and technology and more global interaction.
11 June 2007, on 1:27 pm
Sorry, KA, I am a mathematician.
11 June 2007, on 1:41 pm
KA wrote, “That’s value pluralism.”
Not according to Wikipedia (not that that’s an authoritative source by any means): Value pluralism accepts limitations that may be absolutes.
Anyways, I’d like to reiterate the importance of discerning explanations of the nature of ethics and morality from the value judgements pertaining to a specific moral standard, as this in particular appears to be quite a difficult concept to grasp for many of our religious friends, i.e. that there is a difference between the two. Many religious people even appear to think that morality posesses material properties, as if you could measure morality into a test tube.
11 June 2007, on 2:40 pm
krystalline, you must be sending me up with something like this, “It doesn’t? Please elaborate.” There is nothing moral or about morality in nature. Just what part don’t you understand?
11 June 2007, on 8:50 pm
Revenant:
That’s only a part of the puzzle. I think that labels are a ‘necessary evil’ so to speak. Another part of the jigsaw, is that there are specific patterns in each person, which vary slightly or widely, but still stay w/in boundaries that are recognizable.
If I label myself an atheist (as I do), then we share a certain amount of commonality.
Karen:
True enough, darlin’, but the deity’s just a social construct.
Flaky:
I usually don’t use Wiki as a source: there’s too many folks who can change the definition of something w/o being checked.
Here’s the answers.com entry:
“Value-pluralism differs from value-relativism in that pluralism accepts limits to differences, such as when vital human needs are violated.”
I fail to see the difference, so please correct me if I’m wrong.
Bernarda:
I understood it well enough: I wanted to see how well thought out it is.
Zipi - no sweat.
SK - Thanks.
11 June 2007, on 9:56 pm
KA: where would you rank this, in your moral-relativism debate? Killed for loving the wrong man.
11 June 2007, on 10:10 pm
BTW, there’s more here.
So honor now has a spider-web quality to it, when we look at this. It spreads out to the young man and his family. If the young man’s family decides to “honor-back-at-ya!”, where does it stop?
11 June 2007, on 11:46 pm
I’d say those psycho assholes never heard of ‘women & children 1st’.
That’s part of the culture - but it’s still WRONG.
Sick, sad, & twisted, to boot.
12 June 2007, on 6:00 am
The problem seems to be that we are talking past eachother; probably because we have different definitions of moral relativism.
I consider myself a moral relativist in the sense that I can find no moral absolutes.
A moral absolute would require the existence of a god.
Not just the existence of religions, óf which we have many, but the actual undeniable reality of a god.
Absolutes require this, because they need an absolute guarantee/enforcer.
That said, I am not the kind of moral relativist that just shrugs and says:
“Well, I can’t really judge anything or anyone by -my- ethics, because the one I’m judging is judging himself by another set of ethics.”
Because, while it is not only admirable but often crucial to imagine oneself in anothers place, the example I just wrote wouldn’t really lead to that. It’d only lead to the shrug and nothing more.
Oh, and Relucty (Sorry, can’t seem to shake the habit of calling you that!),
about this:
–Nature has no moral values.—
It doesn’t? Please elaborate.
Well, allow me to have a go at this here elaboohraysjon-thingie:
Unless you believe in some sort of (actual) Mother Earth, Nature isn’t a personified sentience making moralistic judgments in the sense human beings do.
You had an example about the need for breeding and survival of the species…
But I really don’t see that as something springing from morality.
It’s a biologic urge posessed by most.
(Though, it should be stressed, not ALL).
Of course, one could say that all moral and ethic judgments in some way springs from biologic necessities, which very well may be true and I think IS true… It just doesn’t fall under the scope of what we are discussing.
12 June 2007, on 8:30 am
KA: Your quote from answers.com is also in Wikipedia. Value pluralism and value relativism, i.e. moral relativism, differ in that the former accepts that there may be principles which outweight any culturally dependent values. Value pluralism is therefore compatible with moral absolutism, i.e. it accepts moral absolutes.
12 June 2007, on 1:23 pm
There is no “good” or “evil”. These concepts are human constructs. Due to the fact that neither of these concepts really exist, morality does not exist either. It is merely a word that describes the current social norms of a given group of people. Nothing has morality and morals are a fable. There are no absolutes. In todays society, morality is simple used as way to look down on someone else. Xians only “believe” in morals because it makes them feel superior. People who view the world as black and white need absolutes like morality in order to function. I do not kill people because it is “evil” or “wrong” but because I see the eventual results of my actions and choose not to go down that road.
