Moral Absolutism v Relativism (and laws)

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)

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). 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. 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... 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)

Sorry for taking so long. I keep waiting until I have enough time to write a decent reply, only to get interrupted. I'm going to break the reply up into chunks, rather than go line by line. That way I can keep it organized. 1) Morality... I probably should have been more clear in what I meant by external. By that I meant that it is a system with some meaning/justification/existence beyond the individual. When one says X is morally wrong, it is not to say "because I think so". Even if that is really what is at heart the person in summoning "morality" is attempting to appeal to something grander, something besides themself.I agree that law is an inherently external system. I see why you would say that, but it is not necessarily so. The morality we are discussing, the one most people think of with that term, involves a judgement of right/wrong. You are correct that through that filter things like "greed" are "wrong". Greed then is a moral term with a loaded judgement attached.There is another way of approaching morality, and it is so different from the modern western concept (post monotheist influence) that it would be considered amoral. This part of my post to NJ was involving/elucidating that kind of system when applied to a concrete situation.To that system good/bad or right/wrong simply don't exist and so cannot be attached to the terms seen above. They are not seen as connoting something positive or negative by themselves. Greed can actually be quite a positive characteristic, and it is only because of biases that it is thought inherently negative.In the above example the terms are simply definitional, as the system is. Greed is the opposite quality from Generous, but neither are superior to each other. After all in some situations, or for some people, greed can be quite useful and lead to respect. On the flipside generosity can be useless and even debilitating."At the expense of another" is something else. Greed does not become "worse" when it involves an action which deprives another, though it may help delineate the degree of greed a person might have from me (if I would not).Actually this is somewhat simplified as any action often involves tradeoffs between values. For example I might be just as greedy as the people who robbed the dying man, but feel that taking something from someone who cannot fight back is cowardly. Thus my greed is not so great to overcome my sense of bravery, where there's would.I hope this make sense and can help guide future discussion. 2) Morality v Law... 1) Consideration of the other is not relative, or a "relativist" moral code. "Do unto others" produces effects which are not of a uniform nature, flexible according to differences between individuals, but unless one accepts that others will not follow that concept, it is not relativist. It is inconsistent with systems that demand compliance regardless of what you would want, or others might want.2) Western law does is not based on "consider others". It is based on protecting one's own rights from the interference of others. Outside of behaviors that directly inhibit someone from doing what they want, one is free to do many things that others may not want.3) Even if western law is based primarily on morals, that would not argue that law must inherently be based on morals. I have not said that they cannot or all laws in the US have not been, just that a system of laws can be created based on nonmoral principles. That first sentence supports my position and is contradictory to the position that in general laws must be based on morality. I'd point out that for some, gay marriage bans would be considered quite moral. Gays in that case not considering the effect they will have on others.This may go toward a problem with "consider the other" morality and law. What is done with a heterogenous culture? Which group becomes the "other" we must consider? Okay, how does one determine whether a system is rooted in morality, with some immoral laws, or simply not rooted in morality? I mean I see your point how it could happen, but it could just as easily be viewed the other way.I might add none of this argues that a system of laws could not be created without appeal to morals. It should be noted that I was arguing against NJ who was maintaining that legal systems were not only based on morality but revealed a consistent moral belief. The above supports my point that foreign systems do not reveal such consistency.That said, you have an interesting point in an argument that laws are related to morals, but not necessarily conclusive. These different countries also have different languages, clothes, food, and ways of interacting (outside of moral expectations). Asserting that the different laws are based on their differing morals is simply an assumption. They may just be different like everything else.For example people could choose a benign philosopher King to follow, with all decisions related to laws routed through him, while morals left up to priests with no similarity to laws of the King. Actually in that case I wasn't trying to justify relativity with relativity. I was trying to show that moral codes themselves (absolute or relative) fall apart on close inspection. It was part of examining how a descriptive system handles such a situation.I would argue that there is no fundamental immorality, as it will end up being decided based on its details and not its surficial qualities.You are right that the legality would not change, except as laws themselves change. This is one reason why laws =/= morals. There are certainly situations that people would find morally right yet know are illegal, and wrong but legal. Murder is illegal regardless of its moral justification in our system, based on rights. I don't like pain, I don't want to die, so I take for myself the right to live (and not have that interfered with). Those joining me in that system (or working for it) will protect that right. Those that interfere with that right are doing something illegal. 3) Bible and relativism...
This one wasn't so serious so I am willing to let it fall aside to concentrate on the other issues. Yes a system of laws. There is no question that laws were set by God. That's why I said at the end of that quote that the Bible may not be nonabsolutist, but that humans have no access to what the absolute morality is. That is the realm of God.Remember the guy having to sacrifice his son? Or even Job? There is a repetition of people being shown that they must simply obey and moral questions of events and activities left to God. Well that is a plausible interpretation. I don't see how it invalidates the one I put forward. I would have to say yours doesn't seem consistent with verbiage in genesis.Perhaps a hebrew scholar (maybe you do know) what was said of the tree of knowledge. In all Bibles I have seen it was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil.Further Adam was not simply a robot, and was allowed to name the animals as he pleased. And before the fall the bible states... The serpent enters and says... Note: I accidentally attributed that line to God. In any case once they do... That seems pretty suggestive that the tree was about judgement of good and evil and they suddenly judged their state of dress... not simply fear that they disobeyed god. And it goes on. I think my interpretation is a bit more direct and consistent. I agree that he puts forward the golden rule type moral system. According to your own argument earlier that was relative, rather than absolutist. While I disagree, arguing it is fluid and nonuniform rather than relative, the effect is the same with regard to human access to morality.Whew. Anyway, nice post el diablo.

