[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Feb 11 2009, 06:16 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 10 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

But I gather that what you are saying is that morality is objective when moral questions are evaluated according to an internally consistent worldview, but subjective otherwise.

Am I understanding you correctly?

no you aren't... i don't hold to objective morality because of my worldview, but i can account for it from within my worldview... start with your view of morality... do you believe it is objective or subjective? whatever your answer, it is a part of your view...

If you reread my statement, you'll note that I did not ask why you hold that morality is objective, not subjective.

Instead, I'm trying to figure out just what you mean by an objective morality. Once I understand that, it might be clear to me why you take that position. So I'll take another crack at it.

On my part, I'd say that I evaluate moral questions subjectively, but that I could establish a system to do so objectively if I considered it worth the effort.

My supposition is that an objective morality would be an external mechanism that answers moral questions consistently and predictably. Anyone using the mechanism would get the same objective answer to any moral question. That way the answer would not depend upon one's specific bias or mood.

From your other posts, it seemed likely to me that such a mechanism was embedded in your worldview, enabling you to give objective answers to moral questions. But here you say that your worldview simply accounts for such a mechanism.

Do I understand correctly what you mean by an objective morality? Would it be accurate to say that such a mechanism is referenced by, rather than embedded within, your worldview?

[Winstonm]

It appears to me that the worldview of an objective morality neutralizes any reason to hone and use human judgement. There can surely be mitgating circumstances as well as motives that alter the perceptions of how horrible was the act: a developmentally challenged youth with an extremely low IQ kills a younger child in a playground conflict versus an organized crime member torturing and killing someone for either vengenace or profit.

The objective moral view says both acts are the same. The objective view would say there can be no moral justification for capital punishment, war, or self-defense. It is the act, not the actor or reason that is immoral.

But it would seem by these same measures it would have been immoral for Christ to sacrifice his own life when as God he had the power to prevent it from being taken - suicide would be a taking of self's life and thus immoral - regardless of the reason. How could the son of God commit an immoral act?

[hrothgar]

Interesting analysis from Gallup

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114211/Alabamia...ans-Common.aspx

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Feb 11 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

It appears to me that the worldview of an objective morality neutralizes any reason to hone and use human judgement.  There can surely be mitgating circumstances as well as motives that alter the perceptions of how horrible was the act:  a developmentally challenged youth with an extremely low IQ kills a younger child in a playground conflict versus an organized crime member torturing and killing someone for either vengenace or profit.

The objective moral view says both acts are the same.  The objective view would say there can be no moral justification for capital punishment, war, or self-defense.  It is the act, not the actor or reason that is immoral. 

But it would seem by these same measures it would have been immoral for Christ to sacrifice his own life when as God he had the power to prevent it from being taken - suicide would be a taking of self's life and thus immoral - regardless of the reason.  How could the son of God commit an immoral act?

I disagree with this characterization of "objective morality." I don't see objective morality as dictating that your two examples are equivalent. It doesn't mean that all particular generalized action (e.g. "killing") are morally equal; rather, it means that for a particular action, if two people disagree about the morality involved (in a mutually exclusive way), then at least one of them is wrong.

I'm not sure if that definition changes your view of the relationship between objective morality and human judgment; in my view, if anything, it's an incentive to hone and use human judgment. When one accepts that there is "a" right and "a" wrong answer to each of the various moral dilemmas he's confronted with, then one tends to use his abilities to discern what the moral truth of a given situation is. Moral relativity as a worldview suggests the opposite to me. When any moral decision can be shrugged off with "your way is true for you; my way is true for me," then why bother?


Edit/Addendum re: part one. What I mean to say (more succinctly) is that your suggestion seems to be that objective morality would dictate something like "All killing is wrong," whereas I believe that instead it would dictate something like "This particular killing is either wrong or 'not wrong'," but the wrongness of it is not variable, subject to different people's perceptions.