12 June 2007, on 9:00 pm
HMDK:
Hey, where on earth have you been? I’ve missed your unique perspective.
Well, there really is only 1 consensual definition, that which I provided.
Ummm…no it wouldn’t. You’re thinking of divine command theory.
The species itself provides said enforcement.
Other way around.
While it does spring from biological necessities, it doesn’t follow that it has to remain in the same form. That would be known as the naturalistic fallacy, or the appeal to nature. Pleasure/pain are the defining polarities, sure, but if we avoid pain at all cost & seek pleasure regardless of consequence, well, the human world would be in far worse shape (IMHO).
Chaos:
Then how do you manage to judge, say, Dahmer? Gacy? Gein?
Sure, morality is a human construct. But we use structures & patterns to define normative behavior. Can we say there IS no normative behavior? What then, is batshit crazy?
Flaky:
Thus far, I’m confused: are you correcting me? I thought I clarified it fairly well.
12 June 2007, on 11:39 pm
Very well, Relucty…
Yes, our definition of moral relativism is the same:
“In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.”
I just think we are interpreting it differently.
Because, seriously, name one, just ONE, “moral truth” that is absolute and universal.
You can’t.
And anything you say will, indeed, be a product of your own “social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances.”
———
–Absolutes require this, because they need an absolute guarantee/enforcer.—
“the species itself provides said enforcement”.
Uh, yeah, but not in any -absolute- sense.
Absolute means just that: absolute.
Again, name one, just ONE “moral truth”
that every damn specimen of our species are in total agreement on.
Which leads to your exchange with Chaoswen:
—
Chaos:
I do not kill people because it is “evil” or “wrong” but because I see the eventual results of my actions and choose not to go down that road.—
“Then how do you manage to judge, say, Dahmer? Gacy? Gein?
Sure, morality is a human construct. But we use structures & patterns to define normative behavior. Can we say there IS no normative behavior? What then, is batshit crazy?”.
Your answer here is, really, a dodge.
Because -of course- there is normative behaviour. But since when is a societal/cultural norm universal or absolute?
And of course we can judge, but only from our own normative construct, not from a position of absolute truth and justice.
Sure, it’d be nice if we had that sort of ultimate wisdom, but we don’t.
And pretending that we do is dangerous folly.
13 June 2007, on 12:34 am
HMDK:
Species survival.
See above.
& a moral truth can be universal (or ‘absolute’, if you prefer), w/o being agreed upon by every single individual involved.
13 June 2007, on 4:35 am
We’ve debated this before but since you directed me here, I’ll oblige.
Your “mix in six parts value pluralism, two parts moral naturalist, some secular ethics, a liberal helping of the Moral Razor, a goodly smattering of reciprocal altruism, and voilà!” concoction really does not lead one to reject moral relativism. Just because a certain action leads to undesirable consequences for some or even all, does not mean that a person should be morally precluded from performing the said action. The question still lingers, “why am I obliged by your soup?” If indeed I am not obliged, then relativism seems to emerge as the logical consequence of your rejecting an a priori assumption of a moral absolute. Since values cannot be derived from facts without an utter disregard for the ‘ought-is’ dichotomy so beautifully expounded on by Hume, we must agree with Kelsen and say that unless we posit a moral absolute, it is impossible to posit an objective standard of morality.
Also, the rejection of relativism must of necessity posit a moral absolute standard. Unless one accepts as absolute the position of which one stands in making the critique of that aspect of relativist morality that one finds repugnant, the critique of that aspect is itself relative and thus the critique self destruct. I doubt you have the capacity to come to terms with the implications of what you’re saying Krystalline, so I don’t know what this intervention is worth, but I’m an eternal optimist!
13 June 2007, on 5:05 am
I probably posted this link to Stephen J. Gould some long ago, but a reminder won’t hurt.
http://www.marxists.org/subject/science/essays/kropotkin.htm
“If we wish “meekness and love” to triumph over “pride and violence” (as Tolstoy wrote to Gandhi), then we must repudiate Darwin’s vision of nature’s way – as Tolstoy stated in a final plea to his errant children.
This charge against Darwin is unfair for two reasons. First, nature (no matter how cruel in human terms) provides no basis for our moral values. (Evolution might, at most, help to explain why we have moral feelings, but nature can never decide for us whether any particular action is right or wrong.)
