Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Euthyprho's Dilemma Deflated
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 46 of 55 (401360)
05-19-2007 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by JustinC
05-19-2007 11:41 AM


Re: false dichotomy
But if one then wants to justify the framework itself, they have to appeal to another meta-framework. This is no less of a problem for secularist morality than it is for a theistic framework.
This only counts if you assert some absolute source. If you don't assert some absolute source but a relative source then the framework comes from the individual(s) with each one forming a sort of circle of moral structures that overlap those of other individuals to create a social consensus for moral behavior that is dependent on the individuals in the society.
Is it the belief that absolute morality doesn't make sense outside of the cultural framework one finds themselves in at a certain place and time?
Absolutely ... . What is moral behavior for an individual alone in the woods (whether the tree falls or not)? If it is a man, is he still wrong?
Morality is about the interaction of people, not about some absolute behavior: any specific behavior you name can be moral in one situation and immoral in another, thus it is context not behavior, and context is society.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by JustinC, posted 05-19-2007 11:41 AM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by JustinC, posted 05-19-2007 12:04 PM RAZD has replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 47 of 55 (401362)
05-19-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
05-19-2007 11:53 AM


Re: false dichotomy
quote:
This only counts if you assert some absolute source. If you don't assert some absolute source but a relative source then the framework comes from the individual(s) with each one forming a sort of circle of moral structures that overlap those of other individuals to create a social consensus for moral behavior that is dependent on the individuals in the society.
By what standards to you appeal to when trying to come up with a consensus? For instance, how could you possible arbitrate the mandatory wearing of burkhas(sp?) in some Muslim sects, as well as the general lack of civil rights afforded to them?
This is one of my problems with relativism: how do we justify imposing our relative values on other societies, i.e., saying "our frameworks right, yours is wrong."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 05-19-2007 11:53 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 05-22-2007 11:37 AM JustinC has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 55 (401379)
05-19-2007 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by JustinC
05-17-2007 4:41 PM


Sorry for the delay in response, Justin. I didn't see this post until you mentioned it in a later post -- I think that it got lost among all the spam generated by a now-banned member.
-
How does one justify the moral system itself?
That's a good question. That question has bothered people since time immemorial. The main obstacles, in my opinion, in answering this question is that people try to answer it as if there were some standards of morality that exist external to the human psyche. I think once people understand what morality really is, then the question becomes more amenable to answer.
In particular, "right" and "wrong" are simply what people feel. If you feel that something is wrong, even outraged by an action, then that action is "immoral". If you feel that something is right, even to the point of voluntary self-sacrifice, then that action is "moral".
I mean, what else is morality? No one has as yet explained what morality is independent of the feelings and preferences of people.
How does one justify one's moral system? One really doesn't. One acknowledges one's internal feelings of morality and repeats Martin Luther's statement, "Here I stand, I can do no other."
-
Also, can you justify the want to spread your values to other cultures, or is this not a concern for you as long as their ideals don't significantly interfere with your way of life?
I dunno. How do you justify admonishing your best friend when she does something you feel is wrong?
How does any moral argument work? You try to find some sort of common ground, some common understanding of desirable outcomes, and try to reason how your opinions will better achieve those desirable outcomes than the other person's. Why would it be any different between your best friend and someone from a different culture? How else does someone try to convince someone else that their moral viewpoint is superior?
Edited by Chiroptera, : Awkward sentence.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by JustinC, posted 05-17-2007 4:41 PM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by JustinC, posted 05-20-2007 11:39 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 49 of 55 (401501)
05-20-2007 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Chiroptera
05-19-2007 2:56 PM


quote:
I dunno. How do you justify admonishing your best friend when she does something you feel is wrong?
How does any moral argument work? You try to find some sort of common ground, some common understanding of desirable outcomes, and try to reason how your opinions will better achieve those desirable outcomes than the other person's. Why would it be any different between your best friend and someone from a different culture? How else does someone try to convince someone else that their moral viewpoint is superior?
So basically your opinion boils down to:
1.) There is no point in trying to justify a moral system itself since you are going to have to justify the meta-framework, and so on ad infinitum.
2.) So as a set of First Principles for a moral framework one should stop at the level of their feelings with regard to "right" and "wrong" behaviors. These may change with time but its more of a passive change than an active change (as in, I don't think one can actively change their feelings wrt to a behavior or value).
3.) Other cultures have different feelings wrt right and wrong that are just as legitimate as yours (in terms of theirjustification, i.e, they are not being illogical) and they should act according to these feelings.
In that same sentiment, though, you have feelings of right and wrong and you can't be expected to act in a way that opposes them. One of these feelings can be the want to spread your values to other cultures. Eventually values which are most conducive to peaceful coexistance will win out over other values through a natural selection of ideas (or so we'd hope).
So basically you believe everyone should live by the axiom of not necessarily "live and let live" but "live according to your ideas of right and wrong."
I understand I'm putting a lot of words in your mouth. I'm not trying to build a strawman or anything, i'm just trying to cash out the position a bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Chiroptera, posted 05-19-2007 2:56 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Chiroptera, posted 05-20-2007 12:49 PM JustinC has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 55 (401509)
05-20-2007 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by JustinC
05-20-2007 11:39 AM


