Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moral Absolutism v Relativism (and laws)
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 44 (362163)
11-06-2006 1:27 PM


In another thread, NJ and I were arguing about the reality of moral relativism. The thread ended with a sort of summary of issues/points left unaddressed. I'm opening this so that NJ can answer it if he wants and people interested in the debate can take part.
1) Morality v Preference...
Morality is about choice and so synonymous with relative judgements of preference. There is no question that "tree is wrong" is not equivalent. But that's not what I said. The applicable analogy would be "Liking that tree is wrong", or "liking that tree more than this other tree, or more than the gods, is wrong".
Hence if ALL relatives can only exist because of an absolute truth, then the LIKING of chocolate over another flavour must be based on some absolute.
2) Morality v Habit...
I did not say that everyone was inherently honest. What I have been arguing is that each individual has an inclination to practice honesty to a certain degree, some more than others. That is aside from any moral imperative based on an external system.
Thus it is inaccurate to claim that without a belief in an absolute moral system one is more likely to be dishonest. First they may believe in a relative (external) personal code they should follow, and those who don't have such a code will STILL have personal habit... which may be for honesty.
It is not like people are generally chaotic in behavior, they tend to act in specific ways as is their personal nature. Then external moral, social, and legal systems are used to confine behavior further to an external ideal. A person's nature may be in tune or against any one or all of those systems, and an individual may attempt to submit to (or not) any of the above.
I personally do not believe or maintain moral codes, I am open to some social pressure but do not necessarily agree or obey all such, the same goes for laws. Thus I am never immoral (as that simply does not exist for me), but at times can be asocial, as well as criminal.
In the case of Haggard he clearly adopted a moral code, social norm, as well as legal code which were opposite his own nature and could not live up to any of those expectations. By his own accepted/stated definitions he is immoral, asocial, and criminal.
3) Laws v Morality...
Laws can be made based on morality, and clearly many have been. My only argument is that they need not be, including the usual biggies such as murder, theft, rape, etc.
You may discuss influences all you wish, but social contract assumes that LAW is made by people taking rights for themselves. This certainly CAN be done without having a concept of morality. For example I know I do not like pain and I know I want to live, hence whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant, I want to put into place laws which protect me from being killed. And it is not necessary to have experienced something to imagine it happening to onesself.
The fact that killers might try to hide what they have done means absolutely NOTHING about whether they feel any moral reality. Your use of this argument would not help you in the least. At times in history Xians have taken pains to hide what they were doing and thinking, when the practice of Xianity was outlawed. According to your theory Xians must have felt some moral reality that Xianity was bad.
In another post I raised the point that there were laws in support of slavery, against rights of various minorities, and now I will add against Xianity. What moral absolute were these driven by?
Likewise there are societies that did not have concepts of murder, much less legal charges, that are comparable to what you are discussing as universally understood. The Yanomamo allowed killings between tribes and to a great extent within them. IIRC they didn't even have laws to speak about, much less charges of murder. There were senses of loyalty and some killing of some people within one's group might elicit a reaction, but that is less than wrong because of having commited murder. Violence (as a sign of bravery and loyalty and power) was acceptable, including killing.
In feudal Japan some classes could kill at will. The idea of a specific killing being wrong at all would be wholly based on the situation and whether it defied/interfered with a specific command from above. Lying was also as undefined (perhaps more so) as murder. It was practically an artform. There was more to decry in tactless honesty, than cunning deceit (which could be honored even from one's enemy if it was clever enough).
4) Violence, Murder and Mayhem...
You posited several situations in an attempt to elicit a moral charge of right or wrong from me. You seem not to believe what I am telling you. You need to lift your moral goggles and try to understand what I am saying. Let us use the situation you encountered with the guy being shot then robbed.
According to my system of beliefs nothing within that was morally wrong. Such labels would be meaningless, beyond telling me what you personally like or dislike. Would I be viscerally shocked by a person being shot? Yes. Would I be repulsed by the choice of the shooters to gun him down and so want to defend him? It would depend on the situation. From what you described the answer would be yes. Would I be upset with someone taking money from him? Again it would depend on the situation, but from what you described yes I would.
In all cases I would find the actions criminal and generally act on them (or at least hope I would) based on their being criminal and the fact that I am part of that legal system which I want upheld so it would (I would hope) protect me when I am in that situation.
Visceral shock/disgust at the result of violence, personal distate with the choices others make, and engaging in the reciprocal/communal act of legal enforcment have NO inherent connection to any moral codes of right or wrong.
One can approach this situation from a different angle to watch morals fall away. Why was the man shot, and why was he robbed by those bystanders who would normally be expected to help?
In the case of the drive by, he was collateral damage for someone intending to do something beyond just pull a trigger... even if it was simply to engage in a show of bravery. Bush justified the deaths of how many wholly innocent Iraqis, as collateral damage just to make sure that people understood the US's word means something? That we would stand up against anyone who might possibly threaten us... even if they didn't actually do so. Scale is irrelevant, collateral damage is always the same. Are these wrong? Could you not find yourself in a situation where you might have to shoot someone and end up accidentally killing someone and consider it an acceptable loss? Morally okay, even if graphically repulsive, and not something you'd prefer to do bu habit, and understandably criminal according to some group?
How about the people that robbed the guy as he died? Perhaps they really needed money badly and in desperation they took the money (and what all) from a dying man. I am quite thankful that I have never known such desperation for money, but its quite possible that such a situation could arise. Couldn't it for you? Suppose they could help more with what they got than this person or anyone else, and so felt justified. Would it then be morally justified?
With all of these caveats the same actions would flit from moral to immoral. How can one judge what they are truly, outside of their surficial aspects... and even when revealed some would still find certain things moral and others not.
You might argue that my "personal distaste" is a sense of morality but that would not be accurate. That sense would remain regardless of the situational criteria that might effect morality, and indeed feeling I had to do something.
We can also change the example to the people shooting him in a blatantly unjust random killing, and the thieves stealing for pure greed with no "justification" of need. That would not change the moral landscape to "wrong" for me, and in either case (justified or no) my distaste for all actions would remain the same.
In fact the descriptions of why they did it... "unjust" and "greedy"... would be the proper labels. In both cases more unjust and greedy than is in my nature, and to a degree that I find distasteful. Not wrong because they are unjust or greedy, just different than my nature in degree.
Even in a "justified" setting, where some would claim it morally right, I would still find such things more unjust and greedy than is my nature. If forced to do such things by events beyond my control, it would be very hard for me. I would not feel wrong, just not myself.
Given a different life than the one I have come to lead my tastes might be very different. I might find such drivebys (or Bush's actions) palatable, or feel a bit jealous that I've never found someone so helpless such that I could get money as easily as them.
Their actions define their natures compared to mine, and mine to theirs. There are no absolutes here, and no sense of just plain right or wrong.
5) Bible and morality...
It seems to me that the Bible is rather relativist, or perhaps nonabsolutist in nature in many places. At the very least it argues for people not holding knowledge or claims of absolute morality.
It is quite clear in Genesis that Adam and Eve had no moral understanding. The tree of knowledge was moral knowledge. Once eaten from the first thing that they did was judge God's Eden as wrong. Remember, they judged themselves to be naked and so in need of clothes, which is NOT as God had made them. Since they did judge this are you claiming they did recognize some universal morality?
Interesting to note is that God's response was not to say that they now knew of good and evil as He did, they did not become like Him. What he said is that they became LIKE gods, and so judge good and evil. It was judgement, particularly of assuming absolute moral codes, which is where they went wrong.
Ecclesiastes (in the OT) and Jesus (in the NT) repeat these same sentiments. Both claim that God and absolute truth, including moral position, is not accessible to man and so should not be dabbled in. Both argue to remain simple and nonjudgemental on such topics. Whatever there might be is for god to sort out... not humans.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by berberry, posted 11-06-2006 10:57 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 3 by nwr, posted 11-06-2006 11:08 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 11-07-2006 12:41 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 7 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-07-2006 12:34 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2006 9:26 PM Silent H has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 44 (362295)
11-06-2006 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
11-06-2006 1:27 PM