[mikeh]

Lobowolf, on Feb 11 2009, 05:57 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 11 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

It appears to me that the worldview of an objective morality neutralizes any reason to hone and use human judgement.  There can surely be mitgating circumstances as well as motives that alter the perceptions of how horrible was the act:  a developmentally challenged youth with an extremely low IQ kills a younger child in a playground conflict versus an organized crime member torturing and killing someone for either vengenace or profit.

The objective moral view says both acts are the same.  The objective view would say there can be no moral justification for capital punishment, war, or self-defense.  It is the act, not the actor or reason that is immoral. 

But it would seem by these same measures it would have been immoral for Christ to sacrifice his own life when as God he had the power to prevent it from being taken - suicide would be a taking of self's life and thus immoral - regardless of the reason.  How could the son of God commit an immoral act?

I disagree with this characterization of "objective morality." I don't see objective morality as dictating that your two examples are equivalent. It doesn't mean that all particular generalized action (e.g. "killing") are morally equal; rather, it means that for a particular action, if two people disagree about the morality involved (in a mutually exclusive way), then at least one of them is wrong.

I'm not sure if that definition changes your view of the relationship between objective morality and human judgment; in my view, if anything, it's an incentive to hone and use human judgment. When one accepts that there is "a" right and "a" wrong answer to each of the various moral dilemmas he's confronted with, then one tends to use his abilities to discern what the moral truth of a given situation is. Moral relativity as a worldview suggests the opposite to me. When any moral decision can be shrugged off with "your way is true for you; my way is true for me," then why bother?


Edit/Addendum re: part one. What I mean to say (more succinctly) is that your suggestion seems to be that objective morality would dictate something like "All killing is wrong," whereas I believe that instead it would dictate something like "This particular killing is either wrong or 'not wrong'," but the wrongness of it is not variable, subject to different people's perceptions.

While I have foresworn posting in response to or aimed at Lukewarm (having finally realized the nature of the mind with which I had been trying to converse), that doesn't mean I won't post on this issue (please suppress groans).

I disagree with your view.

Relative morality does NOT mean, to me at least, that I can 'accept' that an act I think immoral can be viewed as moral by another and that I should accept that person's view as making it 'ok'.

I do think that most of us share some common tendencies. Certain 'attitudes' or 'preferences' are encoded in our brains. Our minds are not, imo, separate from our brains... our consciousness is expressed out of the underlying physical operation of our brain. This should be self-evident to anyone who has had to deal with individuals suffering from demonstrable physical damage to the brain. Brain damage doesn't merely make someone slower, or erode physically coded memories.. it can and often does fundamentally alter the person... the entire personality changes. Note that while I am not a doctor, I do have significant experience in both the results of and the underlying biological explanations for these statements... I conduct head injury litigation and have on my bookshelf a number of medical and neuropsychological medical (and medico-legal) texts.. which I have actually read. I have also met many brain injured people, and interviewed family and friends to learn about the pre-injury person.

So the underlying physical makeup of the brain affects how we think and feel. That underlying physicality is the product of evolution. While a disturbing number of wilfully ignorant people reject that idea, it is not rationally susceptible to doubt, based on the current state of the evidence. (Note: I am not saying that it is "TRUE", only that it should be presumed valid based on its explanatory power and experimental confirmation to date).

Since we are all broadly the same, in terms of brain structure, any inherited wiring that accords us a moral sense should, largely, operate.. manifest itself.. in the same way across the species.

But just as our inherent capacity for language doesn't mean we all speak the same tongue, nor should we expect our inherent moral sense to result in us all seeing all acts or behaviours in the same moral light.

Our individual moral values will differ according to a complex mixture. This might include the particular structure of our brain.. and it would surely include the cultural mores that we learn as we grow up... from our parents, our teachers and (research suggests) our playmates.. and these days, the media and the internet...in other words, our environment.

In this sense, there is no 'objective' morality... in the sense of some 'code' that is written into the structure of the entire universe. There is no 10 Commandments, other than as a purely human construct.. which is more currently manifest in various criminal and quasi-criminal legislation in western countries.