Second, Darwin’s “struggle for existence” is an abstract metaphor, not an explicit statement about bloody battle. Reproductive success, the criterion of natural selection, works in many modes: Victory in battle may be one pathway, but cooperation, symbiosis, and mutual aid may also secure success in other times and contexts.”
Gould also makes the point,
“There are no shortcuts to moral insight. Nature is not intrinsically anything that can offer comfort or solace in human terms – if only because our species is such an insignificant latecomer in a world not constructed for us.”
Conscious humans are only a recent drop in the bucket in the history of the earth and life on earth. The first cells appeared 4 billion years ago, animals 600 million years ago, the first human-like creatures 2 million years ago, homosapiens 100,000 years ago.
For almost all of those 4 billion years, where was an absolute moral value?
13 June 2007, on 9:03 pm
niran:
Ummm…no, we didn’t really debate this elsewhere. I answered a few questions, but didn’t give into demands.
Example, please.
I’m curious: did you miss the metaphor? We all do this to some degree, you, me, everyone. We all draw on structures, & tailor them to some degree to our fitting.
& I have given that standard. See comment #6.
& how have I not done that?
Oh, you fell for that, did you?
Ponder that.
bernarda:
I’d direct you to niran, as I have no quibble about the details.
I’ve answered that 1 already.
14 June 2007, on 12:21 am
haha, this is getting ridiculous. Why cannot you present a single reason as to why your concoction creates a binding moral obligation. Why am I morally bound to protect the women and weak in my society? What vantage point can you claim to critique on who does not care about the rest of society or even himself?
An absolute moral value could be said to exist for those 4 billion years only if one is willing to assume an abstract universal standard of morality. Unless this a priori assumption is made and committed to, objective morality or the rejection of relativism becomes meaningless and impossible. I’m an objectivist, and I’m happy to admit that I make this assumption. Krystalline in my estimation is not entitled to claim that he rejects relativism because he has no grounds upon which to claim a vantage point to critique relativism since he does not make the critical a priori assumption.
14 June 2007, on 12:52 am
niran - I don’t know how to make it any clearer than I have. You want me to drape it in flowery rhetoric, dry terminology?
It binds me. The species comes 1st, above all else.
You just keep on claiming your false dichotomy, Tweedledum. You have my answer.
I think you wasted a lot of time on your alleged ‘training’.
14 June 2007, on 6:16 am
It’s clear enough Goldilocks. The thing is what’s clear is that your concoction can bind no one. There has to be a valid objective source for your morality and you have none.
“Your false dichotomy…”??? You’ve got to be joking right? You aren’t telling me that values can be derived from facts are you? You’ve just conveniently sidestepped one of the governing principles of jurisprudence and ethics since Hume!! Do you want to debate this or was your statement merely a slip of the mind…I’m wiling to pardon it once
Why should the species come first? What if someone told you that the species does not matter? Why is he immoral?
14 June 2007, on 1:40 pm
My point is simple. Ask 100 people to define “justice” and you get 100 hundred answers. Same goes for love, truth, morality, gawd, etc, etc, etc. Human language is not capable of defining abstract thoughts in a concise manner. There are just too many variables. I judge as all people do; from mt own little corner of the universe. My experiences and responses to these experiences dictate how I will will judge future experiences.
Insanity is when a person’s actions/thoughts deviate far beyond the norm. Society allows a cushion for excepted levels of deviation but when that cushion is exceeded then the act/thought is declared insane. Does the person that thinks he is a polar bear think his world is any less real? I doubt it. To him it is real.
The concept of morality is the same. Society has established what the norm is. This took a long time and a great many generations but eventually our ancestors found what rules were needed to maintain a working society. Religion merely codified an already established system of rules. This is not to say that they did not add stupid ones to the list, they did, but the original kill and steal rules were already in place.
Morality is only our interpretation of what we believe “good” to be. In the case of serial killers, there is no “good” or “evil.” There is only self gratification. I judge them as being dangerous to myself and society. I do not judge them as being morally bankrupt or “evil”.
14 June 2007, on 2:36 pm
BBC Radio 4 had a good program about the history of “Relativism” on the series “In Our Time”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inourtime_20060119.shtml
Not surprisingly, absolute value comes off rather badly. There are too many good references and quotes too mention.