Consent
In reviewing my recent discussion with you I see there's one point I meant to make but somehow neglected to, and it's at least tangentially (or in this case perhaps parenthetically) connected to the relativism you're talking about here. I'm talking about the concept of consent.
We require consent from one or more parties for virtually everything we do in our public and/or legal lives. No contract can ever be enforced except that it can be shown that certain parties consented to its provisions. And like any other form of contract, a marital contract requires the consent of those to be married.
Whether or not a child can consent and to what is a separate issue. I agree with you that our age-of-consent system is highly flawed, but I still feel that some way of determining whether or not an individual is capable of granting consent - to anything, really - must be established.
One way or another, the requirement that we consent to contracts will always be with us. Ignoring that simply to further a moral relativist argument is absurd, unless your relativism goes so far as to eschew any legal or political system at all and to submit to anarchy.

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 11-06-2006 1:27 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 11-07-2006 7:09 AM berberry has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 3 of 44 (362297)
11-06-2006 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
11-06-2006 1:27 PM


A link
I'll just include here a link to the old thread, and to a message where NJ lays down his view of moral relativism.
Message 296.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 11-06-2006 1:27 PM Silent H has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 4 of 44 (362325)
11-07-2006 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
11-06-2006 1:27 PM


diablo advocati
Laws can be made based on morality,
for point of argument, i contend that law in general must be based on morality. consideration of the other is the fundamental precept of what we tend to define as morality in modern western culture. many cultures have this so-called "golden rule:" do unto others, etc. western morality is, by definition, relative because it considers the other.
in a legal perspective, our (modern, western) laws are based on the idea that everyone has certain rights, and that our rights only extend as far as the next persons: we do not have the right to violate another's rights. this notion is fundamentally rooted in the consideration of others, and is in effect legislating consideration of others.
for instance, it is illegal to murder not because god says so, but because it deprives another person of their natural right to live. this is not the traditional "god said so" christian concept of morality, but the idea that we should not deprive people of their rights is a moral nonetheless. our laws are based on our morals.
That is aside from any moral imperative based on an external system.
morality is not an external system; it is an internal one. law is the external system. you are confusing morality with religious dogma and rules such as found in the books of exodus and leviticus. this is a common mistake, even among christians. but these books are found in a volumne called ha-torah, or "the law." this is not a coincidence.
My only argument is that they need not be, including the usual biggies such as murder, theft, rape, etc.
no, they need not be, and often aren't. for instance, bans on gay marriage are highly immoral, because they fail to consider the other, and enforce one particular view point. such a limiting of personal rights due to bias of one group is not moral.
In another post I raised the point that there were laws in support of slavery, against rights of various minorities, and now I will add against Xianity. What moral absolute were these driven by?
these are often driven by the notion that such people "do not count" rather than morality. law itself is rooted in morality, but there are often very bad laws, and immoral legislators. i believe i mentioned another example above -- just because our notion of law is neccessarily rooted in our notion of morality does not mean that every individual law must be moral.
In feudal Japan some classes could kill at will. The idea of a specific killing being wrong at all would be wholly based on the situation and whether it defied/interfered with a specific command from above.
what about other cultures, outside of our western or modern concept of morality? another culture's morality may be different, and their laws tend to be different as a result.
and, as i stated, there are always exceptions, and changes in our notions of morality specifically regarding who "counts." for instance, most people in this country are ok with the death penality (one party has abdicated their right to live by violating the rights of another), and so murders no longer "count" as people we should consider. this may indeed be immoral as well, but reasoning is still based on a moral foundation.
Let us use the situation you encountered with the guy being shot then robbed.
According to my system of beliefs nothing within that was morally wrong. Such labels would be meaningless, beyond telling me what you personally like or dislike.
should such an action (armed robbery, potentially lethal violence) be legal, or illegal? why?
In all cases I would find the actions criminal and generally act on them (or at least hope I would) based on their being criminal and the fact that I am part of that legal system which I want upheld so it would (I would hope) protect me when I am in that situation.
why is such an action criminal? assuming, using your below rationalizations, that both actions are entirely morally justified for the offenders. the shooter had a good moral reason, and the robbers had good moral reasons. why is the person behind the gun punished? however,
With all of these caveats the same actions would flit from moral to immoral.
you are attempting to justify moral relativity with moral relativity. poor form. and while these are certainly complicating factors, they do not change the fundamental immorality of the situation, nor the fundamental illegality of the situation. theft is illegal because it deprives another person of property -- that this is "wrong" is a moral notion. murder (or in this case, manslaughter?) is illegal because it deprives another person of life -- that this is "wrong" is a moral notion. they are illegal simply because of these moral notions.
In fact the descriptions of why they did it... "unjust" and "greedy"... would be the proper labels.
"unjust" is a moral notion. "greed," at the expense of another, is a moral notion. that you are calling these actions either of these two things is a demonstration of morality. without morality, neither of these two things are applicable or descernable in any manner. and we certainly would have no need for laws against them, because they would not even be recognized as unusual, or "distasteful" or "different than [our own] nature[s]" in any degree.
if our morality did not dictate that depriving others of rights, property, or life is wrong, we wouldn't even notice, object to, or legislate this sort of thing. it would just be an acceptable fact of reality that these things happen. further, such a position may eventually invent a moralistic position, as the victim/victim's family would have no recourse for damages, leading to retaliation. we would be forced to consider others on the societal level, to prevent total anarchy in retribution wars. the general "out" to this seems to be when the party at loss accepts that the loss was acceptable, or understandable. also arguably a position dependent on the culture's morals.
Even in a "justified" setting, where some would claim it morally right, I would still find such things more unjust and greedy than is my nature.
you say you would not feel "wrong" but this part of the statement is still a moral position.
It seems to me that the Bible is rather relativist, or perhaps nonabsolutist in nature in many places. At the very least it argues for people not holding knowledge or claims of absolute morality.
no, the bible claims that people do not have absolute authority becuase god has absolute authority. the torah specifically lays out several hundred laws as supposedly given straight from the mouth of god.
even still, as a human document, i think you will find that by and large these laws dictate human interaction, and how to handle disagreements and greivances. the law is the external structure, but the need to consider the other is the moral construct upon which it is based. which is why when jesus is asked to sum up the law, everything besides the first commandment falls under "love your neighbor." it is the basis of nearly every other law found in the old testament, with a few exceptions of course.
It is quite clear in Genesis that Adam and Eve had no moral understanding. The tree of knowledge was moral knowledge.
arguable.
Once eaten from the first thing that they did was judge God's Eden as wrong. Remember, they judged themselves to be naked and so in need of clothes, which is NOT as God had made them. Since they did judge this are you claiming they did recognize some universal morality?
that god would neccessarily be breaking. more likely, the tree was symbolic of self-awareness, concious thought. adam just does what god tells him, eve just does what the serpent tells her. it's not until they eat of the tree that they're even aware of who they are. their shame is a curious reaction, but it's more likely driven by the shame of disobedience than the shame of nudity. it's not that they through being naked was wrong (god HAD made them that way), but that they felt vulnerable for the first time and knew god would be angry.
Interesting to note is that God's response was not to say that they now knew of good and evil as He did, they did not become like Him. What he said is that they became LIKE gods, and so judge good and evil.
i'm not sure the point you're trying to make.
Ecclesiastes (in the OT) and Jesus (in the NT) repeat these same sentiments. Both claim that God and absolute truth, including moral position, is not accessible to man and so should not be dabbled in. Both argue to remain simple and nonjudgemental on such topics. Whatever there might be is for god to sort out... not humans.
jesus's teaching is usually described as "moralistic." where the torah talks abotu laws, jesus talks about the reasoning -- the morals -- behind the laws. he spends a good deal of time railing against people who follow the law but miss the moral. jesus is also normally associated with the position that god makes the law, and it is not our moral right to condemn other for breaking it, because we break it ourselves. only god has that right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 11-06-2006 1:27 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-07-2006 1:25 PM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 11-07-2006 4:43 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 5 of 44 (362366)
11-07-2006 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by berberry
11-06-2006 10:57 PM