---

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

Not sure why chiro thought he would muddy the waters by answering this. His answer would have been mine. You have not fully answered his challenge and I'll watch you two duke it out unless I need to say anything more. Just to let you know, you missed the point of #2 which was to discuss individual habit as opposed to morality. To answer the above...If a statement is intentionally factually correct then it is truth. That is definitional. Honesty is the activity of telling the truth. That is also definitional.I imagine people tend to prefer having proper information so they can make useful decisions and so want others to be honest in general. There may be other reasons though I suppose. Feeling betrayed if the liar is close and trusted? This is not definitional but not effected by relativity. I have no objection to amoral and it tends to be easier than explaining what I actually am. If a person intentionally uses it to mean something like unfeeling or sociopathic, then I'd object. IMO laws must not inherently stem from morals. That is what this debate is about. As far as how I can understand what "the biggies" are, I can understand what other people discuss and believe without having to believe it myself.I will admit I find them to be the more common as they tend to be the most easily agreed upon. My thought of why this is the case is that most people don't want to be killed, raped, and stolen from. Again those can be derived from concepts of self-preservation or selfishness. Your incredulity does not prove anything. One example has already been given. Perhaps killing the guy wouldn't be worth the shit he'd have to go through afterward. To answer why it is illegal, that's because the person has a right to live. The same right the outraged driver has. Would he want to be killed if he cut someone off? I answered the question and gave you a counterexample. This does not deal with either. Xianity itself could at some points in time send you to prison. Why? Because it's wrong?Try again: People hide crimes because they know the repercussions whether they agree with the laws or not. Xians did this. The founding fathers of the US did this. I do not believe they hid their actions because they believed the actions WERE wrong. They felt okay with what they were doing. Yes they could. Some would find that just fine. For me, my first thought on seeing someone in trouble is that I would like to help them if I can. I don't believe I could think through the shock of seeing someone in pain and realize this was a chance to make some money. That's my nature. You may see me use the terms right and wrong. You may also see me say God and Jesus Christ. That does not mean I believe in them. Having been raised in a culture where right and wrong is used all the time it is hard to drop using such things.The point would be that all I really mean (if I used such terms) is I don't like it or I like it. If someone asked me why it was right or wrong, I would have no accurate thing to say but that.By the way, I am quite certain I will see you shift on a moral point, and I am certain that if you disagree with a law you will attempt to hide that you did it (so I won't see it). Then how do you explain the ability of whites to kill slaves at will, as well as feudal japan which allowed samurai to kill most of the rest of society (and pretty much each other) at will? And that would be what exactly? I will do what I normally do. There are things that are considered moral by others and things that are not. I do not feel an ounce of guilt when I do the things that are not. And I am offended by some behavior of others that is considered morally right.The most you are going to come up with is that I am not chaotic in behavior and tend to act consistently across time. Oh yes and that I have feelings.Yes I can feel guilty, Yes I do not like some things. They have no grandiose connection. What happens if I say something like: Taking your kids to church is wrong. I really feel like your God is immoral and wrong. Am I connected to some absolute? I'm sorry, that evil exists? God made them naked. They became offended by their nakedness and created clothes. God asked how they could have known they were naked. What evil did they discover?By the way I am not aware of any evil except as a generic term for things that people don't like, or are generally causing problems. Well I certainly agree that he extolls God, but I wasn't addressing that. Part of the dialogue is him expressing how little we can know. We must trust in God because we cannot know anything for real.

