Morality or Obedience?

[carpedm9587]

You have no basis to judge another society's moral actions if you are a moral relativist.

I absolutely do: my moral framework. Each of us judges not only our own actions, but also the actions of others, against our own moral framework. So you can claim all day long that homosexuality is immoral - but if my moral framework says it is not - I will see your position as wrong and immoral. Likewise, I can claim all day long that homosexuality is moral (or at least neutral), but if your moral framework says it is immoral, you will see my position as wrong an immoral.

And that's pretty much what happens, right?

You can't say that slavery was wrong,

Slavery was (and is) wrong.

or that killing the jews was wrong.

Killing the Jews was (and is) wrong.

At best you can say "according to my moral beliefs it was wrong" and then someone else can say "who gives a flying fart about your moral beliefs?"

Yes - according to my moral framework - it is wrong. We all make moral statements out of our own moral framework. You happen to value "god," specifically the Christian notion of that god, so you subjectively align your moral framework to what you think this god wants. To you, it probably lends your moral framework a bit more authority. To others, they will also "not give a fig" about your moral framework. They will "not give a fig" either because they do not believe your god exists, or perhaps because they believe you are misinterpreting what this god wants. In either case, they are assessing your subjective moral framework against their subjective moral framework.

What someone else says about my moral framework is not my concern, until/if their actions/choices create a conflict situation. Then we have a problem - and we have a hierarchy of approaches to resolving the conflict.

[seer]

Ahhh... there's that "diminishing/ridiculing" word again - your other strategy (of three). Yes, it is my preference, but not "merely" a preference. It is a preference based on core values, not favorite flavors of pizza, though you would seem to want to paint those as equivalent.

You are just pushing the question back. Of course it is mere preference, whether collective or otherwise. Your point of view is no more meaningful than the murderous Maoist. Except to you, or those who are like minded. But so what?

If one culture says "pot is illegal" and another says "pot it legal," no one seems to complain of a rational problem. But when we change the word to moral, suddenly we have a problem? Why? Both are about actions, what ought and ought not be done. So why is one irrational and the other rational?

Some laws are based in morality. Some are not. All laws are subjective/relative to the group/country/society writing them. Many laws derived by differing groups contradict each other (i.e., the pot laws above). There is no "universal" or "objective" norm to appeal to. Yet I have never seen anyone suggest any of this is irrational. But when "law" is replaced with "moral code," and the same is suggested - relative and subjective - suddenly it is "irrational."

Both deal with actions. Both deal with identifying ought/ought not. So what makes one irrational and the other not?

I made the point that you can not logically judge a culture like Communist China, there is no room for deductive reasoning, everything comes down to personal or collective values/preference. And that is not a rational jumping off point. Culture A practices X, culture B does not practice X. Culture B thinks what Culture A does is deeply immoral according to their values. There is no deductive way out of this morass. You therefore have reduced all moral questions to non-rational considerations. Mere preference, whether you want to admit it or not.

[carpedm9587]

You are just pushing the question back. Of course it is mere preference, whether collective or otherwise. Your point of view is no more meaningful than the murderous Maoist. Except to you, or those who are like minded. But so what?

I said nothing about "the collective," except to note that it's moral framework is merely the sum of its consituents commonly held moral codes. The individual has primacy. And my point of view is not "universally" or "objectively" meaningful - but we already knew that, because it's subjective/relative, so you are (again) just repeating a definition, with a hint of scorn/ridicule, and eventually we'll probably do "moral outrage" with another reference to killing Jews or fondling children - for a perfect trifecta of your three "arguments" against moral subjectivism/relativism.

The reality, as I noted to Sparko, is that the same is true of your moral framework, Seer. As Starlight noted, it is subjective to you. You have decided you value god, or at least your interpretation of god. You have decided to align your moral code to the moral code you believe this god wants, or at least your interpretation of it. Anyone who does not believe in this god, or (for whatever reason) does not value this god, or does not agree with your interpretation of this moral code, will say, "so what" to your moral code as well, and you will have no more basis to insist on conformity than I. You can try to convince them that your god exists, should be valued (which is one of the two approaches I note below), and your intepretation of this god's moral code (because there are many variations) is the right one. But, in the end, if they do not agree with you, you will do what we all do: ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

We are not that different, my friend. You merely are attributing the code to a god and claiming that gives it "authority." Unless someone recognizes that authority as valid, they are going to say "so what" to your moral code as well.

I made the point that you can not logically judge a culture like Communist China, there is no room for deductive reasoning, everything comes down to personal or collective values/preference. And that is not a rational jumping off point.

It's not an objective starting point - but it can be a perfectly rational starting point. I have shown, repeatedly, that there is no requirement for deductive reasoning to begin with objectively true premises. It can proceed from subjectively true premises and still be rational and deductive. You do it every single day. You have not responded to those arguments or examples.