Re: Consent
Okay this can get very slippery (into another topic), so lets really hold on tight to the topic of this thread which is moral absolutism v relativism (and laws).
We require consent from one or more parties for virtually everything we do in our public and/or legal lives.
There is no question that WE do (me being a part of that we to be sure). At this point in time and place it is considered quite important. It comes from a philosophical concept called social contract theory, which became influential in Western society and helped directly shape our laws.
It appeals to me directly, which is why I support it, because it puts the emphasis almost exclusively on the individual and by habit (more than likely having grown up in this environment) view life with an enthusiasm for individualism, and individual exploration.
One way or another, the requirement that we consent to contracts will always be with us.
That is a rather bold statement. Our gov't and society has allowed some degree of nonconsent all along, and seems increasingly interested in overriding consent in the future. Good modern examples are drug laws, and anti-smoking ordinances. People freely consenting to an activity are judged unable to engage in what they desire.
I realize that is not contractual per se, but certainly can be viewed as such when an employer at a bar where smoking occurs suddenly must stop allowing such a thing because the State proclaims his employees (who signed up to work there knowing what the place was) MIGHT NOT want smoke around them.
Enter gov't parentalism, exit individual consent.
But for argument's sake lets assume that consent (and we'll avoid how it should be handled) is the status quo and likely would be for the foreseeable future given current attitudes. That only applies to Us. It does not apply to Them... which is everyone else on the planet.
That's exactly where relativism comes in...
Ignoring that simply to further a moral relativist argument is absurd, unless your relativism goes so far as to eschew any legal or political system at all and to submit to anarchy.
I'm not sure what you mean by eschew? Relativism does not avoid or reject all socio-legal concepts. It takes them all into consideration as various valid manifestations of how people interact with each other.
For example a relativist would see that modern US society generally uses the concept of consent as important for legal action between individuals, as well as that in feudal Japan they certainly did not (with loyalty and obedience to a higher authority and the group being much more important). The relativist would say they are equally valid systems of order that humans engage in. One cannot criticize either using the assumptions of the other, even if a relativist might prefer whichever socio-political environment they grew up in.
Just as there is no imperative to embrace a system, there is no imperative to reject a system, which seems to be what you are saying (and is directly supportive of NJ's concept of relativism).
As far as anarchy goes, humans have lived without large or even small legal structures and survived. They have also lived and survived with no protections for individual liberties, or protection from duress. Indeed slavery succeeded quite well, and is being reborn in a new fashion with foreign labor as well as temp services (combined with payday loan orgs).
Systems are fluid, and to the relativist there is no judging one as objectively superior... or eternal.
When you do not like the laws of the US and ask for change, when you point to the laws of another state or nation as examples of how we could do things differently, you are engaging in a form of moral relativist argument. Well I suppose it could be absolutist in that one might argue ours is wrong and these others are right, but more often it is suggesting that there are valid alternatives. Getting people to appreciate allowing these other alternatives to exist as valid.
When you argue current laws, or cultural beliefs, should be the measure of what are good laws or beliefs that others are wrong for not accepting or engaging in, then you are acting as an absolutist.
I personally have preferences, but acknowledge that many different systems will work, and that there is no objectively "right" form of gov't. Consent is not an absolute.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by berberry, posted 11-06-2006 10:57 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by berberry, posted 11-07-2006 10:13 AM Silent H has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 44 (362394)
11-07-2006 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Silent H
11-07-2006 7:09 AM