I understand I'm putting a lot of words in your mouth. I'm not trying to build a strawman or anything, i'm just trying to cash out the position a bit.
Not at all, Justin. I understand what you are saying. I appreciate that someone is actually trying to have an intelligent discussion of this topic, as opposed to the usual nonsense that gets posted on this.
-
I was a bit vague in my previous posts, deliberately so. I realized that these questions would come up, but I wanted to keep the initial posts simple, to give the "zeroth order approximation", the foundation as it were, so that the more detailed explanations would make sense.
Of course, justifications are important. There are a couple of reasons for this. The first is that any individual is going to be confronted with moral dilemmas, that is, situations where any action taken by that person seems to result in consequences she is going to find disturbing. So what action is she going to take? Most people are going to try to analyze the basis for their moral beliefs (if they haven't already done so) to try to figure out why they believe the way that they do, to find what they consider the most basic principles of their beliefs, the raison d'être of their moral framework. Once they understand their framework, or after they've constructed one, then they can use what they believe to be the basic principles of their moral beliefs to decide on a course of action that will lead to the best, or maybe the least bad, outcome possible in their situation.
The other reason for justifications is that people have to live together. I believe that humans have an innate tendency toward "moral behavior" (even if the particular moral code is arbitrary) since they evolved from social species. Now, I'm not saying this is why a person should live morally -- remember, my position is that I admit there is no reason why we should live morally; rather, people just do live morally (even if some people's morality may be incomprehensible to you or I).
However, I am trying to make the point that we do need to live together, and we tend to want to live together peaceably. So we have to come up with some sort of common groundrules which will help us decide how we are going to organize our society. So we come up with "justifications" in order to discuss what we feel should be the basic principles of our societies, to come to a common understanding as to how we are going run our societies, and, insofar as morality really is subjective and emotional in nature, to get our emotional responses "in synch".
-
In that same sentiment, though, you have feelings of right and wrong and you can't be expected to act in a way that opposes them. One of these feelings can be the want to spread your values to other cultures.
Pretty much right, at least the way that I see it. One is quite concerned about one's own safety and freedom, and one certainly has the right to act in a way to protect their own safety and freedom. If an individual poses an immediate and direct threat against you, you certainly have the right to take action against them, in some situations even the use of deadly force, to protect yourself. In the same way, if some culture has values that pose a threat to your safety, then one is justified in influencing the social values of the other society (like the de-Nazification of Germany after WWII).
In the same way, most of us will feel the need to intervene if we see someone kicking the hell out of a kid on the street, that other person's moral justification for his actions notwithstanding. In the same vein, another society may be harming or endangering other people, and it offends our moral sensibilities to see this, and so an attempt to intervene is entirely justified, South African apartheid being an example of this.
In fact, as I've said, this is the whole reason we have these moral feelings. To come to some agreement as to how we will live together, which means that we will have some agreement about what "justice" means, and these feelings exist to motivate us to act when we see others treated in an "unjust" way.
-
Eventually values which are most conducive to peaceful coexistance will win out over other values through a natural selection of ideas (or so we'd hope).
One would hope. And, to repeat what I've said, this is exactly why we come up with justifications for our morality, as arbitrary as they may be. So that we can discuss these issues and resolve them in a way that, I hope, is peaceful, and in a way that preserves the dignity and wellbeing of everyone.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Just learned how to do circumflex accent in HTML. Whee!

