Atheist morality

I am coming into this discussion late, but the subthread title attracted my attention and I read through what has been discussed so far. Being that it is a very close subject to much of my preferred studies in philosophy, I feel I might have something to add.To start with I will state that I am in complete disagreement with your position. I think it is a convenient and ethnocentric way of constructing a rationale for absolutism. Yeah that sounded like ad hominem, but bear with me as I did not write it in a mean spirited way. Frankly I like your writing in general and I don't think the mistake I think you made was intentional, or had some conscious ulterior motive.I think I am on the side of Ben, in that I believe that morals and ethics are purely subjective (greater than just cultural differences) and reason, logic and universalizability are NOT sufficient to create them.I also think that one of the biggest problems in discussing this topic is that most people simply do not want to admit that their morals or ethics are basically irrational desires, constructed to sound like they should have some meaning to someone else.Okay so enough of the setup. Here is why...The definition of morals as they are being discussed here have been claimed to be about social phenomena, and including labels of right and wrong. Yet there are moral proscriptions that have everything to do with nonsocial situations, and some systems have no such concept of right and wrong.A true relativist or subjectivist would not say that the systems which have the greatest logic or are universalizable carry more weight, but simply recognize that there are many other valid systems which can be in play with trade-offs regarding logical rigor and universalizability (among other aspects).Logical CONSISTENCY is important, in order for something to be claimed a system of rules, but that the rules start from a point of logic or must have some logical basis is not. Universalizability is even less important, especially in the way you are using it as you assume the logical validity of your own position.The example you keep using is hetero vs homosexual relationships. You clearly view both types of relationships as identical and so conclude to have a rule system which accepts one but not the other is not to universalize. But that is not true. One can have a system which says that hetero relationships are acceptable as they are the natural (most common) state of affairs, and homosexual relationships are not because they are not the most common and in fact are harmful.Remember even the "golden rule" system can be generalized to IF NO HARM, then it is okay. But what is harm? Okay you have a logical, universalizable rule, but inside that rule you have used a purely subjective concept which itself is like a concept of morality. Harm is very close to "bad".It seems that most social systems derive from personal experiences in culture (that is in interacting with others). When one is growing up one learns, even if not taught, that one does not like to have one's toys taken away by bullies, or have arbitrary punishments enacted on onesself by those in power. Thus the concept of "unfair" and "unjust" emerge as one likes or dislikes the influence of power on outcome in any social interaction.Then there is the cultural element of patent like and dislike of specific things, usually based on familiar/unfamiliar. This is more readily imparted through learning.None of this creates a moral system as you have described: thought out and logical systems involving concepts of "good" and "bad", through an acceptance of a basic social contract. It is merely a personal system of likes and dislikes that while similar between many individuals (and to a greater degree among individuals of a specific culture) are about preference from getting one's feelings hurt or soothed.The only necessary "social contract" coming out of this is basically a political one and not a moral one. If you and I are going to continue to interact we can agree that action A is off limits because we both dislike it. That does not make it morally wrong, but socially sanctioned as "agreed we will not do this".But most people, especially after the rise of organized religion, are not content with merely admitting their rules are based on "feelings", or appeals to common political law. These people create what we call moral systems. They lie somewhere between personal feelings and the law. In essence moral systems (as practiced) are the artificial conflation of personal feelings (or personal ethical systems) to the level of law.I am fine using the terminology which has come out of the rise of "moral systems", but am depressed that very few seem to actually take apart the box to see what it is, and instead try to rationalize its existence as somehow based in reason or some form of truth.Perhaps it is an inherent issue of not wanting to feel irrational, but why not? Why can we not admit that we can be "good" social (civil) beings, even if working from and with rules which stem from personal and so irrational feeling?To my mind realizing this, will be the first step toward undoing the absolutism most people including self-professed relativists practice. Undoing that will go a long way in aiding the actual social contract we have to live under which is political and not moral in nature. Otherwise we do rationalize "culture wars" and give rise to using political systems to fight moral ones.I hope this made sense.To review I think Rouseau has to some effect, and you in specific here, have mistaken naturally arising concepts of reciprocity and social expectation (which naturally give rise to political systems), to be evidence for a necessary and logic based thing called "moral systems".I argue they are not based in logic, but from emotions, primarily the emotion of wanting to say "I am right and you are wrong" so as to make one's personal ethical preferences carry a weight of authority they do not inherently possess over another's system, and thus create a pseudo-political system.Given that we have lived with such concepts for centuries (over a millenia) it is not suprising to feel that they are necessary or have some logical validity. That indeed we can discover logical reasons for rules that actually say "good" or "bad" about an action, and that systems of social rules without such concepts are not moral systems... that people who do not function with concepts as "good" and "bad" are amoral or immoral and will be antisocial elements that must be fought, at the very least as intellectual inferiors incapable of understanding reason and logic and the NECESSITY of having good/bad moral systems.And in addition, after having accepted the concept of good/bad moral systems as a logic driven enterprise, you have made the further mistake of assuming the external validity of some subjective criteria, such as harm and the nature of universalizability.Okay, I hope that was all clear. I look forward to your response. Just remember I didn't mean anything in a mean spirit.