Re: Consent
holmes responds to me:
quote:
That is a rather bold statement. Our gov't and society has allowed some degree of nonconsent all along, and seems increasingly interested in overriding consent in the future. Good modern examples are drug laws, and anti-smoking ordinances.
Oh, I agree entirely, but those are unproductive aberrations; they shouldn't be there. If we did away with drug laws, for instance, we'd be left with individual consent.
I suppose maybe there are some things about moral relativism I don't understand. I always thought of it as the alternative to strict social control, nothing more or less. Thus, on the question of marriage for instance, once morality is dispensed with marriage or marriage-like contracts can be freely entered into by anyone and with anyone. But the state can still impose limits where it can show a compelling interest, such as might be the case where power-of-attorney rights afforded to a next-of-kin are concerned. We touched on this briefly in another thread not long ago.
But no marriage can ever be entered into by a non-consenting party, nor by a party incapable of giving intelligent, or "informed", consent. Whether age-of-consent laws are ideal or not (and I think we agree they're not) some method must be available to determine whether or not a person is adequately cognizant of the potential consequences of entering into any sort of contract, and certainly into a marital contract. No moral relativist argument I've ever heard would ignore that fact.
The point of this is not to drag out the insult discussion from the Haggard thread. It is only to settle the point of difference over it between me and you. I maintain that the man-marries-dog nonsense is not valid in any light. Until anarchy becomes a wildly popular political (or apolitical) movement there is no danger that the need for consent in marriage will be abandoned no matter how far from biblical christian morality our legal systems and contracts might go. Therefore, the man-marries-dog argument is absurdist and can't possibly be introduced for any intellectual purpose.
Imagine that this whole discussion had been about the right to have sex rather than the right to marry. Let's say that sodomy laws are still in effect, and someone defends them by saying that once we start letting people have sex with anyone they want, what's to stop them from raping someone? I don't remember anyone making that argument before Lawrence v. Texas but that's probably only because it's so absurd. Rape violates the right to consent of one of the parties to the action, and that's precisely what makes it such a vile crime.
So if a moral relativist position on sodomy laws could not logically extend to legalization of rape, how could a moral relativist position on marriage logically extend to marriage between humans and animals?
quote:
Relativism does not avoid or reject all socio-legal concepts.
My point exactly.
quote:
Consent is not an absolute.
Can you elaborate on that a little? In spite of what you we're saying before, I'm not quite sure I follow you.