---

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

This is sort of a tagteam on me thread with extensive posts. Not that I mind the posts. They all seem pretty cool. Just that it is hard for me to keep up with appropriate level of answers as my time is getting shorter. So I'm sorry to have been delayed in this reply. I will get to all posts (including yours) as I can. That seems to beg the question. Is consent an imperative concept to our laws, and will it always remain that way? You claim these are abberations but such have been found throughout our nation's history and the modern trend is for more.State parentalism is on the rise and has been ever since the Progressive movement in the late 1800s. It has only strengthened in the wake of feminist and fundamentalist programs over the last 35 years.Ironically the argument is sometimes posed as "consent" oriented, but what they say is that nonconsent must be assumed, even by those who state openly that they consent. Moral relativism is a position that there is no absolute right or wrong. In this case the very concept that consent is necessary or "good" is not true.Contrary to NJs portrayal a relativist may have their own preferences, and may also take part in legal agreements, its just that they recognize there is no profound absolute necessity for any of it. It could be done differently.That would include marriage. A relativist could easily point to marriages between people who are mentally handicapped within our own society as cases where people that could not possibly give "intelligent or informed consent".Further, a relativist would move further to point out that arranged marriages exist in many cultures. In this case there is not even consent. Or where there is consent, there could still be pressure, so not exactly freely given consent, or fully informed consent. Are these marriages wrong? Why?There is of course the difference between moral relativism and legal reality. The relativist would be cognizant of what role consent may play in their own society as well as in the laws within that society. However as NJ does argue (somewhat validly) full relativism embraced within law would have to somehow accept the many different arrangements which are possible. There is of course no reason why the relativist would have to vote for such things, but they would be inconsistent if they said there was some reason beyond their personal prejudice in that matter. Hmmmm, from what I have seen it seems woman-marries-dog would be the more likely scenario. Just to let you know bestiality is not illegal in much of Europe nor even bestial porn. So your concept of what is absurd may be related to consent regarding animals filtered by your own cultural understanding.I supposed I woud make a similar argument as you do, but from a different angle. People would not need to fight for the right to marry animals because they already have such rights and more without a marriage contract. Animals aren't required to consent to anything even when they go under contract... which can be done of course.The idea that animals cannot be placed into legal contracts (because they cannot give consent) is itself refuted by the fact that they have already done so for things like starring in commercials/movies/etc.But why bother with a marriage contract? They are already fully your property, you cannot have children with them, and can give your money away to them (or insure them) just the same. You even have the ability to butcher and eat them, or have them killed when you die just so that they can be near you in death. Once you own a pet, unless you are neglecting or torturing the thing (yet ironically may kill), it is legally identified as belonging to YOU. Actually I believe Scalia argued something quite similar if not exactly the same. But you are right that an argument we should let anyone have sex with anyone would not inherently allow for rape. The key (to allow for rape) would be a more definitive statement that we allow for people to have sex with others in any WAY that they want, INCLUDING over the desire of another.As a relativist, I could still say that I want laws which protect my body from attack. And could recognize that in this society, which promotes individualism, not having sexual laws would still not allow for rape. That would take the removal of the right of another, not just a freeing of sexual rights for each.But as a relativist, I would also have to admit that there is no universal reason this must be so, or that it must or will be maintained. It will as far as personal prejudice remains for that concept.You also miss the flipside of your argument. Just as much as "consent" is a commonly held concept for contractual or other activity in our society, there are other concepts commonly held within our society.In truth marriage is widely considered to be between a man and a woman. As much as you might want to argue that it should just be limited to questions of consent, that is to deny your own argument for why consent should be viewed as important (its commonly and strongly held nature).A person could easily point out that "between members of the opposite sex" is equally important to the legal reality of marriage as "between consenting parties" for the vast majority of the population. If the former is not important, why is the latter?It is not a few people that have problems with the concept of "gay marriage". That is a wholly new concept of marriage.Before you reply, please do not bring up anti-miscegenation laws. The supporters of those laws admitted at the time that they were not commonly held concepts regarding marriage, and that they were meant to change the concept of mariage. Their argument was that though new, they were necessary. Theirs was a failed attempt to change the concept of marriage, which if anything parallels the attempt of gay marriage activists (even if running in the opposite direction).In the course of this reply I hope I have covered why consent is not an absolute.

---

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

Shit, I was going to finally get to Arach and NJs posts, both deserving posts to be sure, and then I found yours. It is short and well formulated so I sort of feel compelled to answer it first (admittedly "short" might have played a larger part of that compulsion). I agree that it is a form of moral statement. I am not sure if I would agree that we see variations on this in almost every known human civilization. While I might agree that it is a relative morality, in that its conclusions on actions would be different between people, I would not agree that it is a relativist morality... it is inconsistent with moral relativism. I'm not certain if that was the thrust of your argument or not.First though, I'll agree with your argument that universality does not mean absolute morality. For the rest...1) The golden rule conflicts with systems which include castes or other heirarchical delineations. These have existed all over the place, including western cultures. In these systems you by definition do not treat others as you would have them treat you. They are based on the idea that different people deserve different rules of behavior regardless of what the other wants, or how you might want them to treat you (even if theoretically roles should be reversed).2) Another rule, also a moral statement, could also be considered relative and seen throughout all human civilization: "Do what thou will". It seems to enjoy both universal application and universality.Not sure what the ramifications of 2 are.