---

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

I wondered what was keeping you ... I'll let Ben decide where he is.Then we can get into the whole {everyone's thoughts are all subjective} issue ... I use the homosexual issue because it is convenient and topical, and easily demonstrates the fallibility of the absolute code. My examples also dealt with the cultural interface between a gay couple and society independant of sexual behavior.But since you raise it, think of this as {Man + "Z" do "V"} where "Z" can be either male or female and "V" is any of a number of variations on sex: as far as I know there is no act that homosexual males can undertake that cannot be (and isn't) done by heterosexual couples.What's harmful about that when "Z" is male but not when "Z" is female?...It seems to me that you are saying morals are {your feelings somehow (mysteriously?) derived}, (which is not much different on the surface from DHA's morals are {your actions}), and I think this also waters {the concept of morals} down too much to be useful. The rules have to be bigger than the person, or the person can just keeps changing {his\her} mind depending on how they (feel?) that day. I think we can agree that morals are culturally dependant. Note that this creates a dichotomy with the {morals is pure logic} position, and let me back up and review what has transpired (and perhaps correct some {mistake\misapprehensions} encountered) along the way.I laid out my take on morality in my first post on this thread Message 60It involves not just a person's {actions\feelings} but how they fit into the culture in which that person is residing. In one sense each person has a different moral code ... the problem comes in when you try to decide who has the better system: is it an {archaic, anachronistic belief}, some {helter-skelter behavior based system}, or some {(perhaps) rational based system}?This is where the pitch for logic and universalizability comes in: judging which system of judgement makes better judgements of which {actions\behaviors} are better.And the fact remains that some form of golden rule has been derived in virtually every human culture (and this in turn reflects on the importance of logic and universalizability in morals even if it is not recognized as such). It may be that the derivation is clouded by informal thought systems or it may just be {evolution\politics\history} acting as a "computer" by trying out and eliminating {bad\ineffective} systems so that what you have left is the same result.But it's more than just feeling good about what you do: "boy I sure showed that {expletive deleted}-{ethnic slur of choice} a thing or two" -- bigotry is not moral by my standards.I'm bagged, and if I don't stop tweaking this I'll never get to bed: enough for tonight. s'okay, I know your style, and know that you did not mean any ill, and none taken.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

But I honestly do not believe you are demonstrating any fallibility with an absolute code, and indeed move on to argue for essentially another absolute code to replace the one you do not agree with. Hopefully the following answers will explain this better... Actually there are things which can be done with two males which cannot be done by a male and female, depending on how you want to look at the situation. And if both guys are uncut there are a couple more.But more important than that, I am certain you can think of something a hetero couple can do that homosexual couples (of either sex) cannot. That is usually where the proscriptions on sexual activity begin, cutting out any but the things that hetero couples can do exclusively.For those not familiar with me, I am not advocating this position, just stating that it does exist and how it may be internally valid, as well as universalizable. This has been the subject of several threads and I (as ironically enough people meaning to support the above question) have shown that people do have the ability to point out "harm" when sexual activity results from homo vs hetero activity.I'm not sure I want to run through everything all over again, but will point you to the threads on the harm of homosexuality, internet porn, child sex, and general porn/prostitution. Harm is a social construct much the same as good or bad. We can always start with defining them as strictly physical in nature as possible, but that is usually not sufficient for most people. And several people, including those who support gay rights have argued that in all cases but homosexuality and interracial sex we must take into consideration societal effects as real harm.To me, I do not see any "harm", but then I am basing my criteria on problems stemming directly from the physical acts being engaged in. That is not the only system available, and as it stands moral proscriptions do not have to be based on harm. That is another point that people seem to be missing. Well I hope it does, since my argument is that most concepts of morality are inaccurate and of little use. I think we'd be better off viewing them as definitions of personal proscriptions regarding social activity, rather than as objective rules regarding the actions of members within a society. This is not true. I know my rules are not bigger than me, and yet I maintain some measure of consistency because that is my nature. I think most people have, or grow into sets of habits which define their nature and so will operate with some consistency regardless of whether there are rules in place "above" them.And conversely, despite moralizing on both sides of the fence here, almost everyone does fluctuate from time to time on the rules. Thus people, though generally consistent, will have deviations from time to time and obviously feel vindicated in those switches. I read your initial post and disagree with it, almost on every level.To begin with I do not think morals are generally a priori rule sets, or even a posteriori thought out rules. I find most moral systems are rationalizations for continued behavior that you happen to like and want to say your way is better than another.The reason I believe this is that you can find the "golden rule" within the animal kingdom, and even within children who have not sat and thought about concepts of morality. That "universal code" is simply a manifestation of practical living between two independent beings. They learn through actions that that is generally the best policy, especially among those of equal power.Of course this is why when an inequality of power develops, the golden rule often flies right out the window. The difference between humans and animals is that we can think about it and vocalize the principle. That does not make it an objective reality nor something "above" the individual. What it is, is a definition of a principle that most find useful and to be consistent... just.However, in vying for power, people have also added the ability to argue for morality which is not just a definition, but a way of advertising their own feelings as being superior to others. It is no longer that people need to act as civil entities, but that they must be moral entities which means doing what I like to do.The only thing that I see as proper in judging the "worthiness" of a moral system, is its level of consistency. And that is only because if it is not consistent, then it is simply not a system. Oh yes and factual issues. If someone's system is based on factual errors, then there are flaws to that system.After that there is no real better or worse, except to the individual based on personal tastes. You can appeal to others based on taste, but that is different than saying one has a "better" logic or "better" outcome, such that people should switch. Internal logic yes, but besides that systems that happen to involve more logic are not necessarily better (take a look at Kant for that), and universalizability is simply your preference and not an objective rule for anything.My own moral system contains no concepts of good or bad, it is a virtue/vice system (not to mistake that as anything close to good/bad labelling) and allows for a vast array of human decisions and preferences and habits that cannot be universalized, especially based on specific actions. In my system, which is derived from ancient pagan and some eastern philosophy, context is more important than nature of action. It is not evolution, but rather the adaptation of two or more independent systems finding a practical solution to actions between them. It reduces conflict and improves general comfort. But as I said that is when power is relatively balanced or the difference unknown.Once power is out of balance new rules need to come into play. The golden rule as a steady rule may more or less be the understanding of entities that over time power balance will fluctuate and so maintaining reciprocity in the face of one's own superior position, is advantageous to all.I hope that didn't come across as saying it is out of greed. I don't agree much with the "selfish gene" theory. I mean it as a foresight for maintaining status quo. But it is certainly moral. After an incident where one or one's identified group has been attacked, it certainly is moral to have exacted some measure of reprisal and feel good about it.Would it not have been moral to have felt really great if Bush was voted out of office, to say "we sure showed those ignorant self-serving antiamerican fundamentalist idealogues a thing or two"?Indeed having shown them the door would have been quite a moral victory (honesty, liberty, justice), in my view point. I might have even said it was good, real goooooooooood.