W.W.E.D.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 11-07-2006 7:09 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 11-09-2006 5:51 AM berberry has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 44 (362423)
11-07-2006 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
11-06-2006 1:27 PM


1) Morality v preference
Morality is about choice and so synonymous with relative judgements of preference... Hence if ALL relatives can only exist because of an absolute truth, then the LIKING of chocolate over another flavour must be based on some absolute.
You keep saying this, but it makes no sense. Liking a certain flavor bears no reflection towards right and wrong. And the mere fact that we all agree on that would be enough to support that. The fact that there is a huge chart at the ice cream store with a variety of flavors to choose from is enough to support that it bears no reflection towards any kind of morality. The more you speak, the more you sound like neither an absolutist or a relativist. As I shared in the other thread, you said like a Pluralist, but more specifically, a value-pluralist.
2) Morality v Habit
I did not say that everyone was inherently honest.
But you seem to be glancing over the conundrum here. What IS honesty in a world of sole relativity? What meaning does truth and honesty have in a world that has no absolutes? Obviously that's not the case, because the sole fact that if everything in life dealt with in relativity, then that would be an absolute phenomena, which would refute its own argument. Secondly, I shared above, it has philosophical difficulties. How can anything have meaning when we are rearranging everything.
It is not like people are generally chaotic in behavior, they tend to act in specific ways as is their personal nature.
There first has to be some standard that we all agree on in order for that statement to have any meaningful context. Maybe chaotic to you is calm for me, or vice-versa.
I personally do not believe or maintain moral codes, I am open to some social pressure but do not necessarily agree or obey all such, the same goes for laws. Thus I am never immoral (as that simply does not exist for me), but at times can be asocial, as well as criminal.
Then I could rightly describe you as amoral. Some people have objections to the terminology. They feel stigmatized by it.
3) Laws v Morality
Laws can be made based on morality, and clearly many have been. My only argument is that they need not be, including the usual biggies such as murder, theft, rape, etc.
Laws clearly stem from a moral framework, especially the biggies, IMO. But one has to ask the question how you can even come a determination about what constitutes a 'biggie' if you don't have a moral framework in mind. How could you have reasoned that there are tiers or were levels of criminality if there was not some framework already established somewhere in the recesses of your mind?
You may discuss influences all you wish, but social contract assumes that LAW is made by people taking rights for themselves. This certainly CAN be done without having a concept of morality.
Consider this dialogue:
Man: I'm gonna go kill that guy that because he cut me off in traffic.
Woman: LOL! Yeah, okay. Calm down, I'm sure he didn't see you. Just let it go.
Man: No, I'm gonna kill him!
Woman: Stop it! You almost sound serious.
Man: What do you think the best way is?
Woman: What? Seriously, knock it off. You're starting to freak me out.
Man: Why wouldn't I be serious? Do you have a problem with me killing this idiot?
Woman: Yes, I do!
Man: Uh-huh... And why is that?
Woman: What do you mean, because you can't just go around killing people that piss you off. If that were the case, we'd all be dead.
Man: Yeah, but why?
Woman: Because its illegal.
Man: So? What does that mean to me? Why is it illegal?
Women: Its illegal because... because, it's wrong.
Man: Wrong? What a convoluted and specious plea. There is no reason why I shouldn't be able to do it.
Woman: Yes, there is, its wrong! Its just wrong.
Now, what other argument can this woman make? What else could she say, other than repeat that its wrong. What would you say if you were the woman? She is so taken back by the man, she doesn't know how to respond other than what she knows to be true in her heart. Its wrong, and her heart is bearing witness. It may make no sense logically, but it doesn't negate it.
The fact that killers might try to hide what they have done means absolutely NOTHING about whether they feel any moral reality.
Yeah right! It has nothing to do with anything? Killers hide their crimes for the simple fact that its wrong. Why else do they hide their crimes? You might say that because they don't want to go to jail, which will only bring you full circle. Why do people go to prison for that? Answer: Because its wrong. And the answer really is that simple. It may bother us that we can't come up with a more elaborate reason, but the beauty of it is its simplicity.
The Yanomamo allowed killings between tribes and to a great extent within them. IIRC they didn't even have laws to speak about, much less charges of murder.
I know the Yanomamo is an Amazonian tribe, which is about all I know about them. I'm not familiar with their customs, so I can't offer any kind of counterpoints. I would have to ask you to substantiate your claims, however.
4) Violence, Murder and Mayhem