Culture A practices X, culture B does not practice X. Culture B thinks what Culture A does is deeply immoral according to their values. There is no deductive way out of this morass. You therefore have reduced all moral questions to non-rational considerations. Mere preference, whether you want to admit it or not.

There are two avenues, as I have noted before, for reasoning rationally between moral codes. It is not guaranteed to resolve the problem but it is possible.

1) If things valued are aligned but moral codes are not, show how the reasoning from thing-valued to moral code is flawed. One or both has to be if this situation exists.
2) Provide a rationale for valuing differently. For example, if one does not value "life," outlining the consequences of that lack of valuing may have an effect.

If there is no resolution from 1) or 2), then we fall back to ignore, isolate/separate, or content - none of which is a reasoning process so the terms rational/irrational don't apply.

And you STILL have not responded to the question about law vs. morality. I'm beginning to think you're avoiding it because you have no answer...

[Starlight]

The problem with JimL's statement, IMO, is that "best interests of" is a statement that will require an agreed upon metric. What exactly is being optimized? Life? Liberty? Happiness? Prosperity? Will we all agree that it is objectively in the best interests of all humanity to increase lifespan? To reduce income disparity? To maximize happiness? We can derive objectively true statistics about what percentage of the human population will see any of these as "in the best interests of," but I suspect the percentages will drop precipitously when you start asking which take precedence when they come into conflict (e.g., if reducing income disparity shortens lifespan, or if increasing happiness reduces prosperity).

I agree with you that there is a problem with at least apparent arbitrariness in the view JimL is pushing. I think it can satisfactorily be dealt with in the ways I outlined in previous posts, through scientifically working towards identifying and quantifying common human values.

However, that is not the formulation I prefer, precisely because of the apparent arbitrariness involved.

I think there is an attempt being made here, to find an objective basis for morality - and I do not think such a basis exists.

I do not think we can make everyone agree about morality. However, I think an abstracted, non-arbitrary, universally applicable definition of morality can be provided that is both useful and widely utilized. In that sense, I would view it as an objective morality:

In an interpersonal interaction, to what extents were the intentions in the mind of the doer positive or negative (as understood by the doer) toward the other person(s)?

So if you hate someone, and want to hurt them, and take an action that you think brings them harm motivated by that hatred, it's "immoral" (by definition). If you love someone, and want to help them, and take an action that you think helps them motivated by that love, it's "moral" (by definition).

I see that as the most abstract definition of morality available - apart from any culture, laws, physical embodiment etc. We could consider two consciousnesses floating in the void and interacting. If one comes to value the other negatively and wishes them what they perceive to be harm, and takes action with those intentions then that is 'immoral', and if they value the other positively and take an action with helpful intentions that is 'moral'.

So if a conscious entity positive values other entities, it is benevolent / "a moral person", but if it places zero or negative value on other entities it is psychopathic / malevolent / "a bad person" / "immoral". Likewise any action taken with positive or negative intentionality toward another can be assessed as moral or immoral in its intentions.

I see that as a universal and objective morality. It can be applies to all beings and all interactions. It doesn't have arbitrary parameters like "are we measuring happiness or liberty or money?" It focuses on something very fundamental and abstractable. It conforms well with how moral terms are commonly used. In my view it's got all the features we want / could want in a universal moral theory. All you need ask is whether interpersonal interactions were positive or negative in intentions toward others, and that's morality right there.

[carpedm9587]

I agree with you that there is a problem with at least apparent arbitrariness in the view JimL is pushing. I think it can satisfactorily be dealt with in the ways I outlined in previous posts, through scientifically working towards identifying and quantifying common human values.

However, that is not the formulation I prefer, precisely because of the apparent arbitrariness involved.

I do not think we can make everyone agree about morality. However, I think an abstracted, non-arbitrary, universally applicable definition of morality can be provided that is both useful and widely utilized. In that sense, I would view it as an objective morality:

In an interpersonal interaction, to what extents were the intentions in the mind of the doer positive or negative (as understood by the doer) toward the other person(s)?

So if you hate someone, and want to hurt them, and take an action that you think brings them harm motivated by that hatred, it's "immoral" (by definition). If you love someone, and want to help them, and take an action that you think helps them motivated by that love, it's "moral" (by definition).

I see that as the most abstract definition of morality available - apart from any culture, laws, physical embodiment etc. We could consider two consciousnesses floating in the void and interacting. If one comes to value the other negatively and wishes them what they perceive to be harm, and takes action with those intentions then that is 'immoral', and if they value the other positively and take an action with helpful intentions that is 'moral'.

So if a conscious entity positive values other entities, it is benevolent / "a moral person", but if it places zero or negative value on other entities it is psychopathic / malevolent / "a bad person" / "immoral". Likewise any action taken with positive or negative intentionality toward another can be assessed as moral or immoral in its intentions.