---

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

fyiI have to be away for a couple days and will not be able to answer for a while.

My own appearances here may be sporadic, with gaps of up to a week at a time. Take your time.

---

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

ok. I copied your post so I can work on it off line.

okay, I'm back. never found time to work on this so I'll just have to wing it (again). The failure of absolute codes is not in the codes but in the adoption of them. Thus when a code starts out by saying "you shall have no other gods but me" anyone who doesn't believe in the particular faith (and some that do, but don't like the attitude ) will turn to some other source.I don't argue for a specific code per se so much as a way to {view\understand} what works, what doesn't work and why. This misses the point that supposed "moral" prohibitions against homosexual marriage are based on actions that heterosexual couples engage in with equal indulgence and pleasure. having a family home is not just about getting pregnant and having kids, nor should government {programs\benefits\restrictions} make any distinction between people based on what and who they do in the privacy of their own bed. Being universalizable alone is not enough, imho. It is the lack of universalizability that renders views immoral. This is begining to diverge off topic into other issues, but is the harm from the sex or the other aspects of the relationships, particularly where exploitation is involved? Sure post the links to the other threads and perhaps I can catch up to where you are on this issue. Now if you want to say poorly articulated and ill-thought out partial concepts accepted without question are innaccurate and of little use, I'd have to agree... but I don't think you can get away with it. When you take it that far you're left with personal opinions and no {system\rational\methodology} to pick what works from what doesn't. The problems with this are1) {humanity} is a social species dependent on normative intersocial behavior to reduce individual stress and tensions. laws are inappropriate for this2) people do have values (whether they are red or blue state folks) and just won't accept it not being of any importance to the way they live.3) there are relative differences and order of magnitude differences between some values and otherscertainly the fact there is a whole branch of philosophy that deals with the concepts and methodology of morals would indicate that it is a system of relative importance to people. Really? Have you ever tried to do something that is really against your {code\morals\ethic} of behavior as an experiment? fluctuation about a norm, but not wholesale abrogation of their way of life. I've often pondered how different morality would be for different species, especially non-social ones. Then the {social context} becomes more a relation of {self} to {ecosystem} by default. Funny, for some reason that to me says universalizability ... the consistency of application to all similar situations. an admitted immoral heathen? :shock: actually methinks you protest with much ado, as I cannot say (at this point) what the difference is. we also have the issue of altruistic behavior, and the fact that game theory in general and John Nash in particular demonstrate that it is ultimately more productive than selfish behavior in social groups. We also see altruistic behavior in animals (beyond your observation of golden rule behavior). I think you underestimate the ability of evolution to act as a sorting mechanism on behavioral patterns, which makes it a (possibly crude but effective over long periods of time) computer looking for the most efficient pattern. So it's moral to beat up people that just offend you by the way they look? If that is the reason for doing it, no. Feeling great and feeling moral are not the same, and "feeling moral" doesn't make it so either. and equality and the great American way. But that is because those universalized moral values would have been validated.enough for now. pax