You posited several situations in an attempt to elicit a moral charge of right or wrong from me. You seem not to believe what I am telling you. You need to lift your moral goggles and try to understand what I am saying. Let us use the situation you encountered with the guy being shot then robbed.
According to my system of beliefs nothing within that was morally wrong. Such labels would be meaningless, beyond telling me what you personally like or dislike. Would I be viscerally shocked by a person being shot? Yes. Would I be repulsed by the choice of the shooters to gun him down and so want to defend him? It would depend on the situation. From what you described the answer would be yes. Would I be upset with someone taking money from him? Again it would depend on the situation, but from what you described yes I would.
But why? Couldn't someone make the argument, "Well, he was dying. The pizza shop owners were not EMT's. They couldn't save him. He was gonna die. Dead people don't need money, but living people do."
Now, what in you senses that there was something unjust about and sick about that? How can you defend your position without coming to terms of where right and wrong come from?
Visceral shock/disgust at the result of violence, personal distate with the choices others make, and engaging in the reciprocal/communal act of legal enforcment have NO inherent connection to any moral codes of right or wrong.
Don't you find it odd how many people are in agreement about that? Don't you think that is something worthy of a little investigation? These terms you've concocted, "personal choices," is just a massive strawman. You are liberalizing to the point of being absurd, IMO. I don't say that to offend you, it just makes no sense. And I can almost guarantee as time goes by, I will catch you using the very terms and concepts you seem to be fighting against. You must know exactly what I'm talking about, but the that the implications are bit uncomfortable. If there really is a universal sense of right and wrong, then surely it must derive from a universal source. Is that an insane concept or a logical deduction?
Could you not find yourself in a situation where you might have to shoot someone and end up accidentally killing someone and consider it an acceptable loss?
I have no qualms, whatsoever, for killing a man that intends on killing me or my family or an innocent member of society. I would have terrible guilt for killing someone because I was being stupid. In which case, that's why manslaughter is a crime. Because its wrong to act foolhardy only to have it cost the life of an innocent passerby. But what you are trying to do is equate all killing to murder when you know that isn't the case. The universal law is, "Thou shalt not murder." And murder is the unjust, intentional act to kill someone.
You might argue that my "personal distaste" is a sense of morality but that would not be accurate.
No, I just don't believe you. I may believe your sincerity that you have actually trained yourself to believe such nonsense, but I don't believe that you can actually live by your own rules-- or lack thereof. I'm confident that you will violate your own rules at some point simply by the virtue of them being universal. I wager that you will find yourself inescapably coming back to your own sense of morality, even if you decide to call it apple pie. You may say that is a very bold wager of mine, and perhaps it is, but I feel confident in that because I've yet to see anyone who can live apart from it.
5) Bible and morality
It is quite clear in Genesis that Adam and Eve had no moral understanding. The tree of knowledge was moral knowledge. Once eaten from the first thing that they did was judge God's Eden as wrong. Remember, they judged themselves to be naked and so in need of clothes, which is NOT as God had made them. Since they did judge this are you claiming they did recognize some universal morality?
The idea was to have mankind live with God, apart from sin, apart from death, in total harmony. The Tree is obviously symbolic of morals. Their innocence is the very thing that protected them. But once beguiled and ate of the tree, they were aware of the things that you and I are aware of. That evil exists, and going against these laws is like battling a strong current.
Ecclesiastes (in the OT) and Jesus (in the NT) repeat these same sentiments. Both claim that God and absolute truth, including moral position, is not accessible to man and so should not be dabbled in. Both argue to remain simple and nonjudgemental on such topics. Whatever there might be is for god to sort out... not humans.
What verses are you are you referring to? The entire premise of Ecclesiastes, once you sift through the depressing dialogue, is that all is meaningless without the context of God. Jesus, obviously, agrees with these sentiments. Paul, in one of his epistles, Romans, makes what I am describing quite clear.
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools... All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
-Romans
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 11-06-2006 1:27 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 11-07-2006 1:44 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2006 3:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 17 by Silent H, posted 11-07-2006 6:18 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 44 (362441)
11-07-2006 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by arachnophilia
11-07-2006 12:41 AM


