To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[carpedm9587]

So now you are simply appealing to the majority. What if the majority did decide that killing Jews was a moral good? I mean it is possible for Muslims to take the world, or the larger portion. How do you escape anything goes? I mean anything has gone in human history...

We usually get here sooner or later. In the hypothetical scenario you paint, if the majority of the world saw "killing Jews" as moral, then the man/woman seeking to preserve jews would be seen as immoral. Hard to fathm, isn't it? But that is what would (and has) happened. It may well happen again. From the perspective of my current moral code, I sincerely hope not. Indeed, it is hard for me to imagine us ever reversing our course that way. But it is not impossible. Were it to happen in some future time, we would be sitting here having this exact conversation, and you would be aghast at me for suggesting it is NOT moral to gas Jewish children.

Just as we used to sit and defend that it was...

...right to torture people to "save their souls."
...right to enslave people because they were not really human
...right to deny people safe haven because they might want to hurt us
...right to prohibit people commited and in love from marrying because they had the same genitalia
...right to sterilize people classified as "retarded" because it promoted the health of the species

...and the list goes on. All of those positions have been defended as "moral." Most no longer are. Some are just now changing. That is the nature of our species.

[carpedm9587]

And what if the rest of the world saw it as a moral good? Then it would be good?

Permit me to add your missing word: "And what if the rest of the world saw it as a moral good? Then it would be absolutely/universally good?

It would not be "absolutely good," because no such thing exists. Good is a value judgement, so it is subjective. It would be "universally" good within the context of the defined universe: our world. That is because everyone would see it as good... until they don't.

But why would you want to force your subjective moral opinion on others?

Because, like you, my moral code is my window onto the world. I don't only evaluate my own actions; I evaluate the actions of those around me. Being with someone who acts in a way my moral code says is "immoral" is a conflict. So I gather with people who have similar moral codes to me, in a country that has a similar moral code to mine, and I strve to make the laws of the land align to that code - just as you do. And when someone comes along that does not want to conform to the moral code of the group, a very small number of things happen:

1) They are tolerated (if their view doesn't really have much impact on the group)
2) They are pressured to change
3) They are isolated (shunning)
4) They are removed (imprisonment, exile, capital punishment).

Ultimately, action is taken to resolve the psychological (and possibly physical) discomfort of a non-conforming moral agent.

[carpedm9587]

So now you are simply appealing to the majority. What if the majority did decide that killing Jews was a moral good? I mean it is possible for Muslims to take the world, or the larger portion. How do you escape anything goes? I mean anything has gone in human history...

I think we now have 3 separate threads going!

Might does not make right, Seer, but it does control action. The more powerful individual or group can force action (or inaction) and the less powerful group. They cannot, however, change their moral code. That is internal. So might is about enforcement - not about morality itself.

[seer]

We usually get here sooner or later. In the hypothetical scenario you paint, if the majority of the world saw "killing Jews" as moral, then the man/woman seeking to preserve jews would be seen as immoral. Hard to fathm, isn't it? But that is what would (and has) happened. It may well happen again. From the perspective of my current moral code, I sincerely hope not. Indeed, it is hard for me to imagine us ever reversing our course that way. But it is not impossible. Were it to happen in some future time, we would be sitting here having this exact conversation, and you would be aghast at me for suggesting it is NOT moral to gas Jewish children.

Just as we used to sit and defend that it was...

...right to torture people to "save their souls."
...right to enslave people because they were not really human
...right to deny people safe haven because they might want to hurt us
...right to prohibit people commited and in love from marrying because they had the same genitalia
...right to sterilize people classified as "retarded" because it promoted the health of the species

...and the list goes on. All of those positions have been defended as "moral." Most no longer are. Some are just now changing. That is the nature of our species.

Ok, then there we have it.

[seer]

I think we now have 3 separate threads going!

Might does not make right, Seer, but it does control action. The more powerful individual or group can force action (or inaction) and the less powerful group. They cannot, however, change their moral code. That is internal. So might is about enforcement - not about morality itself.

The point is, in our world anything does go, and has for our history...

[seer]

I think we now have 3 separate threads going!

Might does not make right, Seer, but it does control action. The more powerful individual or group can force action (or inaction) and the less powerful group. They cannot, however, change their moral code. That is internal. So might is about enforcement - not about morality itself.

I would argue that might certainly does defines right. Whether the majority like you appealed to, or a powerful elite.

[carpedm9587]

The point is, in our world anything does go, and has for our history...

Your view of our world is FAR more pessimistic than mine, Seer - which seems odd given that you are the theist with an allpowerful, all good, god and I am the heathen in a godless, soulless, evil world.

"Anything" doesn't go. If you look across the breath of humanity, you will always find at least one person defending any given action as "ok." But humanity as a whole typically doesn't. We make mistakes, and say "yes" sometimes when (IMO) we should be saying no. But (as I have said), when I look back over the course of human history, I see a fairly regular theme: human rights continue to be expanded and human dignity valued. Now we are adding to that the rights of the rest of the living world, and our need to be true stewards of this planet - not only for our own benefit but for that of all living things.

