This thread really raises an excellent problem for moral subjectivists/relativists, which I have enjoyed deliberating for deca... ahem... years lets say, since entering philosophy.
Let's repeat the opening point:
If we believe that all morality is subjective, or relative, or culture-specific, is it reasonable for us to judge other subjective, relative, or culture-specific moralities?
TOOLS OF THE TRADE:
My response was that we can, but they will generally be appeals to emotions to convince them that our own morality may be personally preferable, or critically analyzing the stated moral system of an opponent. The former is not a logical criticism, and the latter... though logical criticism... does not make one's own moral system correct. Logical criticism simply aids one in making a particular system seem less preferable, or may even expose it as less a system than an ad hoc system of justifying one's desires at any given time. Consistency, as I have argued, is a large part in exposing ad hoc natures of partcular systems.
In this way I am defending subjectivity from criticism that subjectivism collapses into, or supports, ad hoc rationale for morality, while advancing the subjective principle that no moral system can inherently be "right", or an "absolute" system.
Interestingly, and unfortunately, those arguing hardest for absolutism have been subjectivists. This admittedly disturbs me more than hearing an absolutist arguing for absolutism and draws my criticism much quicker. In this case logical criticism is applicable with full force, not necesarily against their moral system, but with regard to how they criticize another moral system.
It is important that people learn logical fallacies when arguing against moral systems, or criticizing arguments made against moral systems. Here are some very good lists and descriptions of logical fallacies:
Datanation,
Wikipedia, and
Infidels. Logical fallacies are not the end all or be all of applied logic but they can certainly point out common favorites including: ad hominem, ad hoc, begging the question, equivocation, strawman, false analogy, ad nauseum, ad consequentium, and ad baculum.
Applying logical rules from other disciplines is not appropriate and prone to error. Especially when discussing moral systems, logic as applied to arguments is the least prone to error.
APPLICATION 1:
A few subjectivists argued for the absolute superiority of a singular moral system based on its ability to distinguish between two actions using a certain criteria. The problem is that that is a logical fallacy. It is a form of begging the question. That is, it assumes that their criteria, while allowing for a moral distinction, creates a true moral distinction (for all).
That is equally usable by their opponent, who uses a different system and different criteria.
It is true that the first group can say that according to their system the second system is inaccurate, and so "wrong". But the first group leaves subjectivism to argue that means that the other system
is objectively wrong... both as a system and in its labelling. They also leave behind logic as they beg the question (circularly arguing that the rightness of their moral labels proves the rightness of their moral system).
APPLICATION 2:
For those that continue to insist that the criteria are so absolute as to make their subjective moral system practically absolute, and refuse to admit it fails logic, there is not much which can be done.
Essentially it boils down to having to poke holes directly in their claimed subjective- absolute moral system, which goes back to my above position on how a subjectivist can criticize other moral systems.
I have already given a tongue in cheek example criticism of crash's absolute criteria for moral judgement (pain and pleasure). He hasn't responded, but I hope he found it funny and not mean spirited (I meant it to be funny).
Here I will deliver another example criticism of a moral system, and again the focus will be a "subjective-absolute" moral system... or criteria for a moral system. In this case it will be directed at the argument that "consent" is an objective standard for moral assignments. Not only do I wholly reject that "consent" is an objective standard at all, I also reject that anyone actually uses it for moral assignments, beyond ad hoc reasoning.
My first criticism would be to point out that "consent" is an arbitrary socially defined term. There has never been a single definition, nor reasons given for any definition. There are many different ways to choose what constitutes consent and applied separately to many different subjects. For example consent may have separate rules for legal contracts and for sex.
Wikipedia has an excellent review of what age of consent means, and it is pretty clearly subjective social criteria and not objective standards. It can also be seen that it is primarily a legal tool and not a moral or scientific tool.
As a note, just to show that Wikipedia isn't infallible, their list of ages of consent is wrong, as well as their particular discussion of sex laws in the Netherlands. I am unsure how they got Dutch law so wrong, but one can see a more accurate list at
Avert, and with a description of exact laws (and so why Wiki is wrong on the NL) at
Age of Consent. The mistake points up how diverse the subject of consent is, as the dutch law has differences in law based not solely on age, but on use of money, position of authority, and taking of pictures.