Re: diablo advocati
for instance, it is illegal to murder not because god says so, but because it deprives another person of their natural right to live.
You could make an argument that God doesn't factor into it, but now you have to account for hos nature does. I agree with you that we naturally abhor the deprivation of a life by snuffing it out. But now you have to ask why that is, and why it is so universally accepted.
morality is not an external system; it is an internal one. law is the external system. you are confusing morality with religious dogma and rules such as found in the books of exodus and leviticus. this is a common mistake, even among christians. but these books are found in a volumne called ha-torah, or "the law." this is not a coincidence.
I agree with this. This is the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. As Paul describes in some discourses, the law is a schoolmaster and a foreshadowing.
"All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.
Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe."
-Galatians 3
"Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do”this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God”through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
-Romans 7:7-25
The purpose of the law is ecumenical. There are reasons for why it exists and how it relates to us. The law is to teach the believer how to serve, worship and please God. Its to instruct the believer how to treat his fellow man. It teaches believers how to be happy (blessed) and prosper in life. The Law was given to measure a man's deeds both toward God and his fellow man, straightening out all matters contrary to sound doctrine. The Law is a teacher or a schoolmaster showing that we are guilty and then leading us to Christ. The Law gives us both the knowledge and depth of our sin. The Law reveals the good, holy, just, and perfect nature of God. And by that standard we see how we are supposed to act in all things. It is also to be established or accomplished by our faith, which is why the Spirit of the Law, which saves, is greater than the letter of law, which condemns. This Law is written on our hearts and our conscience bears witness to that fact.
you are attempting to justify moral relativity with moral relativity. poor form. and while these are certainly complicating factors, they do not change the fundamental immorality of the situation, nor the fundamental illegality of the situation. theft is illegal because it deprives another person of property -- that this is "wrong" is a moral notion. murder (or in this case, manslaughter?) is illegal because it deprives another person of life -- that this is "wrong" is a moral notion. they are illegal simply because of these moral notions.
How, then, did it become illegal to begin with without the simple notion of depriving someone of personal property was 'wrong?' If we didn't understand it be wrong in our deepest convictions, how we could have possibly made a law about it? If it were really as you and Holmes claim, laws would just be arbitrary rules with no moral affectations attached. That clearly is not the case. Laws are guided by the very principles of the heart. We may not fully comprehend why that is, or by what mechanism, but its stultifying to see people try to pretend it doesn't exist.
[qs]"unjust" is a moral notion. "greed," at the expense of another, is a moral notion. that you are calling these actions either of these two things is a demonstration of morality. without morality, neither of these two things are applicable or descernable in any manner. and we certainly would have no need for laws against them, because they would not even be recognized as unusual, or "distasteful" or "different than [our own] nature[s]" in any degree.[/qs]
Then place yourself in a very personal situation. Suppose it was your friend who was shot and these men started to take his money. But to up the ante, lets say your friend was already dead. If he were still alive like in the story I presented, one could argue that he might live and that you are in effect, stealing from him. But dead men don't need money. Now, these men are traipsing through your friends pockets. What are you going to say to them, and explain the words and actions you have for them.