I see that as a universal and objective morality. It can be applies to all beings and all interactions. It doesn't have arbitrary parameters like "are we measuring happiness or liberty or money?" It focuses on something very fundamental and abstractable. It conforms well with how moral terms are commonly used. In my view it's got all the features we want / could want in a universal moral theory. All you need ask is whether interpersonal interactions were positive or negative in intentions toward others, and that's morality right there.

This one I need to think about....

[element771]

Slavery was (and is) wrong.

[shunyadragon]

At the dehumanizing free labor at the expense of those enslaved.

[element771]

At the dehumanizing free labor at the expense of those enslaved.

What does that matter?

Society benefits which is the important thing.

[Tassman]

What does that matter?

Society benefits which is the important thing.

How do the slaves benefit and why would you exclude slaves from society?

[carpedm9587]

If liberty is something someone values, and values more than prosperity, they don't arrive at the same moral code. If I grant slavery is a good, I have to accept that MY slavery is going to be seen as a good to someone else. Since I value liberty above prosperity, AND I live in society, I see slavery as an evil.

If your moral code sees it as a good - we should talk!

But I'm suspecting it doesn't....

[seer]

We are not that different, my friend. You merely are attributing the code to a god and claiming that gives it "authority." Unless someone recognizes that authority as valid, they are going to say "so what" to your moral code as well.

No Carp, we are not the same. In my world there are universal moral truths to be discovered, there are right moral answers that transcend our personal preferences.

It's not an objective starting point - but it can be a perfectly rational starting point. I have shown, repeatedly, that there is no requirement for deductive reasoning to begin with objectively true premises. It can proceed from subjectively true premises and still be rational and deductive. You do it every single day. You have not responded to those arguments or examples.

If they are subjective then they can be different from culture to culture.

There are two avenues, as I have noted before, for reasoning rationally between moral codes. It is not guaranteed to resolve the problem but it is possible.

1) If things valued are aligned but moral codes are not, show how the reasoning from thing-valued to moral code is flawed. One or both has to be if this situation exists.
2) Provide a rationale for valuing differently. For example, if one does not value "life," outlining the consequences of that lack of valuing may have an effect.

If there is no resolution from 1) or 2), then we fall back to ignore, isolate/separate, or content - none of which is a reasoning process so the terms rational/irrational don't apply.

And you STILL have not responded to the question about law vs. morality. I'm beginning to think you're avoiding it because you have no answer...

But I did answer you, that was what the thing about Culture A and B was about, you can apply that to laws also. My point is and has been there is no rational way to judge between societies. You have your standard to conform to they have theirs, you can only say that they don't conform to your preferences. That is not deductive reasoning. And I'm not sure why you keep pushing me on this given the fact you refused to deal with Matt's points - why? No answer?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post520606

Don't be a hypocrite Carp...

[element771]

If liberty is something someone values, and values more than prosperity, they don't arrive at the same moral code. If I grant slavery is a good, I have to accept that MY slavery is going to be seen as a good to someone else. Since I value liberty above prosperity, AND I live in society, I see slavery as an evil.

If your moral code sees it as a good - we should talk!

But I'm suspecting it doesn't....

Of course not and I appreciate the benefit of the doubt.

But you haven't been able to tell me why it is morally evil. You have simply said that you don't want to be a slave so you shouldn't advocate for slavery.

This is where having no objective morals gives a problem. You can't show me why I shouldn't hold this view.

How do you counter with someone saying that slaves are genetically inferior and therefore not a part of a civilized society?

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, we are not the same. In my world there are universal moral truths to be discovered, there are right moral answers that transcend our personal preferences.

From your perspective, Seer, it appears that way. That is because you have attributed these moral codes to your god, which you value. Like me, you assess all actions against this moral code that you have adopted. If/when you ever stop believing in, or valuing, this god, your moral code will likewise probably change. I know you claim moral absolute/objective truths, but then so do a lot of other theists, many of whom don't have the same list as you. From where I sit - we are all basically doing the same thing.

If they are subjective then they can be different from culture to culture.

Yes, they can. That's the meaning of "subjective." Both laws and moral codes can differ from culture/society/group to culture/society/group. Moral codes can (and do) also differ individual-to-individual.

But I did answer you, that was what the thing about Culture A and B was about, you can apply that to laws also. My point is and has been there is no rational way to judge between societies. You have your standard to conform to they have theirs, you can only say that they don't conform to your preferences. That is not deductive reasoning. And I'm not sure why you keep pushing me on this given the fact you refused to deal with Matt's points - why? No answer?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post520606

So first, I have shown several times how you are adding meaning to "rational" and "deductive reasoning" that are not part of the definition. Neither concept requires the premises to be objective or subjective. The argument is sound if it is a proper syllogism. It is valid if it is a proper syllogism AND the premises are true. There is nothing about them being objective or subjective truths in the definition of "rational" or "deductive reasoning." You are adding that to hold to your point. I have not seen a response to this.