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

First of all, I believe the only real moral rule in most religions is "obey", the rest are more or less temporarily invoked subrules and not absolutes. This is quite clear in the Bible with changing rules systems based on God's faith in man.In any case, the above is actually a support for my own position. I said internal consistency and factual error are the only possible sources of criticism of a moral system. You just gave an example of a factual error, at the very least a perceived factual error. For those that do not like the attitude, that would not lessen the validity. One can decide to do bad, or reject good. I'm sorry but this is wholly errant. It is simply arguing from your conclusion. For those opposed to homosexuality most view a family home as a man and woman having, or at least trying to have, kids. It is obvious that the Bible is using procreation as a center for moral proscription on sexual activity. Remember, it does not just condemn homosexuality.Indeed even in the ancient past which accepted homosexual acts, they did NOT under any circumstance view those relationships as family "home". Having kids was extremely important and if you want to talk about universals, that is exactly what is found across cultures and time.It is only in the very recent past that we have gays trying to complete their version of the traditional "home", by getting married and "having" kids.And as far as whether the gov't should do anything, that is a totally separate subject which I think you already know what I feel. This appears to be contradictory. But in any case the role of "universalizability" as a factor in judging moral systems is simply a subjective criteria. As far as I am concerned I don't see its utility at all, and you have not provided any logic or evidence in support of this besides saying what you like. You are confusing your desires with reality. There is no practical, nor logical necessity for there to be moral proscriptive systems based on some uber-reason. You are simply describing the role of personal taste and social custom, generating from personal experience and learning to interact with fellow beings. In your reply you never dealt with my counterexamples of other social animals not requiring thought out moral systems to function. There is also a field of aesthetics (rules for beauty) and metaphysics (what is beyond the physics) and my guess is the fact that both can involve supernatural (or psychological/spiritual) elements does not suggest to you that they are of relative importance and true.Yeah, I think lots of people find proscriptive moral systems important, that is what philosophy has been consumed with since religion became so important to creating the rules from outside human life.If you look at philosophy before or outside that framework, you will find that the field of "morality" is/was a descriptive one. Mine is a descriptive one. Of course, but now I can't because there is no such a thing as "against" my code. All acts are moral acts, simply defining your moral character. My habits, which I am less likely to defy, are what will ultimately shape my moral character.I think you are confusing habitual nature of humans (based on personal taste), with a real system of Moral values which have some logical reason for existence.Let me make this plain, you cannot get from a set of facts and logic to an "ought" or a "good" conclusion. That is simply not possible. Somewhere along the line there will have to be a premise which is based on personal taste, or social custom which gives thumbs up or down for something and is not objective. Make no mistake, when I discuss consistency, I am not coming close to your concept of universalizability. A system must be consistent with itself and NOT with what you feel counts as consistency when applied to the world as you see it. I ran through my system a long time ago at EvC and I am tired of repeating myself. Its not your fault you didn't see it, but I am not going to restart now.Lets just say that virtues and vices in their original context, not after being adapted to ideas of sin, where descriptive in nature. It was not bad to have a vice and indeed it would be somewhat inhuman not to have one. Some are even necessary from time to time. If you want to understand more check into moral philosophy by pagans (real ancient ones), or some of the recent revivals of pagan religions.I believe at Wikipedia you can see and example under "Asatru". Look at the tenets section of the page where it discusses the difference in its moral system from most modern systems. Perhaps I do underestimate it. That is as it should be as a scientist. I see no reason to invoke evolution in moral psychology when adaptation during ones life is all that is necessary. I had been debating an evolutionary psychologist on this matter in the thread titled "evo-psych the third outrage of evolution" or some such nonsense that another poster had started.I find evo-psych to be like ID but appealing to evolution instead of a a God, in order to grant it legitimacy. If you have any evidence that evolution has controlled human psychology at the moral level then I'm all open to it. In my system, yes. It defines your moral character. My guess is that in most cases it would display ignorance and injustice. That is not equivalent to being "wrong".Wrong or criminal would come from the laws we have constructed together. If we have no laws in place that would proscribe it, then it would be allowed but personally against my taste and I woud find it offensive. I would likely fight such a thing because that is my moral character.On top of that I am unsure what the utility of such an action would be, but not being a utilitarian, cannot move from that to a moral conclusion.