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by JustinC, posted 05-20-2007 11:39 AM JustinC has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 51 of 55 (401810)
05-22-2007 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by JustinC
05-18-2007 6:49 PM


Re: Repetition is no argument, even when off topic ...
JustinC writes:
Must you drag all my threads into the gutter with poorly reasoned arguments?
Sorry, more my fault, really. I opened the door for him to continue. Let's see if I can actually add something constructive, though:
This is one of my problems with relativism: how do we justify imposing our relative values on other societies, i.e., saying "our framework's right, yours is wrong."
I agree completely with Chiroptera:
Chiroptera writes:
You try to find some sort of common ground, some common understanding of desirable outcomes, and try to reason how your opinions will better achieve those desirable outcomes than the other person's.
But, it seems like you would appreciate some specifics. Yet, since I also think it's relative, I can't give you the specifics, but only my specifics which could be different from someone elses.
Like the frameworks always leading back to something larger, my moral feelings stem from a few basic principles. Such as:
People are equal. They deserve equal rights, equal treatment, equal protection, equal respect...
Of course this leads to the question "Why should this principle be upheld over any other?" And, well, I suppose that's the unexplainable relative part of morality. However, such a statement is difficult for anyone to disagree with. As soon as there is any disagreement, the question becomes "Why should this person be treated differently, and what gives anyone the right to determine such treatment?" I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer to the question. Most just come down to a selfish or self-righteous reason. Which can be easily pointed out and further discussed to find more common ground. Of course, if the person wants to be selfish or self-righteous, I don't have any pursuasive power to tell them they're "wrong". Unless they want to live in our society where such things are frowned upon since they work against our current social order.
As a side note, I didn't begin thinking of relative morality because I didn't want to think about absolute morality. It's just, I never could understand an absolute morality. What is an absolute morality? Who came up with it? Why is it better than anything else? Then, given an "absolute morality" I've always been able to think up a certain situation which seems contrary to what should be good or right. Such questions and thinking have never brought absolute morality into any sort of understanding for me. Which is why I think morality is relative, not because I want it to be, just because I don't see how it can be anything else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by JustinC, posted 05-18-2007 6:49 PM JustinC has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 05-22-2007 11:28 AM Stile has replied
 Message 55 by Chiroptera, posted 05-22-2007 1:47 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 52 of 55 (401830)
05-22-2007 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Stile
05-22-2007 9:17 AM


Equal respect????
People are equal. They deserve equal rights, equal treatment, equal protection, equal respect...
I can see equal rights, equal treatment, equal protection.
But equal respect?
Does respect stem from simply existing and being human, or is respect something that should be earned?
Should someone who does not treat others equally, provide equal protection to others, allow others equal rights be respected?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Stile, posted 05-22-2007 9:17 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Stile, posted 05-22-2007 11:40 AM jar has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 53 of 55 (401831)
05-22-2007 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by JustinC
05-19-2007 12:04 PM


absolutist change = force, relativist change = education
By what standards to you appeal to when trying to come up with a consensus?
What standard is necessary?
con·sen·sus -noun 1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
The majority opinion changes as the population changes. So does general agreement. This is how democratic anarchy works.
This is one of my problems with relativism: how do we justify imposing our relative values on other societies, i.e., saying "our frameworks right, yours is wrong."
You don't. Only absolutists "justify" imposing their beliefs on others. They do this by appealing to an artificial source or to the apparent majority (ie the fallacy of the "moral majority" being what someone claims - by absolute values - rather than being an oxymoron).
You can no more force someone to accept another "moral code" than you can force people to become democratic by force. This is part of why the Botch Administration approach to the middle east is doomed to failure (another is that they refuse to discuss things with the "opposition" preferring to demonize them instead so they will never understand what the problem is).
When it comes to cultural values there are two basic options: (1) accept traditional values for the culture you are raised in without question or (2) question all values and judge their relevance to you and society. This later approach is enhanced by education and knowledge, while the former is enhanced by force and ignorance.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by JustinC, posted 05-19-2007 12:04 PM JustinC has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 54 of 55 (401832)
05-22-2007 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by jar
05-22-2007 11:28 AM


Re: Equal respect????
jar writes:
Does respect stem from simply existing and being human, or is respect something that should be earned?
Should someone who does not treat others equally, provide equal protection to others, allow others equal rights be respected?
No, sorry for the confusion.
I was just trying to get the general gist across. By "equal respect" I mean along the lines of non-discrimination. As in, whatever original respect one gives to a stranger they should give equal respect to a black stranger, a white stranger, an asian stranger, a red-haired stranger...
Once things are known about said stranger... perhaps that this stranger enjoys spray painting puppies... then one is certainly within thier senses to change their respect position for this stranger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 05-22-2007 11:28 AM jar has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 55 (401850)
05-22-2007 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Stile
05-22-2007 9:17 AM


Good response, even if I do say so myself.
Hi, Stile.
Pretty much what I have been trying to say. Including this:
It's just, I never could understand an absolute morality. What is an absolute morality? Who came up with it? Why is it better than anything else?

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Stile, posted 05-22-2007 9:17 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024