All morality is relative in that it is the result of individual experience acting upon hard-wired tendencies that are the result of evolution. We may not sense it that way.. I mean, who does? But the fact that we 'feel' in a certain way doesn't mean that we are perceiving some abstract, objective 'law'. That is, of course, what a number of religious writers have claimed.. the most recent manifestation of this that I have read (recent in terms of when I read it) was Mere Christianity. But the error into which Lewis fell was that he assumes that what he feels is representative of an external force, while I argue that it is representative of the internal workings of his brain.

Having said all of that: as a society we decide what is moral and what is not. But there is NO consensus in any society. We rule that most killing is illegal because, ultimately, we feel it to be immoral. Some societies have decided, based on majority opinion, that state-sanctioned killing of criminals is immoral.. others think the opposite.. that killing a mentally retarded, drug-addicted, uneducated, desperate person is morally correct if that person killed another.

But even within societies that have expressed a strong common moral viewpoint, individuals act contrary to that viewpoint all the time. I am sure that some of the offenders are conscious of acting improperly. Others will be sociopaths, effectively devoid of a moral sense (whether through genetics or environment is beyond my ken) while still others will simply see their act as moral. The mercy killing of a disabled person living in perpetual pain.... is that moral or immoral? That case happened in Canada.. the child had no ability to voice any opinion, and the evidence was that she lived in unremitting pain, had effectively zero quality of life... the father eventually killed her and went to jail.

I happen to think that he was morally justified. Others strongly disagree. I don't think I am 'right' in any absolute sense, and I utterly reject the notion that I am 'wrong' in any absolute sense. I don't think there is a magic 'right' answer to that moral issue.. and I would think very poorly of anyone who did.. while respecting all who agree that there is no 'right' but think that the act was immoral based on their values.

BTW, I see nothing inconsistent in this last paragraph in comparison with how I began this post. In the mercy killing scenario, I happen to think that the morality issue is very difficult, and I don't think ill of anyone who takes a differing view. However, if we are speaking of more horrific acts... the video-taped beheadings of hostages taken by terrorists... I can intellectually appreciate that the terrorists may feel morally justified in what I see as barbarism... but that doesn't mean that I have to shrug it off and say 'well, ok... so long as you feel it is right to do.. go ahead'! As a middle-aged pacifist, I am not about to start being Rambo, but I have no hesitation in paying taxes and voting to support a government that is opposed to those terrorists.

In other words, my moral sense, altho NOT based on some privileged ability to access the hidden moral code of GOD, is something to which I pay attention. I don't claim that my view is always 'right'.. I appreciate that others will differ.. and I will afford some leeway if the issue is close... but moral relativism is not moral abstention. Why bother? Because morality matters.... that I think it is a construct.. that I think I understand WHY I have morals.. doesn't make my moral sense less important to me than yours is to you. At most, it will make me a more tolerant person within limits... compared to the self-righteous prig who is convinced of his moral objectiveness.

[mike777]

Moral relativism can be thought of as a combination of moral non-absolutism, moral relationism and moral pluralism, all three theses can be generalized as
Moral Relativism:
1) There are no absolute moral facts which can confirm absolute moral judgements.

2) If S's moral judgement are to have any prospects of being true, we must not construe his utterances of the form

"It is wrong of P to A."

as expressing the claim

It is wrong of P to A.

but rather as expressing the claim:

According to moral framework M, that I, S accept, it is wrong of P to A.


3) There are many alternative moral frameworks, but no facts by virture of which one of them is more correct than any of the others.


Rorty's global relativism is an attempt to generalize such a relativistic conception to all domains. There are many alternative schemes for describing the world, none of which can be said to be more faithful to the way things are in and of themselves, for there is no way things are in and of themselves.


I will try to post more on this later including an argument against it.

[Lobowolf]

mikeh, on Feb 11 2009, 07:56 PM, said:

I disagree with your view.

Relative morality does NOT mean, to me at least, that I can 'accept' that an act I think immoral can be viewed as moral by another and that I should accept that person's view as making it 'ok'.