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 11-07-2006 12:41 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 44 (362443)
11-07-2006 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Hyroglyphx
11-07-2006 12:34 PM


Sorry to muddle your thread, holmes. But here I go anyway.
quote:
The fact that there is a huge chart at the ice cream store with a variety of flavors to choose from is enough to support that it bears no reflection towards any kind of morality.
But that is exactly what morality is. It is a choice from a large selection of possible choices. Different societies have made different choices concerning morality. Within each society, different people have also made different choices, sometimes believing in a moral code that is different from the overall society's.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-07-2006 12:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-07-2006 3:21 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 10 of 44 (362452)
11-07-2006 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Hyroglyphx
11-07-2006 12:34 PM


Now, what other argument can this woman make?
"If you try and hurt that man, I'll kill you."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-07-2006 12:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 44 (362455)
11-07-2006 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Chiroptera
11-07-2006 1:44 PM


What is morality?
But that is exactly what morality is. It is a choice from a large selection of possible choices. Different societies have made different choices concerning morality. Within each society, different people have also made different choices, sometimes believing in a moral code that is different from the overall society's.
Do morals have anything to do with truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 11-07-2006 1:44 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 11-07-2006 3:27 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 11-07-2006 3:29 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 12 of 44 (362457)
11-07-2006 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
11-07-2006 3:21 PM


Re: What is morality?
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
Do morals have anything to do with truth?
No.
(And truth has little to do with Truth either.)
Morals are mostly about convenience - but collective convenience as opposed to individual convenience.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-07-2006 3:21 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-07-2006 3:50 PM ringo has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 44 (362458)
11-07-2006 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
11-07-2006 3:21 PM


Re: What is morality?
quote:
Do morals have anything to do with truth?
Probably not. But I thought this was supposed to be a discussion about morality, especially whether there is an external, objective standard for morality.
If we want to discuss "truth", I'm not sure that a thread titled "Moral Absolutism v Relativism (and laws)" is the place for it. Is it?

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-07-2006 3:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 44 (362462)
11-07-2006 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ringo
11-07-2006 3:27 PM


Re: What is morality?
quote:
Do morals have anything to do with truth?
No.
(And truth has little to do with Truth either.)
Then I'll just assume you're lying to support my case. Thanks Ringo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 11-07-2006 3:27 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 11-07-2006 4:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 15 of 44 (362465)
11-07-2006 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Hyroglyphx
11-07-2006 3:50 PM


Re: What is morality?
So you agree that morals have nothing to do with "truth"?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-07-2006 3:50 PM Hyroglyphx has 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