---

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

so any time a couple gets married where they know that one or the other is infertile fits this view how? certainly marriage of elderly people when there is no longer even a faint hope (to say nothing of no desire) to have kids has been around as long as the bible and other fonts of moral wisdom. meanwhile sex is certainly in the picture.you can also have households of spinster sisters or of bachelor brothers, another ancient tradition, where sex is not necessarily involved (although it is not ruled out either).I could also introduce you to the Na of china, where the house is run solely by the woman and men are but temporary visitors.
Page not found - MIT Press
(google on "A Society without Fathers or Husbands, The Na of China" for more)Then there are all the {multiple partner} forms of households that are also well known from times past (and where homosexual behavior between the multiples of the same sex would not necessarily be prohibited), and the single parent homes (where one would hope sex is not involved)all of this goes to say that a household is not defined by sex, or by the ability to have kids. think of it as {all (A) is (B)} does not mean {all (B) is (A)}. and it seems to me pretty objective whether a principle can be applied to all people equally or has {{in group}vs{out group}} problems. and yet "moral proscriptive systems" are a facet of human society that is (ahem) universal ... whether they are based on "uber-reason" or not.but again I am not proposing a system of morals, but a way of looking at them to see how valid they are. In this regard our positions may not be that different, except that I feel that some can be valid while it appears you don't. yeah, syamsu started that one and I saw no reason to participate having just finished going around with him on probability.depends on the evo-psych, imho: some of it (more recent stuff) is based on testable hypothesis, and thus it has a big step ahead vs ID. I don't dismiss it, but I am skeptical.It seems to me that if I try to summarize the essential difference between us, If that is so then I do not see any way to either reconcile one with the other or to reach any conclusion other than personal opinions.Fair nuff?ps -- I took a lot out of this as it seemed to be wheel spinning, and even the use of more colors to amuse adminmoose wouldn't help.enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I am more than well aware of all of the examples you gave and have used some of them before in other debates (usually regarding political issues). They really have no bearing on the subject at hand.A "family" is traditionally viewed as parents and natural offspring. Certainly that is exactly what marriage was constructed for and not around ideas of simply reassuring people's emotional commitments. You can see that in abundance in history if you look back through cultures at marriage and family, including ones that were fully accepting of gays.If you are not aware of this then you need to go back to research. While one could have gay relationships that were accepted, and even to some extent socially sanctioned as special, they almost uniformly (there are no exceptions I know of) do not count that as "family" and indeed the partners usually end up forming "families" with separate partners of opposite sex to grow that "family home". In Greek society for example it was common for male lovers to help pick out the wife of their partner. The lovers did not have a "family" or "home" of their own.If you want to talk about modern developments in ways of thinking about family, or variations based on emotional needs (due to societal rules), that is something else entirely. As it stands, infertile couples could try to have kids, and elderly people usually already have them and so join families. Whether the first try, or the latter do not have is irrelevant. The question is where does the concept come from, and in this context the traditional concept.Thus both your many of your examples fit what I was talking about, though I might point out that infertiliy is usually discovered after marriage and has been a common reason for ending marriages. It doesn't take much reflection to realize that marriage and the original concept of family was not centered on "two people in love" without chance of or already having had children.Like I said though, modern concepts can be different. Indeed you do not see me arguing they cannot or should not change. But to not recognize the traditional concept and what it originated from seems a bit disengenuous. I do not see why you are not understanding that you are creating a rule which is not necessary, nor even something which causes a problem.Sexual moralists certainly can say that their rules are applying to all people. No matter who you are, one should not be having sex with same sex partners, as well as engaging in sexual acts which do not allow for procreation. That is a rule which does apply to everyone.The only problem is for homosexuals who have an extremely limited sexual appetite, they will... by no fault of the rule... have their preferred sexual activities proscribed.If we were to follow your logic then a rule against anal sex would be "wrong" because it would not be universal to gays or straights who happen to only like anal sex, or that proscriptions against eating meat are "wrong" because they are not universal to those who only like to eat meat.I am not sure if you have read Kant, but he essentially tried this universalizability thing with his moral theory and its been pretty well disassembled as it leads to no rules. One cannot universalize in a way that is acceptable or usable to all.About the only thing which is universalizable is do as thou will. The idea that proscriptive moral systems are universal or necessary is simply not true and I even pointed to where you could find one counterexample and there are more. Certainly if monotheism had not gained in popularity, proscription would not be so common as it is now. The only objective criteria for judging "validity", which may only require a fix and not act as a refutation, is internal consistency and factual accuracy. There is no objective necessity for universalizability.Maybe I should give a more concrete example of why this is so. Morals, specifically proscriptive ones, are as you have pointed out about interaction within a group. But there is no reason why a moral system must be usable by all groups and good reasons for some groups to have additional moral rules.Monks in a monastery are still part of the Christian faith as a whole, and society at large, but they do require (or it is valid if they enact) moral rules not common to either larger community because they have a unique identity and nature which might call for different proscriptions (for example silence at all times except prayer and certain business functions).Families tend to build their own moral systems, such as orders for who uses the bathroom and for how long, or how privacy is defined that others should not violate it, or even that the females will do one set of chores while the males do another.Business offices will build their own moral systems regarding privacy and nature of conversations (for example it is taboo to discuss what you earn, or ask others about it).The idea that any of these systems would, or could, apply to everyone else is absurd on its face. There are reasons for the different rules because of the different nature of the social entity. To claim they are "wrong" or "immoral" because they can't be used by everyone else appears equally absurd.That is exactly how the larger moral systems came into being, and for Judeo-Xian tenets that is pretty explicit in their scripture. They created rules which were just for them and were used to identify them as separate from other cultures around them. Indeed some Biblical scholars have suggested the homosexual proscription was possibly just to identify them as separate from the Canaanites. Thus an analogy to monks forming their moral system within the larger society is an apt one.Xians are currently trying to claim that the US is a Xian nation and so should embody those moral proscriptions. I would dispute that as well as whether laws should have any connection to moral systems in the first place (in the US anyway). But I cannot simply say their system is invalid because it is not universalizable. Check out the last few posts in the thread between me and Parsimonious Razor. It started late in the thread and focused on the research itself. I have done a bit of research on it now (in fact my gf is in psychology and coincidentally had to research it at the same time so I got a bit of info) and see no difference between that and ID. The claims are circular and not testable in any objective fashion. It is deductive and not inductive.The fact that PR jumped out, and it wasn't because debate became too charged, just like ID proponents has not helped me change my opinion. Again, I disagree. Kind of interesting that we are so far apart on this topic, as we are usually pretty close. I suspect that you have formulated your position without enough research into moral philosophy.The idea that moral systems must have a "utility" which can be judged objectively (especially by comparison) is itself errant. There are teleological and deontological moral systems, deontological systems pretty well defy utility, or comparative utility. In fact one is essentially using a teleological system to judge a deontological system to make the statement you did, which shows the nature of its circularity.So I think your position, even if accurate to what you believe, is errant.You also did not get my position correct. I am a relativist and believe that no moral system can be judged as objectively right or wrong, or even useless.Specific systems can be checked and perhaps refuted based on internal inconsistencies (for example "it is bad to kill", and then with no other rule also say "it is good to kill"), or factual inaccuracies.They may have function and so some measure of utility to a group, and that I do not deny. I can even accept and do form some moral rules within small groups with which I will work for a long period of time, that are beyond the natural taste/social convention that every relationship forms (i.e. the golden rule kind of thing).I do find proscriptive moral systems, outside of a religious or authoritarian structures, unnecessary and unnatural. That is they are rather artificial as they do not reflect the fluid nature of human existence and action. Certainly good and evil are not objectively real, and the fact that most people have come to accept this codification of action, has had detrimental effects in understanding and dealing with other humans rationally.That doesn't make such systems wrong, only what I said... artificial and not useful to the extent they are being applied. The rise of fundamentalism seems to me almost a mental illness, where people require codified thought and action, rather than using their own brain.In any case, I do like older moral systems that are descriptive and not proscriptive. They are not very utilitarian in the sense of allowing one to bash another's beliefs and actions, but they are useful in trying to understand the difference between one's character and another.{edited to make it cleaner and remove some smarmy throwaway comments}This message has been edited by holmes, 05-05-2005 08:41 AM