I do think that most of us share some common tendencies. Certain 'attitudes' or 'preferences' are encoded in our brains. Our minds are not, imo, separate from our brains... our consciousness is expressed out of the underlying physical operation of our brain. This should be self-evident to anyone who has had to deal with individuals suffering from demonstrable physical damage to the brain. Brain damage doesn't merely make someone slower, or erode physically coded memories.. it can and often does fundamentally alter the person... the entire personality changes. Note that while I am not a doctor, I do have significant experience in both the results of and the underlying biological explanations for these statements... I conduct head injury litigation and have on my bookshelf a number of medical and neuropsychological medical (and medico-legal) texts.. which I have actually read. I have also met many brain injured people, and interviewed family and friends to learn about the pre-injury person.

So the underlying physical makeup of the brain affects how we think and feel. That underlying physicality is the product of evolution. While a disturbing number of wilfully ignorant people reject that idea, it is not rationally susceptible to doubt, based on the current state of the evidence. (Note: I am not saying that it is "TRUE", only that it should be presumed valid based on its explanatory power and experimental confirmation to date).

Since we are all broadly the same, in terms of brain structure, any inherited wiring that accords us a moral sense should, largely, operate.. manifest itself.. in the same way across the species.

But just as our inherent capacity for language doesn't mean we all speak the same tongue, nor should we expect our inherent moral sense to result in us all seeing all acts or behaviours in the same moral light.

Our individual moral values will differ according to a complex mixture. This might include the particular structure of our brain.. and it would surely include the cultural mores that we learn as we grow up... from our parents, our teachers and (research suggests) our playmates.. and these days, the media and the internet...in other words, our environment.

In this sense, there is no 'objective' morality... in the sense of some 'code' that is written into the structure of the entire universe. There is no 10 Commandments, other than as a purely human construct.. which is more currently manifest in various criminal and quasi-criminal legislation in western countries.

All morality is relative in that it is the result of individual experience acting upon hard-wired tendencies that are the result of evolution. We may not sense it that way.. I mean, who does? But the fact that we 'feel' in a certain way doesn't mean that we are perceiving some abstract, objective 'law'. That is, of course, what a number of religious writers have claimed.. the most recent manifestation of this that I have read (recent in terms of when I read it) was Mere Christianity. But the error into which Lewis fell was that he assumes that what he feels is representative of an external force, while I argue that it is representative of the internal workings of his brain.

Having said all of that: as a society we decide what is moral and what is not. But there is NO consensus in any society. We rule that most killing is illegal because, ultimately, we feel it to be immoral. Some societies have decided, based on majority opinion, that state-sanctioned killing of criminals is immoral.. others think the opposite.. that killing a mentally retarded, drug-addicted, uneducated, desperate person is morally correct if that person killed another.

But even within societies that have expressed a strong common moral viewpoint, individuals act contrary to that viewpoint all the time. I am sure that some of the offenders are conscious of acting improperly. Others will be sociopaths, effectively devoid of a moral sense (whether through genetics or environment is beyond my ken) while still others will simply see their act as moral. The mercy killing of a disabled person living in perpetual pain.... is that moral or immoral? That case happened in Canada.. the child had no ability to voice any opinion, and the evidence was that she lived in unremitting pain, had effectively zero quality of life... the father eventually killed her and went to jail.

I happen to think that he was morally justified. Others strongly disagree. I don't think I am 'right' in any absolute sense, and I utterly reject the notion that I am 'wrong' in any absolute sense. I don't think there is a magic 'right' answer to that moral issue.. and I would think very poorly of anyone who did.. while respecting all who agree that there is no 'right' but think that the act was immoral based on their values.

BTW, I see nothing inconsistent in this last paragraph in comparison with how I began this post. In the mercy killing scenario, I happen to think that the morality issue is very difficult, and I don't think ill of anyone who takes a differing view. However, if we are speaking of more horrific acts... the video-taped beheadings of hostages taken by terrorists... I can intellectually appreciate that the terrorists may feel morally justified in what I see as barbarism... but that doesn't mean that I have to shrug it off and say 'well, ok... so long as you feel it is right to do.. go ahead'! As a middle-aged pacifist, I am not about to start being Rambo, but I have no hesitation in paying taxes and voting to support a government that is opposed to those terrorists.

