RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
It is simply impossible to have pre-made moral opinions about every possible situation (which is an infinity). And even if it were possible, you would still change them because you never experienced all the situations before and thus didn't have enough information to make your moral opinion at the time.
All of that makes my ethics situational, not relative. You are missing the distinction. Analogy: mathematical principles do not change. Different principles apply to different problems (or can be misapplied), but the principles themselves do not change. Even our understanding of them might change, but no matter how many people form a consensus that 2+2=5, it doesn't, it still =4.
Consensuses change over time. They are NOT absolute.
I didn't claim that consensus doesn't change. I pointed out that YOU claimed that laws should be based on consensus or else they are not valid. Your claim is an example of a moral principle stated as an absolute. I am illustrating that while you claim to be a moral relativist, you keep making absolute moral claims.
Moral absolutists that claim that the bible is the basis for their absolute morals must explain why they don't consider all the moral laws of the bible valid (such as the morality of slavery or the inferiority of women). Or more generally, why the reasons for not choosing certain laws (such as classifying them into "types") are not subjective and thus random and NOT absolute.
You cannot read or hear words at all without subjectively interpreting them. That interpretation is subjective does not also mean that it is random. Moreover, that people must subjectively interpret a text has no implications for that text's accuracy or factuality. You or I could probably read an upper-level quantum mechanics text (or if you're a quantum physicist, a text on neuroscience--if you're a quantum physicist neuroscientist, I am much mistaken), subjectively interpret it (correctly figuring out the author's intended content, or not) and that would have no bearing on the factual basis of the text itself.
To put it to a point, I classify the laws of the Bible into different categories because I have studied it with a view toward Biblical and literary criticism--like every other Bible scholar, even secular ones. Do I have a PhD in Biblical studies? No, but I do have half a lifetime of Christian practice and study. Even that isn't required to be able to figure out what the book says.
@ Samnell: Excellent post. I think Alch may be conflating descriptive relativism with meta-ethical relativism. I'm not arguing descriptive relativism. I am arguing for a meta-ethical absolute. However, since we disagree about what that meta-ethical absolute actually is (and whether or not it even exists) we can, and should, talk about normative relativism. For me, it has a direct bearing on things like, "should the U.S. intervene in foreign genocides?"
But what if one is running a gigantic international conspiracy to ...Does size matter? (and yes, I realize how that sounds.)
Or amount? etc. Is it then morally ok to rape once? (I think I know your stance on this, but you are making it sound more like it's the size of the crime that matters more.)
The description had more to do with the actual example I had in mind, which I'm sure you can figure out. I would say that it's not, generally speaking, ok to rape once. But it's even more not ok to rape twice and so on. Not all wrongs (or rights) are created equal. If we must choose only between the two options I'd prefer the one-time rapist to the serial rapist and the serial rapist to Child Rape International. They all suck and I'd rather choose none, though.
I am not a moral absolutist on the matter because it's trivial for me to think up scenarios where a single rape, or more, would be at least arguably better than the alternative. (We know with perfect certainty that if we do not permit it then everybody will be tortured forever, for example.) Those scenarios are unlikely to ever come up, but the fact that I can conceive of one pops the absolute for me. If it were really an absolute, it should be impossible to even conjure a legitimate exception as a thought experiment.
I see the goal of morality as seeking the greatest good for the greatest many. The rest is largely a matter of expediency, which really shrinks the moral universe quite a lot. The only issue in human sexuality that warrants any moral notice is informed consent, for example.
|
I mean even the most hardcore christian fundamentalists wouldn't support the death penalty for adultery (I hope).I'm not seeing that prescription in the New Testament -- can you provide a reference? Remember, Christians believe that everything post-Christ is a new covenant with God, which supersedes the rules in the Old Testament (if I understand it correctly). Citing rules in the Old Testament as "proof" that Christians aren't following the Bible is a canard on the same order as Creationists asking "if we cam from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Both are inadvertent straw men based on near-total ignorance of the other side's viewpoint: "Watch me rebut something you're not saying!"
For newcomers to the thread, I understand you don't feel like reading thousands of previous posts, but assume that we've covered the most glaringly obvious topics like theodicy, the age of the earth, evolution vs. creation, the Old Testament vs. the New, etc.
There is so many issues I have with the last several pages. I shall bow out of this conversation until, well we stop going around this particular circle again and again.
Plus Moff and you have more then adequately covered anything useful I would have added anyway.