14 June 2007, on 9:55 pm
niran - I’m not a moral absolutist, I’d assumed you were.
Are we talking about institutional facts vs. brute facts?
I really don’t need to refute moral relativism, as it does that by itself fairly easily.
Obviously, the metaphor DID escape you. Also, the fairy tale comeback only works if it applies to the person.
While I rather like Hume’s guillotine, I prefer to build on facts, the observations derived from them, & the values extracted.
Chaos:
But those 100 people will all share a base general concept that they agree upon, to some extent.
Morality is a human word. It’s a construct, a structure, a pattern we have built up over the years.
However, that doesn’t nullify the values we extract from it. We still protect our children at all costs, do we not? Always, the drive to reproduce. It’s far more nuanced than you make it out to be.
15 June 2007, on 8:49 am
I get what you’re saying but if you read the last paragraph that you wrote carefully you’ll realise that you’re merely making an observation. You’re observing that humans are moral is some sense and that their behaviour seems to fit a certain pattern because they are motivated by the same desires. I’m in full agreement. The problem is extracting a set of obligations that are binding from that observation. Unless you accept some absolute value, you’re still jumping from the is to the ought and given how you’ve tried to wriggle out of it, it’s apparent that you don’t like like the argument, but it still comes to smack you in the face.
I also think it’s laughable that you try denying relativism while shunning absolutism. Relativism does not destroy itself. It can only be denied if some things are objectively wrong. That means wrong regardless of how many people think it’s right and that’s why observations of how people behave does not cut in terms of explaining the ’source’ of morality. Think about it, if it’s just a construct, why cannot we deconstruct it?
15 June 2007, on 3:14 pm
Many of the values humans possess are similar, however, there are, as niran states, no absolutes. To suggest absolutes means that there would be minimum and maximums. Abstract concepts have no parameters other the the possibilities that the human mind can come up with. Therefore, the concepts are infinite but the human mind is finite. Values, too, are a human construct. Survival is not. That is why people generally save the young and female. They are necessary for the tribe to continue existing. Those traits are not values, they are necessities. We are still but animals after all.
15 June 2007, on 9:34 pm
niran:
It’s simple really: some induction/deduction is involved.
Ummm…I have given an absolute value.
Harm to 1 can result in harm to many.
That needs no transcendent value.
Chaos:
I can posit 1 absolute w/o being an absolutist.
Whoa, hold on there: what? Infinity’s a method to measure something beyond measurement - infinite infers that there’s something beyond our conceptual framework.
Which doesn’t invalidate them.
True, but we derive values from those traits. We are the animals who think, who are self-aware.
A value can be completely restricted to the human being, & still have devastating impact both mentally as well as physically.
15 June 2007, on 11:26 pm
Yes it is simple. If you think you can deduce values from facts, then you can use some ‘induction and deduction’ to get to your values. But this is exactly what you cannot do unless you want to abandon all fidelity to reason and philosophy. Even you must realise this now Pinocchio…
Also, you have not given an absolute value. You have given an example of a very popular habit, a fact about how humans think. I agree with your observation.
Why is causing harm to many wrong? Where do you get that standard from?
16 June 2007, on 2:13 am
I’d get it from “Do unto others…”, which did not originate with the judeo-xian culture.
Go on. Knock me down for reducing it to something lacking the high-flown rhetoric-bombs you guys throw at each other. You may have noticed that the rest of us have fled the field, leaving you two brawlers to stagger on…
16 June 2007, on 3:01 am
niran - we get it from ourselves.
Since I rarely lie, the Pinocchio comment still falls flat. Keep trying.
Naomi - yes, the golden rule is the yardstick. However, theists like niran want to multiply entities needlessly.
‘High flown rhetoric bombs’? Am I doing that?
I like that, & am thieving it, BTW.
16 June 2007, on 8:59 am
KA, if you get it from your observations about ourselves, your explanation still doesn’t even cross the is-ought hurdle.
Yes, you don’t lie intentionally KA, let’s just put it down to ignorance shall we?
Should I do unto others even if I can get what I want without doing unto them…
16 June 2007, on 1:50 pm
I have no real intention of entering into the bomb throwing exercise, here.
My Catholic college course in Ethics [Rational Morality?] pretty much centered on Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics.
