To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[JimL]

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

Yes, and I know your subjective opinion on the matter as well. Both of our opinions on the matter are subjective seer.

[seer]

Yes, and I know your subjective opinion on the matter as well. Both of our opinions on the matter are subjective seer.

Then neither of our opinions are more valid or correct than the other's. And that is why we have a world of war, hatred, selfishness, and disharmony... Just animals doing what animals do...

[JimL]

Then neither of our opinions are more valid or correct than the other's. And that is why we have a world of war, hatred, selfishness, and disharmony... Just animals doing what animals do...

Of course you do understand that the above doesn't make sense. One can have a correct opinion, even though to her it is only an opinion.

[carpedm9587]

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.

Yes, I do - because it IS my moral code. As I have noted before, because a thing is not "necessary" does not make it "accidental" or "random." It may in your binary worldview, but it is not in mine. From "random" to "necessary" is a continuum with those two positions at polar extremes. Between them lies a continuum. It is only black/white thinking that causes someone to see anything that is less than "necessary" on that continuum is "random" or "accidental." Where I am now is a result of a complex set of circumstances. You are correct, however, that 100 years ago I likely would not have taken this position.

But, again, your argument essentially boils down to "your morality has no validity because it is not grounded in a 'universal' or 'absolute.' " Behind that is the subtext that your morality IS valid because it IS rooted in (what you perceive to be) a "universal" or "absolute" basis. We keep coming back to this assertion, but it is never supported.

Unless you want to claim it is true a priori?

You do tend to ramble... ; )

[seer]

Of course you do understand that the above doesn't make sense. One can have a correct opinion, even though to her it is only an opinion.

Of course it makes sense, from the Christian perspective we are not living as we were created or designed to live. Hence all the troubles we see. But if were not designed for a purpose then the way we act is just the way we act - good, bad or indifferent - just animals doing what animals do. Every man does what is right in his own eyes, moral chaos...

[seer]

Yes, I do - because it IS my moral code. As I have noted before, because a thing is not "necessary" does not make it "accidental" or "random." It may in your binary worldview, but it is not in mine. From "random" to "necessary" is a continuum with those two positions at polar extremes. Between them lies a continuum. It is only black/white thinking that causes someone to see anything that is less than "necessary" on that continuum is "random" or "accidental." Where I am now is a result of a complex set of circumstances. You are correct, however, that 100 years ago I likely would not have taken this position.

Right, you had no choice in the timing and place of your birth, so your moral sense is merely the result of conditions beyond your control. Nothing more...

[carpedm9587]

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?

The individual does. "Might" merely defines which social norms or moral codes will be enforced as a commonly held moral norm by the group in question. We see this all the time. The moral norm supported by most citizens in the U.S. is that a woman has a right to sovereignty over her own body, even in the case of pregnancy. So abortion is legally permitted. The "might" of the majority, reflected by law, is the law of the land. I very much doubt that this "might" has altered your moral perception that what has been encoded in law is "immoral." It has not altered MY perception that what has been encoded in law is immoral.

Let's imagine the scenario where the laws go further, and we return to a place (which was once the law of the land) were it is considered "legal and obligatory" to sterilize people who are considered "cognitively challenged," to protect the species. As Justive Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote in the majority opinion affirming this, "three generations of imbeciles are enough." I sincerely doubt you (or I) would permit our child to be sterilized, despite this being the law of the land. We would resist such an immoral law, because our individual moral code says so. We might lose that fight, and we might see our child sterilized because of that might - but we cannot be forced to see it as "right."

Might enforces a particular moral code - it cannot force an individual to abandon their's, unless we talk about some form of mental coercion. But then I am no longer an independent moral agent.

[carpedm9587]

Right, you had no choice in the timing and place of your birth, so your moral sense is merely the result of conditions beyond your control. Nothing more...

That I was not able to choose my time/place of birth does not make it accidental. That my moral code is strongly influenced by culture, upbringing, and experience does not make me "controlled." I am a free moral agent, who has been strongly influenced. Would I have thought homosexuality immoral 100 years ago? The probability is high. But there WERE people in that age who saw it as moral, and I may well have been one of them - or not. I find speculation about what "might" have been to be largely usless.

And if the communal moral code changed over the next few years to again evaluate homosexuality as "immoral," would I revert? Again - speculation. I can only evaluate it from my current code, which causes me to recoil and say, "no way." I do not know that to be true.

[seer]

The individual does. "Might" merely defines which social norms or moral codes will be enforced as a commonly held moral norm by the group in question. We see this all the time. The moral norm supported by most citizens in the U.S. is that a woman has a right to sovereignty over her own body, even in the case of pregnancy. So abortion is legally permitted. The "might" of the majority, reflected by law, is the law of the land. I very much doubt that this "might" has altered your moral perception that what has been encoded in law is "immoral." It has not altered MY perception that what has been encoded in law is immoral.

Let's imagine the scenario where the laws go further, and we return to a place (which was once the law of the land) were it is considered "legal and obligatory" to sterilize people who are considered "cognitively challenged," to protect the species. As Justive Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote in the majority opinion affirming this, "three generations of imbeciles are enough." I sincerely doubt you (or I) would permit our child to be sterilized, despite this being the law of the land. We would resist such an immoral law, because our individual moral code says so. We might lose that fight, and we might see our child sterilized because of that might - but we cannot be forced to see it as "right."

Might enforces a particular moral code - it cannot force an individual to abandon their's, unless we talk about some form of mental coercion. But then I am no longer an independent moral agent.

Again, if the majority does not define right then what does? The individual? But why should that be so? And why did you even bring up the majority with the Jewish children thing as if that pointed of the wrongness of the act? If you are correct - that has nothing to do with whether gassing children is moral or not.