---

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

This still does not get around the issue of making {legal\political} distinctions between people based on behavior that is essentially assumed to exist in some situations and not in others.The issue of {family} and {lineage} are different issues than the one of defining households based on marriages and restricting rights of some people versus others because of a bad and totally irrelevant assumption. This is no different than laws that used to say that no black could own property, that no woman could own propertyThe issue of {family} and {lineage} are different issues from each other as well. What is the special legal significance given to {bastards - traditional meaning} as opposed to any "legal" children? Thus the concept of "family" can be exclusive of children as well.I prefer a more inclusive family as {your genetic relations and who you chose to live with} regardless of legal (mis)conventions. The {who you chose to live with} part is the only component that is not genetic (up or down link), nor is it specifically one sex or the other. After all it is entirely possible to be gay and have children. A second marriage that has no {issue from that union} then is no different whether the people are of the same sex or not.Lineage is all about maintaining power within an acceptable {in-group} population more than it is about having children, and yet this is really the legal background for marriage being licensed by governments. We can't have bastards inheriting property or wanting to see a dying {parent\lover\child} in the hospital ... after all, what would the Hyacinth Buckets ("pronounced Bouquet") think! Again this comes down to a difference in base concept, whether comparing moral values from one system to another is valid. If you do not accept it as valid then any basis for comparison "is not necessary, nor even something which causes a problem" eh? All I am asking is that if a system purports to apply to everyone then it needs to treat any individual the same as all others are treated. Why should there be any proscription on behavior that does not {involve\affect} anyone but the participants who enter into it willingly? In this regard I have no problem with people who smoke as long as I am not subject to unacceptable levels of the by-products. They have now banned smoking in all restaurants and bars here, and I think this is unnecessarily restrictive. Ah, you missed an ("ahem" intentional ) equivocation on the definition of universal ... but, "simply not true" is a bit over reaching isn't it? Are you saying there are societies (not individual socio-paths) that have no moral systems? Or are you arguing that I am arguing for proscriptive systems? This is just the issue of "club rules" -- rules that members of the club agree to abide by while being an active member of the club. Again these rules are universally applicable to the {club membership} and accepted as such. You can also have a smoking club where it is (morally?) acceptable to smoke in the presence of others.This same issue holds for all Christians choosing to live by Christian values. In fact anyone can chose to live by more restrictive rules than any {social\club} group that they participate in. The point is that the club rules cannot be imposed on people that are not members of the club.It is when you define the club to ostensibly include everyone within {society\nation\world\universe} that you need to have rules that treat each individual as equals. The individuals have to be willing members for the club rules to be accepted. So you say that pointing out where such systems are invalid for other people is not a valid argument against the imposition of an anachronistic Xian system? Seems to me the argument is stronger that the values are not applicable to everyone. Yes, interesting. I don't claim to be an expert on the topic, and you could well have the "research" edge on me in that regard. But I have not seen anything yet to question the usefulness of evaluating various moral systems based on their degree of applicability to all people in society. Apologies. But that still leaves us with an irreconcilable difference in this regard. Yet on this we do agree. I also find proscriptive moral systems based on {assumptions that have no bearing on reality} to be unnecessary and unnatural. And artificial. Darn, now I can't respond in kind ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I think there would be some ability for people to argue the non universality of definitions in legal situations, but in this case I'd be a proponent of not making distinctions. Therefore I don't want to get into a debate on it.My main issue was with moral systems, not legal or political ones. The conception of family and marriage in specific has always always always throughout culture and history been about parents and offspring. There have been legal and political definitions which deal with outlier cases (bastards/adoptions, etc), but none (throughout culture and history) have extended to gay relationships. That is because laws have been concerned with defining family with an eye toward lineage for purposes of rights and property. Then you are for a change in the conception of family. That's fine. I'd even support that position. The point is that you cannot claim it is anything but a product of recent initiatives on that subject. You have been seeming to appeal to some history of this, and it just does not extend further back than last century.And I'll tell ya why. Up until last century (well the 1890's actually) religion and legal dogma restricted sex based on reproduction because of moral concerns. Those who did not believe in the religion or religious dogma did not feel the need to have to go through the blatantly religious ritual of sanctifying their sexual relationship.But with the victorian movement and more importantly the early feminist movement which accepted Xian patriarchal victorian sexual mores as real, suddenly people who had no truck with religion viewed sex as objectively existing (even outside religion) as religious dogma stated, needing ritual sanction.This is why we now have people arguing monogamy is natural and has some evolutionary basis, despite universal counterexamples, and a gay movement which cares about attaining a religious dogma based name, rather than legal rights. We have to remember where this debate started. You were saying that morals are based in reason and logic and required some thing (or could be judged by) "universalizability". I challenged your assessment in its entirety.First, proscriptive moral systems are wholly subjective. You simply cannot get from a list of facts and logicall rules, to an "ought" or a "good/evil" conclusion. Thus they are not based in logic or reason and need not be universalizable. Only if you can prove that one can reach a proscriptive moral rule (even one) from a series of facts and logical rules, then you will have saved your position. Otherwise it is remains challenged/refuted.Second, logic dictates that two subjective systems cannot objectively assess each