Yes - we still have some who value "economics" over planetary health, and "economic growth" over "basic human needs," but that is slowly and steadily shifting. Right now, I think, we are in a brief whiplash period. Much has changed in 50 years, and people are tired of change and want things to go back to the "good old days." But eventually people will adjust, and the march to continually expand rights will likely continue.

I know a lot of people. I know almost none I would truly evaluate as "bad people." That gives me significant hope.

[carpedm9587]

I would argue that might certainly does defines right. Whether the majority like you appealed to, or a powerful elite.

Right makes enforcement, Seer. It does not make "right."

It may be that someday, the political right will rise to power (they sort of have) and the laws of our land will revert to denying same sex couples the right to marry. That power will prohibit that marriage activity, and prevent same-sex couples from marrying. It will not make it "right." I will continue to see such prohibitions as wrong and continue to oppose them.

Today, the opposite is happening. The majority of people see love as love, and the genitalia of a couple as irrelevant to their commitment to marry and live in love for the rest of their lives. So that has become the law of the land. That doesn't make it "right." It means that what the majority sees as right is now the law of the land and enforced. I suspect most people on this forum will continue to see it as "wrong" despite the law of the land. The law of the land cannot force people to change their moral code. That has to happen internally.

P.S. I would like to note that you are a LOT more succinct than I. My wife tells me I am prone to verbosity. I plead guilty!

[Tassman]

I would argue that might certainly does defines right. Whether the majority like you appealed to, or a powerful elite.

History suggests that repressive "might" can only be maintained for a relatively short period before it is overthrown.

[mattbballman31]

As requested:

Okay, you're call. But don't take any disagreement I might have as arrogance!

- Okay, then you're lazy. Calling it needlessly complex begs the question. (arrogant)

How? You gave the ultimatum!

- Yea, introducing two Latin terms - required to make a distinction - is BURYING you in jargon. Sorry about that. (sarcastic)

Again, how? You made the accusation that I was burying you in jargon when I introduced this Latin distinction.

- I'm not surprised if there's lazy people out there. It's a part of life. (labeling the "student" lazy is, in my professional experience, not conducive to learning)

Again, you gave the ultimatum. To me, you have a choice. When something isn't clear. ask a specific question. Don't just say "I don't get it." That's uncharitable toward the teacher. Otherwise, the teacher will go into all manner of exposition that might not touch upon the specific area of concern. The "specific question" will pinpoint where you'll want further clarification. Or . . . you can remain lazy. "Lazy" is a descriptive term that can accurately apply to a character trait of a person. I have no idea how accurately applying that to a person automatically implies that the applier is arrogant. To me, that sounds like hypersensitivity.

- So what? I don't care about moral discourse not proceeding. (arrogant)

Again, you sound hypersensitive. I really didn't care about the idea that moral discourse couldn't proceed; that was beside the point I was making. Pointing that out isn't arrogant. The relevant point was that the moral framework doesn't poof into existence relative to the existence of the one who links up with it. The only way that could would happen is if you were some sort of anti-realist regarding the moral framework. If you were, I'd like an argument for that, please.

- Okay . . . So nothing of relevance to the points we're discussing. (arrogant, given life experience and the rest of the things on the list)

Life experience is interesting, no doubt. It can also be irrelevant. Pointing that out doesn't imply arrogance at all.

Look - there's an old saying that goes, "when the student is ready, the teacher will appear." Well, I like to think I'm always ready to learn, but I don't get the sense that you're the teacher for me.

Even after multiple attempts to emphasize the fact that I'd be willing to address any "specific" questions you might have? Even after I confessed I'd defer to you in the event that you said something I didn't get?

As I said, I am a teacher by profession. I would never think to express myself to a student in the way you do. I KNOW, from experience, it would sour the learning relationship. I'm happy to learn - I'm just not happy to be talked down to or disparaged in the process. Color me human. If that makes me a "whiner," I'll have to live with the label. At my age, life is too short to tolerate unpleasantness.

Well, from my perspective, I wasn't souring anything. If you got that impression, that just happens in life. But the longer we talk about this "souring", the more it will look like whining. So, let's just move on to the much more interesting topic of the actual subject matter, and any "specific" questions you have?

In my experience, Matt, "telling it like it is" most often is a self-justification for pretty much anything at all. Trump is "just telling it like it is." Biden is "just telling it like it is." Both use it as a smokescreen for rudeness and a lack of human decency.

Thanks for insidiously accusing me of lacking human decency. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine. I can't change that. It wasn't a smoke screen for anything at all.

It is possible to be forthright, AND civil all at the same time. It is possible to teach, and challenge, with empathy and concern for the learner.

You haven't convinced me of any examples of incivility, so we'll probably have to move on from this passive-aggressive posture of "playing the victim" and just get to the points under discussion.