---

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

While there seems to be a few points of actual dispute, much of this appears to be an argument over differing definitions. Tomayto, Tomahto. Let me start again so we can pan out the nuggets of debate, from the debris of different terminology. 1) Morality...
Defining this concept may end most of our argument. Much of your discussion appears to be redefining morality in a practical sense, that is involving a meta-ethical position perhaps quite similar to my own, and then adopting language people normally use for moral discussion to cover something else. While valid as a personal concept, this does not square with general usage. I agree that animals (including humans) have instincts as well as widely varying "natures" (general) or "tastes" (tastes), which would mean predispositions to attitudes and activities. They would be the result of genetic, developmental (physical environment), and experiential (social-psych environmental) events.These are internal, subjective feelings, boiled down to essentially "i like", and "i don't like". They are not cognitive concepts, though such concepts may be made to validate them. If you are referring to the above subjective feelings as "morality", and agree that means morals come down to personal statements of a subjective nature with a variety of influences, then I agree with many of your arguments, including the relation of morals to laws.However, philosophical discussions of morality (ethics) generally do NOT let the term "morality" apply to such feelings. That is because "right" and "wrong" are supposed to be something greater than mere personal preference. Discussions involve whether they have truth values beyond the framework of an individual's fleeting interests. After all people generally are not going to change their preference because you say "i don't like it", nor are they going to adopt your prefs because you say "i like it". When one moves to discuss moral action it is argued "because it is right!"I am sticking with general convention by separating the two (feelings v cognition) and denouncing the truth value of moral statements, arguing they are merely attempts to validate the former using some cognitive rationale.Your apparent system, when definitions are used instead of terms, would be moral relativism, or perhaps emotivism... unless you mean to suggest that the sources of our desires indicate some level of truth regarding what is "good" or "bad"? 2) Considering the other...
You appear to have equivocated in your use of the term "consider". One can consider something in a factual (existential) way, or in an emotional way.When one says one should "consider" the other, do you mean that they exist and what they might do based on one's own actions, or that they have feelings which might be hurt and that is something one would not want to do (ie "do unto others")?As a practical matter one ALWAYS has to consider others in a factual sense. They exist and you will be interacting with them. That means you can figure out how they will interact with you based on their preferences. Creating laws inherently involves considering people in this way, otherwise one would not be making laws to begin with.On the flipside, one does not always have to consider others in an emotional sense. The laws could be "Do as the king says peasant", or even "Do as the community wishes, comrade". It is of course possible that the person may really care about the King or the community and so want to "consider" the emotions of those entities, but it is irrelevant and action may just as well be to "consider" the factual element of those entities and what will happen if one does not obey.Even democracies of the social contract sense do not need to involve emotional consideration of the other. As a practical matter of course if two people live nearby they will generally interact. If they choose to interact regularly, especially toward a common practical goal, they only need to assess what is likely to occur between them and set up routines so that their own interests are not hampered. If both do this then by logical imperative they will recreate "rights", without considering the other as an emotional being and what impact their actions will have on the other (beyond retribution).I realize Locke arguably viewed natural rights as a moral issue. However that does not mean that all that followed, believed it as such. It can and often was viewed as something which emerged from individual interaction of independent beings taking their own interests to heart. Where will the practical stalemate be? Civil Rights.As a thought experiment, imagine two robotic systems designed to achieve specific goals for themselves. They have the ability to assess threats/assets as well as attack others. They may also negotiate activities with another. If placed in an environment with limited resources, won't the result be either combat or a negotiation which de facto sets up rules/laws of how they will behave such that goals are attained without triggering combat?In summary, if you mean in the vaguest sense that laws involve consideration of the other (factually) and that this involves morals (personal feelings), then I would agree. If you mean that laws are made by taking into consideration how our actions are going to be felt by another because of our concern (beyond retribution) for the other, then I would disagree. 3) Value (or Virtue) ethics...
Value (or Virtue) ethics involves no judgement of action, and only evaluation of character. Thus "good" and "bad" are not relatable to say the act of killing someone. Instead values related to the killing help determine your character, with an idea that one can achieve a "good" character.While I am a relativist (though charges of skepticism or nihilism or emotivism may be fair) I maintain that value ethics are the only plausible, logically consistent form of moral discussion. I find no logical or practical basis for the concepts of "right" or "wrong" being applied to activities, though accept some practical basis for "success" v "failure" or "happiness" v "suffering" for the state of an individual and so something that one can shoot for. In that I may indeed be considered a somewhat muted (highly subjective) value-pluralist.These are complex discussions/distinctions. I am not sure how much you know of them and how much you are throwing off to play the role of diablo advocati. I was surprised that NJ came up with value-pluralist (which before he mentioned it I didn't really know as a term). In any case what I am saying is not directly controversial as a possible concept, even if one would disagree.Some of your comments seem less about challenging the core of the position, than about not understanding the position. I'm sorry if brevity is making me skip important items. Like I said this can be complex. This is to mistake what I