I even agree with some of what Samnell has written. Not all, but some.
|
|
It seems to me that "criminal" laws derive from certain morals, specifically to prevent punishments from outweighing the crime.Crime: A guy grows some plants in his backyard (or closet).
Punishment: Guy spends 7 years being raped in a max-security prison. When he gets out, he is not permitted to hold down a job, for the rest of his life, because of background checks.Yeah, no way that punishment outwieghs the crime.
Or did you mean "criminal laws SHOULD derive from ... , but sadly, they don't"? In the latter case, I'd agree.
Well, the guy growing some plants doesn't spend any time in a max security prison, or do much time, unless he's in such liberal, open minded states as New York or Michigan. In bad, evil, conservative Texas the guy will probably do six months at a minimum security place like Jester I in Sugarland. And, unlike in New York or Michigan, he'll have his voting rights back two years after he gets out, and will be eligible for shotgun ownership under Texas 'Castle Law", strictly for home defense after five years.
The job thing really depends on the economy. They way it is now, yeah, he'll have a b&&!* of a time getting a job since it's a buyer's market.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
The job thing really depends on the economy. They way it is now, yeah, he'll have a b%##! of a time getting a job since it's a buyer's market.
HD, I think I've said this before but if I had a company I'd hire the crap out of you. You obviously have a head for business and good salesmanship. I bet you'd make a good PSYOPer in the Army--they're like advertising agents, except they're pitching ideas instead of products.
|
... which I'm sure you can figure out.
Yeah. (And you had a pretty good post.) Really just looking to make sure I was right with where you are.
One thing though that still seems a littl fuzzy to me. At what point do you feel "morals" should become laws? Some things seem fairly obvious to most (murder and rape for instance) while some seem that way only because we are in an "enlightened time" (like slavery). Still others are fuzzier still -- and I wonder if it's important to make them into laws. I'm just wondering where you draw the mystical line where "morality for me" should become "morality for everyone". I guess it's kind of "what determines what is 'moral'", but I'm kind of looking for more than that. Just not entirely sure what I'm looking for yet. But I know I'm looking for more than "majority rules" -- and I think that most atheists feel the same way since they keep talking about how they want Christians to stop pushing their "morals" on them on Capitol Hill. By that logic, since we are (technically) the majority, we should be in our right to do so. (I don't think so, but I'm looking for a better perspective on it.)
|
|
The job thing really depends on the economy. They way it is now, yeah, he'll have a b%##! of a time getting a job since it's a buyer's market.HD, I think I've said this before but if I had a company I'd hire the crap out of you. You obviously have a head for business and good salesmanship. I bet you'd make a good PSYOPer in the Army--they're like advertising agents, except they're pitching ideas instead of products.
Thanks, I appreciate that. I can't complain about too much though (although I do on occasion), I put myself in my life situation. ;)
|
|
At what point do you feel "morals" should become laws?
"An' it harm none, do as ye will."
"My right to swing my fist ends where the other fellow's nose begins."If it harms someone else or puts someone else at risk, it should be against the law. I think that's a good place to start - from there, we could discuss varying degrees of harm, punishment, and possible exceptions to the rule.
Some might think that prostitution is immoral. Setting aside the real world complications of people forced into prostitution and the inherent danger of the profession, let's look at the basic concept of it:
Consensual sex occurs between two adults, one of whom pays the other for offering something that (presumably) couldn't be found elsewhere. There's no potential harm to anyone outside those two consenting people.
I see no reason that this should be illegal. I can see how many people might find it immoral or unpleasant, but I can't see how one person (or millions) saying "that's disgusting, I would never do that" should be a reason for outlawing the practice.
One thing though that still seems a littl fuzzy to me. At what point do you feel "morals" should become laws? Some things seem fairly obvious to most (murder and rape for instance) while some seem that way only because we are in an "enlightened time" (like slavery).
I think we could really say that about everything. Rape was totally legal in the US as long as it was husband-on-wife up into living memory, and gets a fair bit of implicit endorsement from some of your least favorite Bible passages. Moral progress is something I'm comfortable with, really. On one level, it's unfair to project modern standards on the past. They were a bunch of ignorant idiots. But that doesn't mean we have to endorse everything they did either. I think it's quite fair to criticize them for their failings. I hope that the future judges us very harshly, and gets around to doing so in a hurry since that's quite likely to mean they've made a lot of progress on us.