In other words, my moral sense, altho NOT based on some privileged ability to access the hidden moral code of GOD, is something to which I pay attention. I don't claim that my view is always 'right'.. I appreciate that others will differ.. and I will afford some leeway if the issue is close... but moral relativism is not moral abstention. Why bother? Because morality matters.... that I think it is a construct.. that I think I understand WHY I have morals.. doesn't make my moral sense less important to me than yours is to you. At most, it will make me a more tolerant person within limits... compared to the self-righteous prig who is convinced of his moral objectiveness.

I don't believe that objective morality comes from God. If you don't think you're "Right" in an absolute sense about the beheadings, then I disagree, respectfully. You disclaimed a feeling of being right, in an absolute sense, with respect to the mercy killing, not the beheadings, but, of course, if there is no "absolute," then you can't be "Right" in an absolute sense, about any moral question.

I'm not even a theist, so to the extent that you interpreted my views on morality to be "God-based," they're not. I also don't claim that "my view is always 'right'." I claim, rather, that a "right" exists. As most people, moral absolutists and moral relativists alike, do, I attempt to discern what that right is. I'm sure I get many of the close calls wrong, and I'm sure I get the no-brainers right.

I didn't say that moral relativism was moral abstention; I tried to suggest that moral abstention seems to me more consistent with moral relativism than with moral absolutism. I still certainly think that's true. Most moral relativists don't "abstain" from moral judgment, but I'm pretty sure that most people who don't give a rat's ass about morality don't believe in transcendent moral standards exist.

I can't say you particularly strike me as any more tolerant than I am, but who knows?

[mikeh]

Lobo... I just reread the end to my last post... I assure you I was not addressing you! My use of 'you' should have been 'one'. My apologies for the way it must have read to you (and to others). I meant only to say that a person who entertains doubt that his morality is always absolutely 'right' is likely to be more tolerant than the one with absolute certainty.. and your posts make it clear that you are not the latter....

[Winstonm]

Quote

I disagree with this characterization of "objective morality."

d I understand. I was only trying to discover what Lukewarm's meaning was and assumed he meant (from many posts from many threads) that the "law" of morality in which he believes comes from a perfect god who is perfectly moral, perfectly just, etc.

Quote

I don't see objective morality as dictating that your two examples are equivalent. It doesn't mean that all particular generalized action (e.g. "killing") are morally equal; rather, it means that for a particular action, if two people disagree about the morality involved (in a mutually exclusive way), then at least one of them is wrong.

Morality - either objective or subjective is a judgement - an action is either right or wrong. An idea of an objective morality that cannot be or is not universally known makes that idea useless. If it is not known, then there is no way to know which side of the argument is right and which is wrong. The other problem with your statement is this: what if those who disagree always take the same side? Then one is always wrong and one is always right. For you statement to be correct, it seems to me the action itself must vary - sometimes right, sometimes wrong. And if that is the case, how is that really different from subjective morality other than simply claiming it is "law" versus internal feelings?

Quote

I'm not sure if that definition changes your view of the relationship between objective morality and human judgment; in my view, if anything, it's an incentive to hone and use human judgment. When one accepts that there is "a" right and "a" wrong answer to each of the various moral dilemmas he's confronted with, then one tends to use his abilities to discern what the moral truth of a given situation is. Moral relativity as a worldview suggests the opposite to me. When any moral decision can be shrugged off with "your way is true for you; my way is true for me," then why bother?

I don't believe anyone who accepts subjective morals can "shrugged off". The definition of subjective moral we have been working with is convention - and I have gone further to say mores. Neither means an individualized construct of morality.

Quote

Edit/Addendum re: part one. What I mean to say (more succinctly) is that your suggestion seems to be that objective morality would dictate something like "All killing is wrong," whereas I believe that instead it would dictate something like "This particular killing is either wrong or 'not wrong'," but the wrongness of it is not variable, subject to different people's perceptions.