said. Robbing a person (dying or otherwise) will be able to be labelled on a purely factual/definitional basis with no "moral" significance. You would be right that robbery itself could simply be a neutral term for taking another's possessions. That it is loaded for some, or many, does not indicate anything other than it was created in such a context and some people maintain that context.There is no reality beyond the statement "for society X taking items from others is disliked, and when disliked the term "robbery" is employed".In any case, the labels that I was discussing did not involve negative or positive connotations, they really are neutral, and simply definitional Take for instance cowardice. That would be "avoiding risk". The oppositional trait is bravery which would be "taking risk".The thieves robbing a dying man could be considered "brave" in the sense that they are risking being punished for what they are doing. But given the situation that risk was low, and taking something away from a person when they are absolutely helpless involves no risk at all and so exhibits "cowardice".For me, the level of cowardice may be too low because I prefer some greater level of risk when trying to get something from another person. Thus I might be the type to take candy from a 12yo or a professional wrestler, but not a baby or dying man.The thieves were not wrong or lesser for what they did, but exhibiting a relationally greater level of cowardice than I would. It may be so great a difference that I dislike what they are doing on a gut level. Yet others might find that perfectly tasteful. What everyone chooses defines them in a factual definitional sense and not a morally "right/wrong" sense.I gave another example (maybe that was to NJ) of the brilliant assassin. In killing a hard to reach opponent, who he may have not wanted to kill but was ordered to do so, with a poison he made that was totally undetectable, that person would exhibit: knowledge, loyalty, and cowardice. If the victim was someone that had or was likely to kill others without cause, then the person could be acting "justly". But even if unjust, that would simply be another characteristic. The person could be hailed and reviled on all of these different aspects of their act, and would be depending on another person's nature. Absolutely nothing is wrong with being cowardly. Heck those people just made some money. In wars it might keep one alive, and even lead to victory.In the more overt virtue ethics theory cowardice may be thought a vice, but only in the sense that habitual cowardice in a person is less likely to lead to personal achievement and happiness. Being a relativist I do not believe that can be so objectively stated (as plato might), yet agree with the general practical principle. Cowardice may be generally less useful than bravery (offers less opportunities for gain, and more opportunities for loss). 4) Relativism...
I'm not sure there is any motivation than understanding the factual nature of ethics. What is true regarding moral statements? In doing so one must factually consider the reality of other systems, but one does not have to care about them one bit.Personally I might hate the Yanomamo and prefer their culture wiped from the face of the earth. That does not mean I can't acknowledge that they have a system which is workable for them, and has no more or less truth than my own, and so there are no moral absolutes. Philosophical moral relativism would say there is nothing wrong with obliterating another culture. Why would there be?You seem to be confusing the philosophical position of relativism with political activists who appeal to relativism in some portions of their arguments. That absolutists, or simply political activists, appeal to some tenets of relativism to push their agenda, does not change what relativism is or says. 5) The absolute problem...
I have already dealt with this with NJ. I am willing to switch that statement to "there are no known absolutes". Given that this is true it seriously injures and claims to absolutes. Yeah absence of evidence is not blah blah, but it does curtail claims to presence.Until a person develops some serious claims which include evidence of consistent absolute applicability, they are in just a bind.In fact I might play the reverse game. "There are absolutes" is an absolute statement of knowledge, given our limited nature which inherently denies knowledge of everything, we are logically restricted from making claims to the existence of absolutes. 6) Omega on the Alpha...
I meant what was the tree literally called, not what people may interpret it as. I'm trying to get if the literal wording in the Torah is the same as in the Bible. You can't get more clear than the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. To argue it means awareness is to start moving away from literal meaning, to more speculative interpretation.In this case it clearly starts with them being naked and unashamed. Eating from the tree and then being ashamed of that nakedness. God clearly made them that way and was not happy that they judged it. Well yes I can see how it could be read as that. Its just not clear to me why a more direct interpretation is not valid. In this case I'm arguing that it is a story about increasing awareness, only one form is false. That is the allegory and so the "moral" of the story.Of everything that there is in life the one thing they could not know was good and evil. The serpent convinced them they could "eat of this knowledge" but they were fooled. They were not gods and not beings gods, they might FEEL they know like such, or ACT like they are such, but in reality they know nothing they only talk that way. Thus (among other things) they gain a false impression that naked is shameful, which is not correct.They judge what they have no true capability to judge, as IF they were gods, and so are disatisfied with life as it is. That is why they do "die" in the sense that their world ends, and suffering is made worse. I think it meant knowledge too. Not sure that I said otherwise. One cannot make moral judgement without moral knowledge. It was false because they cannot truly know since they are not actually gods. It was something they aspired to but cannot reach and foll themselves to the point where they cause themselves misery.Remember the serpent only promises that they will be "like" gods, not be gods. For a god such knowledge is possible and why the fruit could be consumed without harm. For nongods they will gain such impressions and feel they have such knowledge, but to no avail but pain.That's the only logically firm interpretation I know of which maintains a literal sense to the writing. You have not addressed your original claim that they were afraid of having gone against god's rule. It really doesn't read that way and focuses on their shame regarding nudity.Edited by holmes, : title mistakes