other outside of states of fact and states of logic. Thus for one system to call another system "worse", other than on those criteria, is to use a circular argument.Third, universalizability cannot exist as a criteria as you have set it up. That is you seem to be ignoring that you are picking and choosing what counts as a universal rule through subjective definitions.The first two wholly refute your position and impede your ability to move further, the third does in a conditional sense. You could fix it, but with the first two points in place there really seems no point. However I will go on to show why the third is problematic in a conditional sense... Your prime example, moral proscriptions against homosexuality, do apply to everyone and I was sad to see you not address my point within your latest reply.Once again, the rule is that everyone must refrain from sex which is nonprocreative (or potentially nonprocreative). How is that not universal? That it impacts one group more than another because one group has more tendency to do such a thing does not make the rule less universalizable, only that in its universal application some may feel the impact of that rule more than others.This would be the true even if the rule was not about nonprocreative sex and strictly limited to homosexual sex. It is universal in that it applies to all. That one group feels its impact to a greater extent does not make it less universalizable. You ended up moving into legality, and I want us to avoid that completely. Discussions of morality or moral systems are entirely separate from political/legal discussions.As far as morality goes, since all proscriptive moral systems are based on subjective tastes (at least one premise), there is no reason why they cannot effect issues that do not effect others.Suicide, at least by a person that has no friends or family, would definitely not affect others, and yet an individual may not commit suicide due to a moral rule that it is not right. Others might also appeal to suicide contemplators not to do so based on such moral rules.Just because YOU don't feel that such rules are necessary does not mean there is a validity in judging other systems as lesser because they contain such rules. They are merely different and not preferred by you. Others might find them appealing and they could be just as right.I also wish you had addressed my examples, most especially vegetarian rules. Are vegetarians "wrong"? Yes there are societies that function/have functioned without any moral systems in the meaning of "moral" that we commonly use today which is a proscriptive moral system. They did not conceive of right/wrong or good/evil as we do today.I am also under the impression that you are advocating a proscriptive system. Not only the use of one to guide behavior, but with the capability of judging other systems. Your argument was purely semantic hair-splitting. What you call "club rules" are moral systems.You are correct in pointing out that moral systems (AKA club rules) cannot logically be imposed on members that have not accepted the system. That is because moral systems are subjective and so only applicable to subjective members. That is the position of a relativist.Only an absolutist can argue that moral systems exist in an objective sense, can be detected by humans, and thus can be applied to everyone. I have yet to see any absolutist make their case, particularly the second point. I have to begin questioning whether you have read the Bible. It is quite clear that the proscriptions were for Jews and later Xians and later still Muslims. In no case did they demand that other faiths or societies adhere to those values.Any system in heavy competition were viewed as threats and so open to elimination, including outright genocide, but otherwise the Bible is clear where and how the rules apply... including how to interact with others who live outside the system.They do believe these are objective statements by the one and only TRUE GOD, and so the only absolute and true moral rules (or rule as I have argued), but they recognize that others may not recognize this truth.There are even examples in the Bible of God allowing people to slip away and practice their own systems of belief, deriding them for following a wrong path and so losing his protection. And really that seems to be the key, if you want his protection, you need to be part of his club, and that means following his rules.The legal issues we are facing today is a result of most people, including atheists, believing that laws must come from morality, and that moral systems are real and can be judged. Thus we have struggle over which morality the gov't should reflect. Again you seem to be arguing legal vs moral systems. Yes, in the case of moral systems pointing out that A's moral rules are not acceptable to B is not a valid argument against A's system. That is disappointing because I thought I had made it quite clear. In fact just looking at the above sentence makes me squirm (as a strict logician).To say that a moral system can be judged "useful" is to say that you have a moral system regarding moral systems. It is a teleological one and utilitarian at that. That is circular in that you are assuming all of your positions are true. They are not.To say that "usefulness" is based on degree of applicability is even more astounding to me. What moral system is capable of being applied to all? I have already shown how systems develop and they are group and individual specific.Indeed I am curious what rules you feel are applicable to all morally? I honestly can't think of one. Great then maybe I have a foothold. Your assumptions that:1) moral systems can contain no subjective premise,2) that they can have their moral worth be judged by an objective teleological standard, and...3) that applicability to all is objectively possible,have no bearing on reality.I am not asking you to just take my word for it because I have quite a bit of education and time invested in researching this topic. However, based on the above, I am telling you that I have set out some serious objective (logic based) challenges which you have not met, and if you do not see them then it is not simply an issue of agreeing to disagree.I suppose it could be that I am not writing clearly enough, but I doubt it as Ihave written these things before and been understood. It appears more likely you are not investing the time necessary to understand the arguments I am making and stick with logic to understand how they impact your position. Or maybe you just don't want to see it?In no uncertain terms, your position is not logically tenable. Proscriptive morals require an evaluative premise and that is always subjective in nature. Thus proscriptive moral systems are by nature not required to be, nor expected to be applicable to all.Only if one believes in Gods, whose subjective opinions are considered objective for anything they have created or protect, and further argue that these evaluations can be clearly known by humans, can one begin to discuss an objective comparison of the "rightness" of another moral system.