Still others are fuzzier still -- and I wonder if it's important to make them into laws. I'm just wondering where you draw the mystical line where "morality for me" should become "morality for everyone". I guess it's kind of "what determines what is 'moral'", but I'm kind of looking for more than that. Just not entirely sure what I'm looking for yet. But I know I'm looking for more than "majority rules" -- and I think that most atheists feel the same way since they keep talking about how they want Christians to stop pushing their "morals" on them on Capitol Hill. By that logic, since we are (technically) the majority, we should be in our right to do so. (I don't think so, but I'm looking for a better perspective on it.)
Jagyr's invocation of the Wiccan Rede and the rule of the other guy's nose pretty much cover it for me. Hell is other people. :) We must live with others, we are forever dependent on them, and they want different things than we want. Rights, to my mind, are not for the majority. In any even halfway democratic and open society the majority's rights are virtually impossible to even scratch in any organized and state-sanctioned way. The great threat to rights is from majorities to the rights of minorities. This matters because societies which lack equal rights for any length of time produce very serious pathologies that ultimately effect everybody, minority and majority alike, and persist for amazingly long after the de jure mistreatment is ended. They may not be obvious, and we might take them for granted, but we still end up paying for the sins of the past and the legitimate resentments they created are still with us.
I'm just wondering where you draw the mystical line where "morality for me" should become "morality for everyone".
I have been thinking about this, and honestly, I do not have an answer.
"My right to swing my fist ends where the other fellow's nose begins."
I would agree this is a good place to start, but as my discussions with our favorite Libertarian should demonstrate, I do not think it is quite the end all, be all.
…and I think that most atheists feel the same way since they keep talking about how they want Christians to stop pushing their "morals" on them on Capitol Hill.
It seems to me you are trying to paint only atheists in this light. Do you want Muslims pushing their "morals" on you on Capitol Hill?
|
|
…and I think that most atheists feel the same way since they keep talking about how they want Christians to stop pushing their "morals" on them on Capitol Hill.It seems to me you are trying to paint only atheists in this light. Do you want Muslims pushing their "morals" on you on Capitol Hill?
Only because most people here are mostly one or the other. Islam is a pretty good example where the religious "morals" have become law to an extreme. Kind of similar to the old Jewish Law actually.
Try this as a different approach. Are there universal "morals"? If so, why are they universal?
|
|
Jagyr's invocation of the Wiccan Rede and the rule of the other guy's nose pretty much cover it for me. Hell is other people. :)
While the Wiccan Rede sounds good, I personally feel that it only goes half-way. Granted, I'm a little biased, but I prefer the Christian "Rede" which is essentially "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or if you prefer "He who knows the good he ought to do and does it not, to him it is sin." If memory serves me right, Buddhism is somewhat similar to that. I just feel that it's far too easy to turn a blind eye and say that you didn't actually do the harming.
Do you think that as a society our "morals" change? (It sounds like you do, so I'll ask the next question as well.) Why do morals change at such a large scale?
|
|
"My right to swing my fist ends where the other fellow's nose begins."I would agree this is a good place to start, but as my discussions with our favorite Libertarian should demonstrate, I do not think it is quite the end all, be all.
Oh, I agree completely. But I was responding to "when should a moral become a law?", and I think a good answer is "when it starts affecting someone other than the practitioner."
Also...there's a Libertarian around here somewhere? Why didn't anyone tell me so I could begin an elaborate campaign of savage mockery?
…and I think that most atheists feel the same way since they keep talking about how they want Christians to stop pushing their "morals" on them on Capitol Hill.It seems to me you are trying to paint only atheists in this light. Do you want Muslims pushing their "morals" on you on Capitol Hill?Only because most people here are mostly one or the other. Islam is a pretty good example where the religious "morals" have become law to an extreme. Kind of similar to the old Jewish Law actually.
Try this as a different approach. Are there universal "morals"? If so, why are they universal?
Good question.
I was about to start off with the "no cannibalism, no incest" one, but there are societies that practice this, albeit very ritualistically for the most part, each with their own bans. I guess I'd have to say no en mass cannibalism or incest as the only universal morals that I could think of, with a nod towards stealing to the point of gluttony(even societies that have an unusually liberal view towards private ownership of items have a problem with one individual or a group of individuals taking literally everything) as well as pedophilia(another activity most societies abhore, the few that don't take a very ritualistic approach to sex with their own bans, as alluded to above).