---

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

As has been pointed out already, we supply the meaning to mathematics. People may then explore based on the logic of definitional relations, but we start by giving the definitions. There is nothing inherently wrong with betrayal. Plenty of people have betrayed me and went on to great success. On the other hand betraying me made me feel bad. I believed a person would not betray me, so that I could trust further actions from them, and I found out this was not true. And in order to find this out something had to be taken from me. I didn't like either of those losses.Betrayal only gains meaning as it impacts one through gain or loss. Some swear by it. Ahhhh... the fallacy of the gun. Someone is going to shoot you so how will you stop them with relativist philosophy? I'll stop them the same way an absolutist will have to... hit them fast and hard.Once someone is taking your stuff, including your life, and they do not have any practical preferences to appeal to, talk is over. The assumption that they will share a preference for absolutist philosophy is a rather large assumption, particularly that they might share YOUR absolute criteria.Remember your earlier example of the lady screaming her head off to the roadrage case. "Its wrong! Its wrong!" She screamed. Try that to a guy stealing your stuff or pointing a gun at you. Its not likely to stop any bullets. I mean how exactly did the lady stop the roadrage case?Oh and by the way, why do people not like having stuff taken from them? Because they don't like to be without things (at the very least necessities). They have an inherent sense of "Mine". Granted some cultures allow for a much less pervasive notion of "mine", usually when they are less material in nature (or have plenty to go around). Still there will be something they want.Once one desires something, having someone remove it pisses a person off. A right will be something that I absolutely defend. That's about the length of its standard. Some people live without such concepts as rights as I have. They will likely defend those. Those are their rights.We certainly have a common concept of civil rights, based on individualism. They are a culturally defined concept. I happen to like them. If I was born in feudal Europe or Japan I would likely not even understand what they meant, much less want to fight for it.Indeed some reps these days have argued civil rights are not so important. They apparently are not willing to fight for them. Where is this absolute standard of which you speak, when once attained, such things are thrown away? This didn't answer my question at all. Xianity has been outlawed. If laws are based on morals then what does that mean?Xians hid what they did when it was illegal. If people only hide criminal acts because they know they do something wrong, what does that mean about Xianity? Only in a practical sense, like Bush is wrong for invading Iraq (it will not produce the results he claims). Otherwise I admit I am just tellig people what I like or not. I have certainly really disliked people or what they do, and have felt compelled to do things.All of those cases had no external meaning. Where there is consistency I have found my character, or nature, or set of tastes. They have defined me from others based on the consistency of what they do.I will agree that some characteristics I have found to be generally helpful but that is more of a practical guide than a moral proclamation. Like getting lots of rest means I am less cranky. Choosing to sleep is neither good nor bad. I agree with virtue characterizations. In that act he was brave and loyal and altruistic. That does not make what he did "right" in an absolute sense (though perhaps to some code he himself ascribed or promised himself to).What if he had dove out a window and lived (though his teammates died)? Would he have been wrong? Why? That is justice. That's sort of definitional. If you do something to someone that they don't like, and it comes back to bite you in the same way and you don't like it... that's justice.That does not mean that it was "right" in any absolute sense. I certainly like it though.I believe in most egalitarian societies, or those focused on individualism, justice will be ranked pretty high. But not everyone has had that outlook. For some equality is not evident, perhaps with themselves as much lower. It may be felt that other issues take precedence.For example Bush has set out, and reps have argued, that security is much more important than justice. This is essentially saying that our cowardice must take precedence over our concern for justice. I am of course hoping (because I personally enjoy justice in action) that there will be some justice and such people will feel the effects of greater security. Wait a second, you said that all societies have a concept of murder. I showed you some that didn't, and you tell me that they are cases of murder. It doesn't matter what you think. Your claim is that there are universal moral truths which are reflected in our morals and laws. Deal with the counterexamples. No that is not an accurate description of my stance.You and I can do nothing which is truly right or wrong, though they may be considered such by ourselves and others (though I won't). Laws need not reflect morals, though they may, it is up to how the lawmakers create laws. Laws are unlikely to be arbitrary in that they are usually meant to solve a practical issue. Truth is only important for those seeking to make accurate statements, or understand something in an accurate factual sense. You are right that justice doesn't operate in a vacuum, that's why there is no absolute morality. We create and apply our own definitions. We have come up with a term with a definition and called it justice.Whether a case of justice is felt "right", or an injustice "wrong", will in all cases depend on who is viewing it and what context it plays with their perspective.My accurately calling my false arrest "unjust" will do nothing if people don't care or feel something outweighs that. You know like that Canadian guy who was picked up by the US while coming back from a vacation and then sent to secret prisons while he was tortured for a year. Now he claims that is unjust. I think its unjust. We both think it sucks. He would likely call it wrong.Bush and reps are calling it necessary and right... while murmuring on the justice issue. Say what do YOU think about that poor Canadian guy getting unjustly arrested and tortured? Yeah, that's how the world works all right. Its hard to describe my exact position with any set term. I do not believe that nihilist is totally accurate but I would not say wholly incorrect. You were also not far off with value-pluralist.My basic concept is that the only system of normative ethics which remains credible is virtue ethics, which is devoid of judging actions right or wrong anyway. But that this is only credible in a practical way, and even then set within a relativist (perhaps skeptical) perspective (understanding that virtues will be applied differently across cultures with no true scale to them either). In my last post to Arach I described myself as a very muted value-pluralist.