You are actually closer to my view with this statement. The post you responded to was addressed to Lukewarm - and that is the reason it was presented in that fashion. It is my opinion that Jimmy holds the view that killling is always wrong because of an objective universal morality that has its basis in the Christian God figure.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Feb 11 2009, 07:55 AM, said:

You specifically asked whether anyone could provide examples where killing / raping / torturing children was condoned by the society as a whole.  I believe that the specifc quote went something like:

Quote

can you make up a realistic "human construct" in which such a thing might be considered moral? i do think there are people for whom such a thing is not immoral, but under what conditions would you imagine a society could condone such acts? after all, if the act is merely a human construct, it could just as easily be considered moral as it could be considered immoral, correct?

Its true, you never explictly stated why you wanted said example, however, the presumption was pretty clear:

Killing / Torturing / Killing children is so horrific that no society would every condone such an action...

then maybe i warranted simply the "pathetic" and not both the "pathetic" and the "absolutely pathetic"... i don't accept your examples of sparta or child labor to be the same as a society condoning what we were speaking of, the rape and torture of children

Quote

Therefore, if folks can't provide an example of said society, this is evidence in favor of objective morality...

I pointed out that there are any number of societies with no such taboos...

no you didn't... straw man

PassedOut, on Feb 11 2009, 09:47 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 11 2009, 06:16 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 10 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

But I gather that what you are saying is that morality is objective when moral questions are evaluated according to an internally consistent worldview, but subjective otherwise.

Am I understanding you correctly?

no you aren't... i don't hold to objective morality because of my worldview, but i can account for it from within my worldview... start with your view of morality... do you believe it is objective or subjective? whatever your answer, it is a part of your view...

If you reread my statement, you'll note that I did not ask why you hold that morality is objective, not subjective.

Instead, I'm trying to figure out just what you mean by an objective morality. Once I understand that, it might be clear to me why you take that position. So I'll take another crack at it.

i thought i'd said what i mean many times... i mean that for any act to which one ascribes morality, the person making the call practices subjectivity if the act itself can be both moral and immoral depending on who committed it or why it is being committed ... winston's rabbi, for example

Winstonm, on Feb 11 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

It appears to me that the worldview of an objective morality neutralizes any reason to hone and use human judgement.  There can surely be mitgating circumstances as well as motives that alter the perceptions of how horrible was the act:  a developmentally challenged youth with an extremely low IQ kills a younger child in a playground conflict versus an organized crime member torturing and killing someone for either vengenace or profit.

mitigating circumstances, while they sometimes exist enough to have judgments defrayed, say nothing about the act itself...

Quote

The objective moral view says both acts are the same.  The objective view would say there can be no moral justification for capital punishment, war, or self-defense.  It is the act, not the actor or reason that is immoral. 

But it would seem by these same measures it would have been immoral for Christ to sacrifice his own life when as God he had the power to prevent it from being taken - suicide would be a taking of self's life and thus immoral - regardless of the reason.  How could the son of God commit an immoral act?

reasonable men can disagree over whether or not a particular act is immoral... i don't consider Jesus' act to be immoral any more than i would consider the jumping on a grenade by a soldier to save his comrades to be immoral

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Feb 12 2009, 02:25 PM, said:

i don't accept your examples of sparta or child labor to be the same as a society condoning what we were speaking of, the rape and torture of children

I don't see why not...

In all seriousness, you don't really expect societies to use pejoratives like "rape" or "torture" to describe their own behaviour?

The expression "Torture" is a very loaded term. People (and societies) don't use expressions like torture to describe behaviour that they, themselves are engaged in... Instead, they substitute more convenient expressions like "Enhanced Interogation Techniques". In a similar vein, use vocabularly like "Death by Lethal Injection" rather than "We poisoned the convict".

The set of behaviours is the same. However, the way that the act is viewed is very different, as is the language used to describe action...

A couple friends of mind are historians who specialize in the Spanish Inquisition. I'm going to drop them an email and ask whether any euphemisms were commonly used... At the very least, it will be interesting to find out whether there is a Latin equivalent to "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques".