Crash pointed out that one may even view consent from a totally different definitional position. Is it ability to say one wants to experience something, ability to accurately communicate that desire, our ability to discern that communication?
So it may accurately be said that no one knows exactly what consent means in some objective sense, or how it should objectively apply to moral labelling. Or at least no one has explained it in any clear form.
Berb used it in a moral sense by claiming that sex under a specific set of age of consent laws inherently causes harm. It is thus not lack of consent itself which is the moral rule used, but the harm which is caused that forms the rule, only it age of consent can be pointed to as an indicator. Unfortunately he never produced any evidence to back this inherent harm claim, and it is quite obvious that other societies would disagree with his assessment.
Thus we are still in a state of objective quandry with regard to consent, and how it should be applied.
Sometimes added to this term consent is "fully informed", meaning it is not just an ability to consent, but to accurately understand what any decision may mean for one's life. Again there is no evidence presented why that is an objective criteria, especially when it is tied to age rather than status of knowledge.
In any case it can be shown that such a concept as "consent" or "fully informed consent" is not actually used in society, except ad hoc with regard to specific social expectations.
Consent and especially full informed consent is not expected for many activities engaged in by children or adults with mental disabilities, including activities which could have negative physical or mental impacts. This includes sports (children even die during sports), religious education (how many people are in therapy based on scarring from religious education?), and in some cases sexual activity (many people consider "playing doctor" a natural activity beyond the scope of AOC laws).
Interestingly enough many societies (including the US) allow explicitly for adults to touch children's genitals, or vice versa, for the pleasure of the adult.
Breast feeding is not necessary, milk can be extracted and then children bottle-fed. Some mothers choose to continue breast feeding until the child no longer desires the activity which can stretch on far longer than is physically necessary, instead being a form of social bonding. Washing children involves genital manipulation but does not necessitate shared baths, yet it can happen and go on well past when children can technically wash themselves just fine.
Is there evidence that such touching is inherently harmful because the children are below AOC? What would be the physical defining line and why?
It is even allowed to harm children sexually for the desire of adults. Certainly there is no reason for circumcision and that explicitly involves the genital manipulation and mutilation of male genitals to make them "look like others" or "appease God" (who apparently likes the foreskins of young boys). This of course means, appease adults, and it can have psychological and physical repercussions.
Why then does "consent" or "fully informed consent" not apply here?
(heavy devil's advocate)
In addition, many have used consent, or fully informed consent, to argue against homosexual adoption. This would seem to hold some merit, especially if as argued by berb, we must accept social norms.
Homosexuals, whether it is fair or not, remain not just a minority but an unpopular minority. And as it stands cannot naturally have children. Even if they desire to pretend to live the otherwise stereotypical Mr & Mrs Smith homelife by raising 2.5 kids, is it fair to force children to take on the risks associated (social, I'm not talking STDs) with being gay in this culture?
Certainly the children are unable to be fully informed on these risks, and may even one day regret that they were forced into such a scarring position. It is hard enough to grow up as it is, than have to endure unpopularity due to one's parents. It can also be that they come to dislike homosexuality (perhaps they are "born again") and so feel demeaned or sullied to have been put in a position they have to treat homosexuals as parents. They may also feel let down that they were put in a position where they could not have a parent of each sex, to understand fully what it is to be a child being nurtured both by a mother and a father.
It may be argued that there are children raised in similar situations despite the parent(s) being straight. But we are talking about adoption which means society choosing to place a child in that situation, rather than a child falling into that circumstance by events within their natural parents' lives.
Is there a reason why fully informed consent should not exclude children from being adopted by gay couples?
(/heavy devil's advocate)
I am interested in seeing anyone lay out a credible and consistent moral system backed by "consent" or "fully informed consent". I only know of a legal construct which can be practically useful, but does not act a description of objective reality for scientific purposes, nor an absolute basis for moral judgement.
Maybe I am wrong? Could be. But an opponent of mine on this matter certainly has their work cut out for them. Especially if they want to stay within the bounds of logic.
Hope this works as a good example of subjective criticism.
This message has been edited by holmes, 01-19-2005 08:23 AM
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
™ Version 4.2