---

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

It appears we are even.This is not tit for tat, but it is as good a place as any to say what I've been wanting to say in another thread. Unfortunately my time has been too taken up with this thread to formulate a decent reply.Your message #211 in the "eternal decision" thread was excellent. It was not short and punchy, but it was well outlined for a nice progression of logic.Your distinction between intellectual acknowledgment and emotional doubt/faith of a belief was a nice starter. But most important for me was the conclusion. I was the type to cut Biblical literalism some slack and offer an intellectual acknowledgment of possibility. I had not thought about that subject clearly enough before and you set the correct parameters to make me realize how sloppy I'd been.It has shifted my position on that subject and I will be using it in the future. Literalists watch out.I'm just glad you found something useful from me in return.Edited by holmes, : threadEdited by holmes, : rearrange

---

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

You were right in mentioning emotive ethics, if you look above at the last post I gave to Arach I mentioned that as a possible valid read of my position. I'm not sure why I forgot to list it when writing you.I certainly don't have a problem with using that as being my position for sake of argument, though I would point out I have a few differences. While its core is correct, all moral statements boil down to emotions (I like this, I don't like that), it is possible to look at systems which might influence such feelings. In that case one looks at human nature, adopted principles, or agreements between people as they effect behavior in some routine way. Once you take those seriously (as systems for point of discussion) then I think one becomes more of a relativist, or pluralist.Take for example a child growing up in a society where littering is "wrong", almost taboo. That child will likely react to such an activity with a statement that it is wrong. What they are actually saying is they do not like it, but that is because of an internalized rule set which one can study and whose external principle they will attempt to appeal to with others. In that sense you can treat it as a truth bearing statement for those who share that principle/bias.In my case I also think one can discuss human nature based on common human states (happiness/suffering, or success/failure), definitions on how people can act in any situation (values), and the connection between the two (which values lead someone to happiness/success). I find this to be the only solid practical ethical system (virtues ethics) in that it cannot deliver any incorrect results since it never tells one what to do. It just helps define what kind of person an actor is and perhaps why they are happy or suffer, succeed or fail. However I recognize the cultural limits of this as well (ie knowledge may always make one unhappy or a failure in some societal systems) and so again am pushed back to relativist or pluralist.You were also right that I would be what Lewis called a "man without a chest". The guy in the mp3 segment said what I would say. But then I would simply return the name-calling and suggest CS Lewis was a "man without a head". He is not bothering to think clearly on the subject at all, and letting his emotions get the better of reason. In fact neither the man (nor I) would NOT have been moved by the situation. He said so himself. Its just that we reason about the extent of our own feelings. How far do they extend and why? And the fact is some people would not be moved.You seem to have missed Chiro's explanation of where you are going wrong (and in this case CS Lewis as well). You are trying to argue what relativists (or amoralists) should be doing (how they should be acting and feeling) based on their analytic position regarding the nature of moral systems. That is not accurate.A relativist can have their own moral system, including the use of concepts such as "right" and "wrong". In this I admit that my own personal system (which is amoral) does not extend to all relativists. Still even the amoralist will have feelings and strong convictions, perhaps including a general personal code to follow based on their tastes (and experience).The only thing being recognized is that the truth value of any statement they make will be limited to themselves, or those they happen to share their tastes/system. This does not make them throw up their hands and give up feeling altogether, or even trying to get others to appreciate their feelings. Why would it? I told you earlier I do not mind being labelled as amoral... just as long as that is not confused with having no feelings or personal interests. But I do find your comment about ineffectual interesting. It has served me pretty well. I understand my own nature and tend to understand those of others, rather than attempting to judge actions in a purely black/white setting.What effect has being able to say "I am right" brought anyone? If you took food off my plate in such a way that it involved no loss to me then why would I care? Why would that be wrong, even to you?I would agree that if this action disrupted my eating, making me have to go and get more food or wait for more to be brought, then I would be annoyed. But then that involves a loss of some kind. You are attempting a dodge here. What I said was that reps have said rights are not so important. They have definitely argued that SAFETY comes before rights. Some must be bent or broken to ensure people live, otherwise what good are rights if you are dead. This HAS been said on several occassions by reps and if you are going to deny it then I feel you are being less than honest.One exchange on this very topic, resulted in Feingold responding in defense of rights over security with a reminder... "Give me liberty or give me death".Though this ranges into the political, it is not OT at all. I am pulling up concrete, real life counterexamples to your claims. You can throw as many theoreticals at me that you want, but real life one's showing people NOT living as you suggest is valid. If these counters involve people you have supported or involved arguments you have supported in the past, all the better.Rights are what you CHOOSE to defend for yourself. Or if linking with others what all choose to defend for each other, in respect for their own. This is a complete dodge. Unless it was meant to "test" how much I like honesty, I do not see the point of this statement as a posited answer to my direct question. We will try this again.YOU claimed that laws are based on morals, and those from a conception of absolute morality. Since Xianity has been (and still is) outlawed in some places, doesn't that mean Xianity is against morality?Further, YOU claimed that those hiding evidence of their crime cannot be doing so because they want to avoid punishment, but MUST be doing so because they feel guilty for acting against absolute morality. Since Xians have hidden evidence of their activities where it was a crime, doesn't that mean they felt guilty because practicing Xianity is immoral?If you choose to dodge this again, you will not be doing wrong, but I will not like it. I will understand your nature and I will stop replying to you in this thread, because it will be pointless. Its a loss of my time. The above is not my position at all. All I said is that LAWS can be based/generated purely from principles of self-preservation and selfishness. I said no such thing with regard to human action.In fact I have said quite the opposite, arguing that people have personal natures that range all over the place, sometimes in conflict with moral codes they might wish to hold. This can also be in conflict with self preservation or selfishness.People can get their natures from all sorts of influences. This can include being raised within a community with expressed moral systems, or simply from personal experiences where one comes to like some things more than others (from nature of exposure). Yes that would be wrong, but not quite in the moral sense. And in any case not in any absolute moral sense. We have a gov't for which he is a representative with expressly stated goals. He swore an oath to that system. To defy that system is to break that oath and the trust of those he represents. It is inconsistent and so "wrong" for those within that system.This is comparable to Haggard who accepted and promised to represent a system, and then defied it. Is there something inherently wrong with betrayal? No, in fact we use that when we employ spies and undercover police officers. But those that are betrayed will not like it, the betrayal is to break a specific code or oath, and so internally inconsistent or wrong. This appears to be shifting the goal post. Unjust killing does not mean murder nor wrong. Your statement was that they all had concepts of murder. And again I will state that feudal Japan did not have such concepts. Even the concept of "unjust" might not fit. They could easily identify the slaying of a peasant as "unjust" but it would still not be a crime. This is also avoiding my counterexample. You are an absolutist who argued that not being able to say "its wrong" would stand against me if something like false arrest occured. I just showed you that being able to say such a thing would not help either.There is no practical advantage to moral claims beyond appealing to someone who might share the same moral system or personal biases.I would raise the question of why you don't care about the Canadian who was tortured by the US for a year for no reason? As for me I care because I believe I have civil rights which are not consistent with that treatment by my gov't. I expect my gov't not to do such things. If they do such to that guy they could just as well do it to me.In addition I do not like pain or causing other people pain, especially when it is not necessary. You are being inaccurate and arbitrary. I am saying people WILL do what fancies them, and my personal tastes have no direct influence on them nor act as a True evaluation of their actions.If without an external code you would encourage indiscriminate killing that would be your nature. I wouldn't encourage it and would fight it where I am. Moral relativism, not factual or definitional relativism. Do not lose your head as Lewis did.

---

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

I saw that subthread title and my heart sank. Then we are basically of the same position. Here is a Wiki article describing emotivism(though it is called non-cognitivism there). The article includes how it is distinguishable from other similar positions. "Expressivism" is also detailed in a separate linke.One of my differences is that (perhaps like you) I can accept shared systems of preference for discussion. That is to say one of the sources of those internal feelings is socialization using moral systems as a guide. Thus it is safe to discuss systems of morality, using their terms (and truth according to the internal requirements of that system). Agreed, and that's what makes me more of a relativist/subjectivist or perhaps a pluralist. Also above you have in great part made the external/internal distinction I was discussing earlier.In any case there is no truth within any moral statement, beyond its relation to a rule set, and then as a reflection of preference derived from that set. Absolute agreement. That is why I find statements of "I like it" more mature than "It is right" even though common understanding is that the reverse is true.

---

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

I think that if the decision were out of positive respect for those entities, then it would be emotional consideration. I was trying to get at fear. One might understand that disobeying the King or the politburo will have direct physical consequences one would rather avoid.In that case I'd consider it a factual consideration. Simple power plays can create the system. Even respect may be based on a factual evaluation that a person has skill in organizing the community for greater benefits. But it could just as easily be having the fear beaten into one, or the fear of being beaten, set into one's mind. That is technically true. All govt's continue to exist by the allowance of the people. But at the same time people have to be conscious of the choice, as well as the practical possibility overthrow is possible. Many do not even understand they have a choice to change the system they grew up with, or have submitted to for so long. I agree but then it is a definitional distinction I have made between emotionally considering the emotions of others, and factually considering the emotions of others. I kind of have to let my personal definition rest on its own merits/utility. I had a feeling we weren't so far apart.