As for the whyfores, well, they're pretty self explanatory. Most people do not like being eaten by other people for nourishment. Incest(that leads to the birth of children) usually leads to sickly babies that will not survive infancy, those that do often bring their illnesses down family lines that plague generations. Stealing to the point of gluttony leads to less chances for the group to survive, although it is possible that everyone that had their stuff stolen could band together and just take it back relatively peaceably(relatively). Pedophilia doesn't need much explanation really, but for the sake of completion, it is an activity that leads to an often injured member of society and an act that does not result in more children for society, needless to say what the parents of said injured society member would have to say on the matter.
|
|
…and I think that most atheists feel the same way since they keep talking about how they want Christians to stop pushing their "morals" on them on Capitol Hill.It seems to me you are trying to paint only atheists in this light. Do you want Muslims pushing their "morals" on you on Capitol Hill?Only because most people here are mostly one or the other. Islam is a pretty good example where the religious "morals" have become law to an extreme. Kind of similar to the old Jewish Law actually.
Try this as a different approach. Are there universal "morals"? If so, why are they universal?
No. There aren't universal moral principles. Let's go with the absolute most basic one to illustrate:
You shouldn't kill people. Sounds good,. Most people agree with it. Excpet we think you should be able to if your own life is at risk. Or if someone else's life is at risk. So even this principle, which is a pretty central moral to most people, isn't universal as it has exceptions for everyone but the most ardent pacifist.
So, no, there are no universal morals. There are several that are near universal: Don't kill. Don't rape. Don't steal. Pretty much all religions and philosophies agree and, not coincidentally, they're also the ones that cause most disruption to a cooperative group that is thought to be how humanity evolved.
Only because most people here are mostly one or the other.
The people who frequently post in this thread. The point is most people are not going to want "morals" they disagree with imposed upon them. You may think a Christian theocracy will be all well and good, so long as it is your brand of Christianity.
Islam is a pretty good example where the religious "morals" have become law to an extreme.
…in theocratic countries…which gives me pause when I consider what could happen should the US become a Christian theocracy. Now, I admit that because something may happen is not a very good argument against.
Try this as a different approach. Are there universal "morals"? If so, why are they universal?
Still not much help. I believe killing is generally bad. But then, I can think of circumstances where it may be less bad. Do I think killing is universally generally bad? Yes. What makes it universal? I do not have an answer. No one wants their life taken away from them?
My problem with suggesting that any particular religion's codes are the absolute or universal morals is that no one can prove their religion is true. Correct me here if I have misunderstood, but you have admitted you can provide me with no evidence that Christianity is 'true'. The only evidence you have is personal. So I have no reason to accept Christianity's morals over Buddha's, Mohamed's or Joseph Smith's.
Unfortunately, I guess that leaves us with what the majority can agree to. I do not find that very re-assuring.
|
|
While the Wiccan Rede sounds good, I personally feel that it only goes half-way. Granted, I'm a little biased, but I prefer the Christian "Rede" which is essentially "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or if you prefer "He who knows the good he ought to do and does it not, to him it is sin." If memory serves me right, Buddhism is somewhat similar to that. I just feel that it's far too easy to turn a blind eye and say that you didn't actually do the harming.
There's a pretty big difference between prohibiting negative behavior and mandating positive behavior.
|
|
Jagyr's invocation of the Wiccan Rede and the rule of the other guy's nose pretty much cover it for me. Hell is other people. :)While the Wiccan Rede sounds good, I personally feel that it only goes half-way. Granted, I'm a little biased, but I prefer the Christian "Rede" which is essentially "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or if you prefer "He who knows the good he ought to do and does it not, to him it is sin." If memory serves me right, Buddhism is somewhat similar to that. I just feel that it's far too easy to turn a blind eye and say that you didn't actually do the harming.
Moff,
Slightly tongue in cheek, but what if you're a masochist? Should you go around hurting people because you want to be hurt? I prefer the slightly more nuanced one of "Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself."The second 'rede' is a good one. The thing is, how do you know what is good? And we're back into the bascis of moral philosophy again.
|
|
Oh, I agree completely. But I was responding to "when should a moral become a law?", and I think a good answer is "when it starts affecting someone other than the practitioner.""My right to swing my fist ends where the other fellow's nose begins."I would agree this is a good place to start, but as my discussions with our favorite Libertarian should demonstrate, I do not think it is quite the end all, be all.
Playing a little bit of "devil's advocate" for a moment...
What's "harm"? I know some rather wealthy people who wouldn't be "harmed" at all if I helped myself to their big screen tv. When you purchase chocolate or coffee (or other products) that isn't fair trade you are (potentially) supporting slavery in other countries. Companies that that put high-fructose corn syrup are causing "harm" to all who consume their products. And this is on a massive scale.