However…Just a suggestion…my ‘thinking’ is that when humans first decided on oughts/ought nots…or “Thou shalt nots! (no Shalts?)…it had really nothing to do with Logic or Philosophy. It really had to do with Pragmatic EXPERIENCE. In other words: “What works!” Like, if either of youse guys decided, arbitrarily, to kill the other…neither of you would be safe; or expanding that to the tribe…out of danger…or tribally…potential chaos.
Humans, I think, EVOLVED ethics, over eons, more as a practical tribal and inter/intra tribal solution to the overiding planetary, predatory animal, and naturally implied…”Survival of the Species”.
Yeah…humans are STILL animals. [Just check the World news?]
In my opinion, of course, the rather ignorant, minimally literate, “Non-Philosophical” leveled, writers of the OT/NT were handing down, orally transmitted, tribal, mythological, STORIES in which longterm tribal experience was embedded.
The only ‘absolute’ in the whole scheme is related to the Darwinian “Survival of the fittest/Species”; and always, ultimately, remains ‘relative’…to what works!
Sorta like the theory of electricity…we don’t completely understand all the implications of the related Quantum Mechanics involved; but so far…the experientially derived theory does have relative, practical results!
Hmmm…I guess I’ve evolved, in MY life, from a total “Religious Idealist” to a “Pragmatic Skeptic”…?
Yeah…I know..who cares?
“You go guys!”… Have fun sparring with other…over all those “Mysteries of Time and Space”…
ad infintum? As for me…I’m outa here.
Only…ahem…GifS absolutely does have relatively limited Time and Space.
Oh, and…if applicable…
“Happy Father’s Day?”…erm…
you Mothas?
16 June 2007, on 3:54 pm
niran:
Only a theist would say that.
I think you made a biased judgment there, & are allowing your prejudice to blind you.
I’d be happy to draw you a map on this 1, if you weren’t so deadset on laying rhetorical traps that will (metaphorically) sit there & rust.
ChuckA - good points all, & am in agreement.
16 June 2007, on 4:34 pm
KA, yes. And you’re welcome to it, with my “blessing”. (Is there a better phrase that doesn’t borrow from xian-lingo?)
17 June 2007, on 7:30 am
Beautiful! One of the critical arguments in jurisprudential theory made by David Hume(an atheist)and accepted virtually by every single jurist and moral philosopher since, waived away dismissively by our very own Pinocchilocks as an argument only a theist could have made! Haha…
Oh, yes, I’m the one who’s blind to reason.
“Should I do unto others even if I can get what I want without doing unto them…”
Actually a yes or no will do. Maps may be unnecessary but might just be a touch amusing. Might help us all to see the ‘big picture’ so to speak. I really don’t mind…
17 June 2007, on 4:06 pm
niran:
Well, grasshopper, you still haven’t been able to snatch that pebble from my hand.
What I meant was (& no doubt you’ll change the definition to suit yourself, you always do), is that the theist looks outside his/herself.
This has been fun, but I’ll wrap this up:
You’ve been wonderfully compliant. Most of what has transpired was inadvertent, but mostly I goaded you to follow me around, & refused to play the game you’ve learned by your rules. This stems not from a lack of comprehension, but an effort to simplify (& flesh out) some techniques I’ve been playing w/.
No doubt your comrades are lauding you in your imaginary marbled halls of intelligentsia over there, but your trumpets of victory signify an insecurity (I’ve told you this before).
I’ll simplify it all for you.
Subtract 1 deity from the equation, & all comes clear.
Rather than pushing from the base of presuppositionalism, you should be walking the middle road.
I can employ a slippery slope point to much of it: allowance of a violation can become a tacit nod to others.
18 June 2007, on 3:24 am
I must confess a complete naivete in relation to the tactics and the cat and mouse games you claim to have played. Next time I meet someone stupid who cannot support their assertions, I’ll keep in mind that maybe they are playing and perfecting the same game. I actually thought that your inability to support your own views had a much simpler explanation…intelligence or the lack of it of course being the operative factor. Silly me.
P.S- what trumpets mate. Like I said earlier, victory cannot be claimed where a contest has not been had. It’s called a walkover, not victory.
18 June 2007, on 9:20 am
Oy, niran, you keep on swinging at air, connecting nothing, & declaring a knockout. I’m getting embarrassed for you.
Bad show, bad form, mate.
I’ll leave you here to mumble to yourself.
Ta.
18 June 2007, on 8:47 pm
You’re the one who doesn’t have the answers. tata