---

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

I'm not sure I want to go through a huge explanation of virtue ethics, including its various forms. Here's a Wiki page on Virtue ethics. From it there is a generic overview... Of course "good" is something which is not exactly the same as what is meant by "good" in regards to other systems. It will also differ on the virtue system under discussion. Good could be "leads to personal success" or "leads to personal happiness" or "leads to admiration by others". Indeed that is a large part of debate within that field, rather than nuances of how to define an action as "good" in some theoretical sense. In most cases the "good" in virtue theory is related to a practical goal.It is true that for much of its history virtues are separated with connotations based on whether they are likely to bring "success". Thus courage is the virtue over cowardice the vice, as it is more likely to lead to success. But that is not always true for every action and no one is expected to always be any trait. Some philosophers even argue that neither end of the spectrum would be a virtue, with only the moderate center being the virtue. That helps people avoid consistent extremes of activity.But one may also pull all connotation out and use the terms in their strict definitional sense. I hope my following replies will help... That is not true. -1 does not have any connotation as opposed to 1. They are both simply numbers as defined as opposites on a spectrum/gradient. Actions are the same. Going up is opposite of going down, but neither is inherently meaningful beyond physical description of the activity. This is a good observation and your example of the lion v the hyena was excellent. We can work with that very easily. I would argue that your statement outlines exactly what I am talking about. Neither the lion nor the hyena are better than the other, but both have different characters which can be described.We tend to use terms like courage v cowardice in that they are well known. In reality they are stand in for better (more neutral) terms like risk-taking v risk-avoidance. I think you might agree they are less loaded though describing the same behavior. It just takes a bit to make the switch to treat the former (more common terms) as neutral definitions of positions on a scale of behavior. Well I will agree with that statement based on how you are using moral from the earlier posts. But that would not be moral in the philosophical sense (a sense of truth regarding a moral system's imperative) such as NJ is using.The answer for why I might find a certain level of cowardice distasteful could have a myriad of explanations. Both from upbringing, as well as personal experiences. Maybe I just felt less satisfied by taking easy chances, and so don't enjoy watching others do it.I have certainly acted cowardly on occassion. Some others might have been disappointed with me for acting that way but I felt fine. Other times I felt disgusted yet with what I did but others might have felt fine. I preferred predator 1 (a movie with two future governors in it kicking ass has to be enjoyable) but understand what you are talking about. In fact I would use this to describe why I prefer virtue ethics. In movies where the villains are cardboard cutouts, pure "evil", they don't have as much impact as movies where the villain shows a range of characteristics. Their actions will end up being a mix of good and bad and challenge our own conceptions. We can judge ourselves in a realistic way (the way we do in real life) to them. In the case of things like cowardice (risk-avoidance) one can credibly argue that this would not be as productive in life as courage (risk-taking). That's because most chances for success or happiness come with risk, and if it is generaly avoided one can lose many opportunities.Even hyenas would not be always cowardly, though much of their food gathering techniques might be avoidance of risk. They will take physical risks within the group to get more food or mates than another.Thankfully a person cannot be judged on one trait alone. Thus a patent coward (almost always avoiding risk) may have virtues that make up for their vice and so become successful and happy. It is just that they are more liable to miss all the opportunities they are given. Or in the case of the thieves, liable to take opportunities others find a sign of weakness and distaste.

---

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

I meant whether the modern bible's wording is the same as that in the torah. From what I understand the two do not always match in a literal or meaning sense. So in that case the Hebrew seems less clear than the English. All English versions I have seen seem pretty clear, especially given the snake's description of what would occur. God made them clothes after they were ashamed. I do agree that he seems to create by trial and error, and that is strange (for an omnipotent being). But I don't see why I am overthinking the text. I am going with the most direct, literal interpretation.One may wonder why an atheist is arguing for the most literal interpretation of an allegory, but what the hey. Like gods, but not gods. If they were gods then they could create and their knowledge of right and wrong would be true. But they were created and so their knowledge is false. But naked is a loaded term for them right? Nakedness is equal to shame and judgement. That's why the point was made earlier that they were naked but were not ashamed.I am in agreement that it is about awareness. The question is of what and it seems to me a valid interpretation (and the most direct) is that it is an awareness of good and evil, unfortunately based on less than absolute knowledge of facts (because they are not gods) and so leads to suffering. Well I see what you are saying and understand how it could be read that way, but I am not understanding how you are invalidating the interpretation I put forward. Good and Evil are moral terms (especially for them).Its unlikely they simply did not see they had no clothes. It seems to make sense that they saw this but not did not recognize it as containing a moral component, that they were "naked". Once they understood morality, they began to connect it to everything they had previously known.

---

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

I got curious and looked up the Wiki entry on the tree of knowledge of good and evil.While there are different interpretations discussed, both a Judaic and Xian interpretation mirror what I was discussing. From Wiki on Judaic tradition... And from the source (Forman's article)... The source article elaborates on the shift and it is essentially a replacement of objective moral truth, with subjective desire. The article even goes into the specific language found in the Torah to support the discussion.Then at Wiki regarding Western Xian interpretation... While that is pretty much dead on to what I said, unfortunately there is no citation given for this assessment. At any rate it seems that someone else is suggesting the same read as I have, and it does square with a read from a Rabbi discussing Maimonides's interpretation of the ToKoGaE.

---

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