In any case, moving back to Sparta / Victorian England / whatever...

I very much believe that these societies actively engaged in raping and torturing children. Moreover, they glorified these behaviours.

It's certainly true that the decisions made by these societies were driven by ulterior motives. I don't believe that either society tortured children for the sake of torturing children... Off the top of my head, I can't think of any societies that tortured children purely for the sake of inflicting pain on children.

However, in my mind this has very little to do with morality and a whole lot to do with the fact that there ain't no appreciable benefit...

Fish that live in caves lose their eyes in a relatively short amount of times. Eyeballs are an expensive piece of real estate. There is an evolutionary disadvantage to growing useless eyeball.

In much the same manner, I can't see why a society would evovle a set of traits like randomly brickbatting kids as they walk down the street unless there was a percentage to it...

[Lobowolf]

mikeh, on Feb 12 2009, 12:59 AM, said:

Lobo... I just reread the end to my last post... I assure you I was not addressing you! My use of 'you' should have been 'one'. My apologies for the way it must have read to you (and to others). I meant only to say that a person who entertains doubt that his morality is always absolutely 'right' is likely to be more tolerant than the one with absolute certainty.. and your posts make it clear that you are not the latter....

Mike -


I probably should have interpreted that way, myself. I do appreciate the clarification.

[Winstonm]

Quote

reasonable men can disagree over whether or not a particular act is immoral... i don't consider Jesus' act to be immoral any more than i would consider the jumping on a grenade by a soldier to save his comrades to be immoral

So you are now saying that motives alter the morality of the act? Isn't that simply another way to say subjectively moral? How does that view match this quote?

Quote

i am not making a truth claim, i am simply saying that if one holds to a relativistic morality, nothing is right and nothing is wrong, inherently... it depends on consensus...

IF this is subjective morality, and you are arguing that in your worldview you can account for objective morality, then reasoning would conclude that in your view objective morality defines an act as "inherently" moral or immoral?

But if an act is iherently moral or immoral, how can outside judgement alter its morality? How can we say, it depends?

[mike777]

Much of these posts are from the writings of Richard Rorty, Thoms Kuhn, Ludwig Wittgenstein, John Searl, Paul Boghossian, Roger White, among other writers.


Rorty says that it cannot simply be true that there are chairs in this room.

Global Relativism about facts:

1) There are no absolute facts of the form, p.
2) If our factual judgments are to have any prospects of being true, we must not construe utterance of the form

p


as expressing the claim

P


but rather as expressing the claim


According to a theory, T, that we accept, p.

3) There are many alternative theories for describing the world, but no facts by virtue of which one is more faithful to the way things are in and of themselves than any of the others.


Philosophers have long suspected that a global relativism about facts is a fundamentally incoherent position. A local relativism about a specific domain, moral relativism may not be particulary plausible; but it seems coherent.


Thomas Nagel says that everything is subjective must be nonsense, for it would itself have to be either subjectve or objective.

The traditional argument against global relativist is he intends his own view to be absolutely true or he intends it to be only relatively true, true relative to some theory or other. If the former he refutes himself, for he would then have admitted at least one absolute truth. If the latter, we may just ignore him, for then it is just a report of what the relativist finds it agreeable to say.

There are further arguments and counter arguments to the above but I would rather shift the discussion to something I find more interesting which is acknowledging mind-independent facts, we also see that we have been given no reason for supporting that those facts aren't just the ones we always took them to be-facts about dinosaures, giraffes, mountains and so forth.

When I have more time I will try and post a bit more about epistemic relativism, social construction of knowledge and that we can explain belief by appeal to our epistemic reason alone.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 12 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

Quote

reasonable men can disagree over whether or not a particular act is immoral... i don't consider Jesus' act to be immoral any more than i would consider the jumping on a grenade by a soldier to save his comrades to be immoral

So you are now saying that motives alter the morality of the act? Isn't that simply another way to say subjectively moral? How does that view match this quote?