---

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

I'm only going to reply to three parts here: Again, I am not arguing for {a\any} proscriptive system, and why you keep hammering on this is beyond me.let me also point out that my first statement on this topic (Message 60) was: This is not claiming that all morals are "are based in reason and logic and required some thing (or could be judged by) 'universalizability'"Rather it is claiming that such systems are possible, and more likely to be developed for those not tied up by some proscriptive system. this is not my assumption at all. most of your argument here is based on a fundamental misreading of my position. And that too is not my position. Rather my position is that proscriptive systems will fall short of universal applicability by their nature.As I said before, the only difference I can see between your position and mine is that I think it is valid to compare moral systems and to work for realization of a better system, and (if I read you right) you don't.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Something is starting to happen here which I do not like. I am loathe to accuse someone of conveniently switching a position, but that is what I am feeling is happening here. It is either that, or you are using terminology haphazardly and so creating a miscommunication.I will assume the latter. Let's start be redefining things...A proscriptive moral system is any system which produces labels such as right/wrong, good/bad, good/evil, etc etc. It is a system designed to guide the action of actors through proscriptive means.A descriptive moral system produces labels such as just/unjust, hedonistic/ascetic, worldly/pious, etc etc. It is a system designed to describe the actor's moral character so as to understand what kind of individual (s)he is and what they are likely to do in a given situation. It offers guidance to an actor only by allowing the actor to understand the nature of a choice they are facing. Neither option is more right than another though one may say in general that the virtues are preferable, more likely to succeed as a habit, than the vices. Indeed many actions contain a mix of virtues and vices in context and so never easily viewed as a statement of "do this" or "don't do that".You say you are not arguing for a proscriptive system, and while it may be that you are not arguing for a particular proscriptive system, you do seem to be saying that proscriptive systems are the BASIS for human interaction... and that means you are advocating proscriptive systems. You are granting them greater credibility than they actually have. This is what I have been fighting. I want to point out that your first post on this, and most following posts, and indeed why I was drawn into ths debate was your subthread title: "real morality based on reason, logic and universalizability".If your argument is that real morality is not based on reason, logic, and universalizability, that choice of title was a bit odd. Can you explain the apparent discrepency? Without question that flavored my reading of your arguments. This statement is what made me think you are haphazardly using definitions. Your initial quote was about proscriptive moral systems being used by everyone, and their role as a basis for human interaction. Now here you say that they are more likely to be developed by people not tied up by some proscriptive system? This makes no sense.Perhaps the mistake you are making is reading proscriptive as "a priori assumed true". Thus, and this could be true, certain theists are hindered in creating or supporting other proscriptibe systems ("rational behavior and the ethics and morality that can be logically derived from first principles and the rule of universality") because they have an a priori belief that their's is the only truth.In any case, I think you need to make you position more clear. If there is a miscommunication going on regarding the requirement of a subjective premise, I posit that the mistake has to be on your end. These three comments:1) real morality based on reason, logic and universalizability2) rational behavior and the ethics and morality that can be logically derived from first principles and the rule of universality3) Man is a social animal, and morality is the basis for his interaction with other people.and your avid defense of "universalizability" as a concept, combine to form a pretty clear argument for morality as a necessity in general, and proscriptive systems as the only moral systems in specific.Certainly #3 is patenty untrue for descriptive moral systems (they cannot guide interaction so cannot be the basis of interaction), and as I have argued untrue about real life as it pertains to proscriptive moral systems... we don't need them to get along. This also supports my view that you are misusing terminology. You have clearly been arguing that moral systems must be universal, or that they can be measured by degree of universalizability. Now you are damning proscriptive systems as unable to be applicable universally? That's my line. This makes no sense. How can you claim that no system can be universalizable (and so all are faulty), and then say yoy think they can be compared?There really is a huge distance between my position and yours. Mine is not just that I don't think you can compare systems and work for better ones. Mine is that they are inherently incomparable as they are wholly subjective and in the end NOT the basis of human interaction at all. How you can make a subjective and immaterial system "better" is not exactly a practical concern.If you think that a "better" moral system (which guides action) can be had, then you are supporting proscriptive moral systems. At that point all of my criticisms of your position hit home.I truly hope you understand this. I have liked several of your efforts on other topics, and am only trying to point out some rather large holes in this one. It is essentially fatally flawed. The fact that you keep shrugging my comments off as a slight difference with your position is only telling that there is some large measure of miscommunication occuring.

This is why I went back to my original posts to see where you got the ideas you seem to be arguing against. I don't believe I have changed positions, I do feel you have misunderstood some of it and it has colored your response. If the miscommunication error is my fault I accept responsibility for it. To me a proscriptive system is a sytem that proscibes actions with no overt reference to the acts being good or bad: "thou shalt not covent the {servants\slaves\underlings\etc} of thy neighbor" does not say what is good or even what is bad. I also note that in one of Ben's replies he compared my comments to a prescriptive system as opposed to a proscriptive one. I really do not see how you get here from my position. I use examples from proscriptive systems because they are targets: "thou shalt not covet thy neighbors ass" is hilarious to most people not only because of the sexual innuendo, but because even if a neighbor did in fact happen to own an Equus asinus they most likely wouldn't covet it ...... assuming they even knew what it was. heh, the use of "real" was to provoke some of the more fundamental leaning members of the forum to join the debate. the title's the "hook" to draw responses. but I would think the actual words in the posts would be more important to actually describing the position.that you can adopt an archaic belief system from a time when people didn't know about trichinosis, or that you can use the reasoning ability of a normal (moderately educated 'modern' type) human to know there is nothing immoral about eating pork, especially if cooked properly.it also does not say that {all morality} = {based on reason, logic, and universalizability}nor is it any kind of {proscriptive statement} as far as I can see.it does speak to the point that moral values that are derived by reason, logic and universability are more likely to be accepted by others (that can understand the derivations). that is where you move away from superstitions and bigotry. Certainly there has been some misunderstanding, and it is quite possible that I am using terminology in more of a {general definition} sense while you are applying a more {esoteric\studied\structured\layered} meaning due to a greater familiarity with the topic. If so I apologize for being an undereducated bumkin.Enough for now. ps -- it's my line ... {{fixed ubb codeThis message has been edited by RAZD, 05*10*2005 08:22 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}