Second, I have also shown that there are no assured ways to resolve the distinction, because they are subjective (so you are again merely complaining they are not objective - so have yet to make an actual argument). But there are two possible ways of resolving the distinction. Beyond that, we do what we have always done: ignore, isolate/separate, or contend. I have not seen a response to this either.

Third, I do not see how this answer in any way addresses the question about law vs. morality. The former is not described as irrational by anyone I have ever met, but the latter you are calling irrational, though both share the same characteristics.

Finally - how does a link to a post by Matt show me where you answered this question?

Don't be a hypocrite Carp...

I'm not, but if it makes you feel better tossing ad homs around...

[carpedm9587]

Of course not and I appreciate the benefit of the doubt.

I haven't met any bad people here, Elem, so I assume you are not one either.

But you haven't been able to tell me why it is morally evil. You have simply said that you don't want to be a slave so you shouldn't advocate for slavery.

As I have noted, moral codes are built on what we value. We define as moral actions that protect/enhance the things we value, and we define as immoral actions that destroy/diminish the things we value. I value liberty second only to life. Like life, it is a necessary condition for almost everything else I value (health, happiness, prosperity). Slavery, by definition, deprives one of liberty. That observation, coupled with the social contract (i.e., the golden rule) means I classify slavery as a moral evil.

Now, if you want to ask why I value liberty, I would have to point you to my upbringing, my experiences of being constrained vs. being free, and my familiarity with human history.

This is where having no objective morals gives a problem. You can't show me why I shouldn't hold this view.

Nor can you, Element, except to insist that "god says so." Except he doesn't really. Indeed, slavery is permitted in your holy book, and some here have even defended it. As I said to Seer, you are essentially in the same boat. You value your god, and because that is true, you have elected (subjectively) to align your moral framework to what you believe this god wants. But you have no basis for convincing me that I should do the same because I believe this god does not actually exist. Because I do not value what you value, your arguments for my agreeing with you about any given moral element will fall flat, as mine will for you. We will only agree if we a) agree on the underlying value structure, and b) reason properly from those premises to a moral code.

How do you counter with someone saying that slaves are genetically inferior and therefore not a part of a civilized society?

I would resort to genetics to show that we share essentially the same genetic code, making a claim of "inferiority" incorrect on its merits. Ultimately, if that does not convince, and there remains no alignment between our moral frameworks, we will start down the progressive chain of handling such disconnects.

1) Dismissal: If the moral code does not impact our every-day life, it might be ignored. Slavery is a large enough part of my moral code that, if I found myself with someone who advocated for it, I would probably not simply ignore this distinction.

2) Isolation/separation: When we cannot agree, a common result is that we separate/isolate the other. This would probably the case with the person advocating for slavery. I certainly would not consider them a friend, would likely not invite them to my house. If they make this claim widely, they will probably find themselves widely shunned, because most of society would reject such a claim.

3) Contend: If the person was not just passive about their belief, but actively promoting it (i.e., trying to pass laws, trying to obtain a slave), then we would actively contend. We would speak out against the position. We would do everything possible to make sure such proposals were voted down in the public arena. If the person tried to obtain a slave in defiance of the social norm/law, we would arrest and incercerate them.

None of these approaches will change their moral view; sometimes those views cannot be changed. It is merely how society (and an individual) deals with the disconnect.

[Sparko]

I absolutely do: my moral framework. Each of us judges not only our own actions, but also the actions of others, against our own moral framework. So you can claim all day long that homosexuality is immoral - but if my moral framework says it is not - I will see your position as wrong and immoral. Likewise, I can claim all day long that homosexuality is moral (or at least neutral), but if your moral framework says it is immoral, you will see my position as wrong an immoral.

But I don't care what your moral framework tells you. You have no legs to stand on to tell me I am wrong, or that the Nazi's were wrong for murdering 6 million Jews, or that rape is wrong, or slavery. It is just your personal moral framework, or your culture's framework. In 50 years, the moral framework might say that murdering and raping anyone you want is perfectly fine.

Slavery was (and is) wrong.

No, you just don't like it. "wrong" is a moral judgment. And since morals are relative to each society and individual, you can't say it was wrong if that society felt it was right and it worked for them.

Remember your previous argument? That when it comes down to it, morality is just an individual's value?

.. our moral frameworks are rooted in the other things we value: life, liberty, happiness, health. Ultimately, they are rooted in whatever the individual values.

So what you think doesn't mean squat to anyone else. You, or a million people saying Slavery is wrong is no more valid than a million people saying they think Slavery is good. There is no actual "right" or "wrong" in your moral framework, just personal preferences and values. No different than you saying Tofu is "wrong" because you don't like the taste of it.