Somehow, I just don't see that happening here. But I could be wrong. If you wish to try again, I'll give it a go. But I come here for discourse and an exchange of ideas. I'm not looking to condescend to anyone, or be condescended to.

Cool. But I can't control how you'll perceive text. You'll have to take my word for it. I'm not being arrogant. Let's get to the points under discussion.

I guess you could say this is my version of "telling it like it is." Hopefully, I have not done so rudely or without civility.

I haven't detected any rudeness or lack of civility. But even if I did, I wouldn't really care. I care about the subject matter. The only thing I think you're a tad guilty of is "playing the victim", some perhaps unintended sloth, and a pinch of passive aggression.

Ready when you are! Cheers.

[carpedm9587]

Okay, you're call. But don't take any disagreement I might have as arrogance!



How? You gave the ultimatum!



Again, how? You made the accusation that I was burying you in jargon when I introduced this Latin distinction.



Again, you gave the ultimatum. To me, you have a choice. When something isn't clear. ask a specific question. Don't just say "I don't get it." That's uncharitable toward the teacher. Otherwise, the teacher will go into all manner of exposition that might not touch upon the specific area of concern. The "specific question" will pinpoint where you'll want further clarification. Or . . . you can remain lazy. "Lazy" is a descriptive term that can accurately apply to a character trait of a person. I have no idea how accurately applying that to a person automatically implies that the applier is arrogant. To me, that sounds like hypersensitivity.




Again, you sound hypersensitive. I really didn't care about the idea that moral discourse couldn't proceed; that was beside the point I was making. Pointing that out isn't arrogant. The relevant point was that the moral framework doesn't poof into existence relative to the existence of the one who links up with it. The only way that could would happen is if you were some sort of anti-realist regarding the moral framework. If you were, I'd like an argument for that, please.



Life experience is interesting, no doubt. It can also be irrelevant. Pointing that out doesn't imply arrogance at all.



Even after multiple attempts to emphasize the fact that I'd be willing to address any "specific" questions you might have? Even after I confessed I'd defer to you in the event that you said something I didn't get?



Well, from my perspective, I wasn't souring anything. If you got that impression, that just happens in life. But the longer we talk about this "souring", the more it will look like whining. So, let's just move on to the much more interesting topic of the actual subject matter, and any "specific" questions you have?



Thanks for insidiously accusing me of lacking human decency. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine. I can't change that. It wasn't a smoke screen for anything at all.



You haven't convinced me of any examples of incivility, so we'll probably have to move on from this passive-aggressive posture of "playing the victim" and just get to the points under discussion.



Cool. But I can't control how you'll perceive text. You'll have to take my word for it. I'm not being arrogant. Let's get to the points under discussion.



I haven't detected any rudeness or lack of civility. But even if I did, I wouldn't really care. I care about the subject matter. The only thing I think you're a tad guilty of is "playing the victim", some perhaps unintended sloth, and a pinch of passive aggression.

Ready when you are! Cheers.

I'll pass - but thanks.

[seer]

It may be that someday, the political right will rise to power (they sort of have) and the laws of our land will revert to denying same sex couples the right to marry. That power will prohibit that marriage activity, and prevent same-sex couples from marrying. It will not make it "right." I will continue to see such prohibitions as wrong and continue to oppose them.

This is my problem carpedm, 100 years ago you would have most likely thought homosexuality a moral wrong, never mind gay marriage or gay rights. Now you support them merely because of the culture you happen to now live in. You're willing to fight rather hard for this subjective position that you hold, a position that is largely the result of the accidental timing and place of your birth.

P.S. I would like to note that you are a LOT more succinct than I. My wife tells me I am prone to verbosity. I plead guilty!

You do tend to ramble... ; )

[seer]

Right makes enforcement, Seer. It does not make "right."

Carpedm, if might or the majority does not define right then what does? When I was speaking of gassing Jewish children you suggested that it was wrong because the majority of peoples would consider it immoral. Are you now saying that gassing Jewish children may in fact be right, even though the majority may disagree?

[JimL]

Carpedm, if might or the majority does not define right then what does? When I was speaking of gassing Jewish children you suggested that it was wrong because the majority of peoples would consider it immoral. Are you now saying that gassing Jewish children may in fact be right, even though the majority may disagree?

I've answered to this multiple times for you seer. What is morally right is that which is ultimately in the best interests of human beings and human society. Ergo the indiscriminate murder of human beings is immoral. Might and the majority ultimately enforce what is in our best interests, i.e. they codify and enforce what is right, but they don't define it. Apparently you just don't seem to believe that there are certain behaviors that serve the best interests of human beings living together in community.

[seer]

I've answered to this multiple times for you seer. What is morally right is that which is ultimately in the best interests of human beings and human society. Ergo the indiscriminate murder of human beings is immoral. Might and the majority ultimately enforce what is in our best interests, i.e. they codify and enforce what is right, but they don't define it. Apparently you just don't seem to believe that their are certain behaviors that serve the best interests of human beings living together in community.

Right Jim, I know your subjective opinion on the matter...