Quote

i am not making a truth claim, i am simply saying that if one holds to a relativistic morality, nothing is right and nothing is wrong, inherently... it depends on consensus...

IF this is subjective morality, and you are arguing that in your worldview you can account for objective morality, then reasoning would conclude that in your view objective morality defines an act as "inherently" moral or immoral?

But if an act is iherently moral or immoral, how can outside judgement alter its morality? How can we say, it depends?

i don't know how many ways i can state it... let's simply take your reference to Jesus... if a person believes that Jesus' act could sometimes be moral and sometimes immoral (and let's stipulate that his act was 'sacrificing himself to save others', just for the sake of argument), then the person is a moral relativist... that isn't to say he's wrong, winston, it's simply to say his belief is different from that of the person who says that the act is always immoral or always moral... and this assumes there's at least some agreement as to the moral nature of the act itself (some people might think Jesus' act, for example, had nothing to do with morality - and that's fine also)

mike777 said:

When I have more time I will try and post a bit more about epistemic relativism, social construction of knowledge and that we can explain belief by appeal to our epistemic reason alone.

thanks for these posts, i find them very interesting

[mike777]

Jimmy, one source of the appeal of social construction of knowledge or morality is clear: they are hugely empowering. If we can be said to know up front that any item of knowledge or morality only has that status because it gets a nod from our contingent social values, then any claim of knowledge or morality can be dispatched if we happen not to share the values on which it allegedly depends.

[Winstonm]

Quote

that isn't to say he's wrong, winston, it's simply to say his belief is different from that of the person who says that the act is always immoral or always moral...

By now I don't even remember what your original point was about - but it seems everyone could have saved a lot of time and trouble if you had simply made this statement up front somewhere.

So you are saying morality may not be an absolute - you believe it is but there is no way for any of us to prove our positions.

Are you claiming this unprovable belief extends to all things - that a part of all knowledge is belief and there are no material facts? I don't care one way or the other, but if that is your belief it would help me understand your worldview.

[slothy]

lol lost the thread of this thread ages ago

was gonna contribute ... but to mix my metaphors

this thirsty horse loitering around the water-hole has been flogged to death

[hrothgar]

Here's the (verbatim) reply that I received

Quote

Torture. That's what the inquisitors called it, "tormento." The Inquisition building in the basement had a "cámara de tormento." They relied on fear of torture to loosen tongues, and it was pretty successful. If, after much interrogation, sometimes over years, they concluded that (1) they were still being lied to, (2) they thought that information was still being withheld, or (3) they found inconsistencies that had not been satisfactorily resolved, they voted a session of torture. 5 folks weighed in, two of them inquisitors, the other three persons of probity, and it required a majority vote.

Physical torture was the last of many steps, the majority of them psychological. The defendent was informed of the vote and given a chance to emend his or her testimony. Several days later this step was repeated. Then he was escorted to the chamber and asked again to come clean. The two torturers were brought in, and he was asked again. He was stripped to his undies and asked again. Seated on the wrack (invariably the first device used), and asked again. Wrapped loosely with cords around his chest, arms, and legs: and asked again. The tortures gave a first turn of the screw tightening the ropes: and asked again. A second turn ... etc. In extreme cases, two other tortures were used. The garrocha: tie hands behind back, suspend the defendent from a hook from the wrists, and bounce him up and down, dislocating the shoulders. This often produced lasting afteraffects. Or waterboarding.

Available records suggest that torture was voted in some 20% of the investigations.

A doctor was always present, and often intervened to prevent serious injury.

The justification: the health of the eternal soul was infinitely more important than pain to the mortal body. Data from civil courts suggests that they used torture much more frequently, without the safeguards, and without the theological justification.

[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Feb 13 2009, 01:26 AM, said:

So you are saying morality may not be an absolute - you believe it is but there is no way for any of us to prove our positions.

Are you claiming this unprovable belief extends to all things - that a part of all knowledge is belief and there are no material facts? I don't care one way or the other, but if that is your belief it would help me understand your worldview.

I don't know if this sums up his position, but it sounds pretty close to mine.