[carpedm9587]

Of course it makes sense, from the Christian perspective we are not living as we were created or designed to live. Hence all the troubles we see. But if were not designed for a purpose then the way we act is just the way we act - good, bad or indifferent - just animals doing what animals do. Every man does what is right in his own eyes, moral chaos...

Wow - you really ARE a binary thinker. That there is some degree of disorder in the moral world is not the equivalent of chaos. Again - "chaos" on one end of the spectrum, and "completely ordered" on the other. Between, a wide array of semi-ordered systems. The subjective moral framework describes how this works, and how order arises from the individual moral codes because we share a common universe, a common humanity, and a common reasoning capability. The high degree of correlation in moral codes serves as a unifier, and our tendency to gather in groups that share common moral frameworks magnifies this effect.

So the result is not "perfectly" ordered - but it has order to it. And the order cannot really be claimeed to be more or less ordered than what is found in your moral framework, as people try to take the concepts conveyed in the "divinely inspired" moral code and interpret it. There are churchs/people advocating for gay rights, and churches/people opposing it. There are churches/people advocating for birth control, and churches/people opposing it. There are churches/people advocating for capital punishment, and churches/people opposing it. As far as I can tell, there is as much "moral chaos" in the "universal moral code" world as there is in the "subjective moral code" world.

And my moral framework predicts this - we see exactly the same dynamic amongst those who claim a universal/absolute basis as we see among those who do not. Why? Well, from my worldview, the reason is that there actually IS no universal/absolute framework. Unless I miss my bet, from the position of your worldview, it is due to the "sinful nature" of humanity that cannot completely grasp the absolute/universal framework.

That is a debate that has no resolution - because our worldviews are so widely separated (with respect to the existence of a god).

[carpedm9587]

Again, if the majority does not define right then what does? The individual? But why should that be so? And why did you even bring up the majority with the Jewish children thing as if that pointed of the wrongness of the act? If you are correct - that has nothing to do with whether gassing children is moral or not.

Yes - the individual (as I said). Because morality is a function of "mind" and the individual has the "mind."

The Jewish question came up as I explained how "communal moral codes" are defined. The most commonly held moral code of the community is expressed as the moral code of that community, which will act to exclude or isolate a member that does not align. That does not mean the community can change the moral code of the individual; it explains how commonly held moral codes become enforced. It's a social dynamic.

And you are correct about gassing children. Each individual makes that moral decision for themselves. Most of us make the decision, "it is immoral," so that is what is expressed in the communal code. For the individual who sees it as "right" to do such things, the fact that the community rejects that moral position will not cause their moral code to change. What it will do is limit their ability to act on their moral code without facing punishment or expulsion.

[seer]

That I was not able to choose my time/place of birth does not make it accidental. That my moral code is strongly influenced by culture, upbringing, and experience does not make me "controlled." I am a free moral agent, who has been strongly influenced. Would I have thought homosexuality immoral 100 years ago? The probability is high. But there WERE people in that age who saw it as moral, and I may well have been one of them - or not. I find speculation about what "might" have been to be largely usless.

No, you wouldn't have been one of them Carpedm, you probably would have not known such people who were on the fringe of society. The fact is you would have been a free moral agent in that time as well and would have come to a completely different conclusion on this issue. No, timing and place of birth is what formed your moral sense - and those you had no control over. As far as your own volition it was accidental.

And if the communal moral code changed over the next few years to again evaluate homosexuality as "immoral," would I revert? Again - speculation. I can only evaluate it from my current code, which causes me to recoil and say, "no way." I do not know that to be true.

I suspect that you would follow the PC crowd - where ever it leads...

[seer]

And you are correct about gassing children. Each individual makes that moral decision for themselves. Most of us make the decision, "it is immoral," so that is what is expressed in the communal code. For the individual who sees it as "right" to do such things, the fact that the community rejects that moral position will not cause their moral code to change. What it will do is limit their ability to act on their moral code without facing punishment or expulsion.

OK, so believing that gassing children is a wrong or a right is a matter of individual preference in the end.

[carpedm9587]

No, you wouldn't have been one of them Carpedm, you probably would have not known such people who were on the fringe of society. The fact is you would have been a free moral agent in that time as well and would have come to a completely different conclusion on this issue. No, timing and place of birth is what formed your moral sense - and those you had no control over. As far as your own volition it was accidental.

As I have noted multiple times, "what might be" or "what might have been" arguments are largely pointless - they are pure speculation and not worth the time. It is a fact that I would have been a free-but-influenced moral agent at that time, or any other time. Timing and place of birth influenced my moral sense, Seer, it didn't dictate it (unless you want to try to make the case that my moral sense is "necessary" due to my time and place of birth? )

I suspect that you would follow the PC crowd - where ever it leads...

Your suspicions is noted - but given that my beliefs span the political spectrum, you're going to have a hard time defending that claim...

But we have no devolved into somewhat pointless speculations, so I'm not sure there is a reason to continue here, unless you'd like to return the focus to the argument/discussion at hand?

[carpedm9587]

OK, so believing that gassing children is a wrong or a right is a matter of individual preference in the end.

Again, I have conceded this multiple times, although I have also noted that the word "preference" here is not equivalent to "preference for pizza," which is a somewhat involuntary response. It is rooted in the "preference" we tend to show as humans for moral codes that promote existence and promote happiness, which is based in reason. But yes - morality is a function of the individual human mind, and it IS possible for someone to see "gassing Jewish children" as a moral good. They can get there the same way most people who hold such views about one population or another get there - by simply denying the basic humanity of Jewish children, thereby excluding them from their moral framework. That is how slavery was justified. It is how genocide is commonly justified. It is why so many of us grow concerned when we begin to see a group of people defined as "other" or "them."