I guess that we could go to the Demolition Man version of the future.
|
Do you think that as a society our "morals" change? (It sounds like you do, so I'll ask the next question as well.) Why do morals change at such a large scale?
I think a lot of that amounts to a generation gap. Every generation coming of age wants to fix the world, and often it amounts to looking at the problems facing society and realigning their values to address them. I think environmental awareness, as we know it in the 20th and 21st centuries, came about this way. Attitudes towards homosexuality are another example; much of the younger generation has said that the idea that society needs to maintain a moral purity be rejecting homosexuality is problematic, and replaced it with another value: that people should not be treated differently based on sexual orientation. It's a perennial replacing of one value with another. (There is hardly a consensus on these types of changes, obviously.)
Could that be taken as an argument for moral relativism? I suppose, although the fact that the values of a society change don't necessarily mean that some of those values are right in an absolute sense and others are wrong. In that regard it puts us back where we started.
But I find the way in which society's attitudes change an interesting subject nonetheless.
Pretty much all religions and philosophies agree and, not coincidentally, they're also the ones that cause most disruption to a cooperative group that is thought to be how humanity evolved.
Pretty much every world religion has prioritized it's beliefs above these
''universal' morals, and thereby, allowed their practitioners, at one time or another, justification for violating them.
Whoops. Forgot the two worst things you can do to someone- murder and rape. I think they would be packaged under a "do no intentional harm" type moral, which I think is also quite universal, if only so that the group could survive.
Can't believe I forgot those..
Pretty much all religions and philosophies agree and, not coincidentally, they're also the ones that cause most disruption to a cooperative group that is thought to be how humanity evolved.Pretty much every world religion has prioritized it's beliefs above these
''universal' morals, and thereby, allowed their practitioners, at one time or another, justification for violating them.
I had something on this too, but then I had to submit the post because I'm kinda at work.
|
No. There aren't universal moral principles. Let's go with the absolute most basic one to illustrate:
You shouldn't kill people. Sounds good,. Most people agree with it. Excpet we think you should be able to if your own life is at risk. Or if someone else's life is at risk. So even this principle, which is a pretty central moral to most people, isn't universal as it has exceptions for everyone but the most ardent pacifist.
I disagree. Just because it is understandable for someone to kill in self-defense does not make it morally right. I will kill my enemy even knowing it is an immoral act. The reason you do something does not change the morality of the thing.
|
|
Thank you everyone for your thoughts.
I think that this is something pretty close to what I was looking for. (Or observed and couldn't quite put my finger on it.)
There's a pretty big difference between prohibiting negative behavior and mandating positive behavior.
We often talk about "morals" as promoting "good", but then try and push them into laws to try and prevent something "bad". Then I see that many people then turn this around and use the laws to help them define how "moral" they are. (I'm not pointing fingers -- Christians often do this too.)
It's just kind of an observation.
|
|
Playing a little bit of "devil's advocate" for a moment...
What's "harm"? I know some rather wealthy people who wouldn't be "harmed" at all if I helped myself to their big screen tv. When you purchase chocolate or coffee (or other products) that isn't fair trade you are (potentially) supporting slavery in other countries. Companies that that put high-fructose corn syrup are causing "harm" to all who consume their products. And this is on a massive scale.
I guess that we could go to the Demolition Man version of the future.
- The rich guys is harmed just as much as the poor guy when you steal the same amount from him, the rich guy just has more hit points, as it were, so he's less affected by it.
- The coffee slavery issue is a matter of fault. By donating to the Catholic Church, you're supporting the serial rape of children in the U.S. and abroad. We shouldn't outlaw donations to the Catholic Church, we should punish the rapists and their assistants. Although, it's entirely reasonable to boycott and protest the church/coffee company until they change their deplorable policies.
- That's a tricky situation with the HFCS, because people aren't forced to consume the products, strictly speaking. I think the key point is the propaganda efforts put forward that attempt to keep people from making informed choices.
I disagree. Just because it is understandable for someone to kill in self-defense does not make it morally right. I will kill my enemy even knowing it is an immoral act. The reason you do something does not change the morality of the thing.
Is it moral to protect someone from harm? Is it moral to kill another in order to protect someone from harm?
I do not have an answer, I just think it is more grey.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I disagree. Just because it is understandable for someone to kill in self-defense does not make it morally right. I will kill my enemy even knowing it is an immoral act. The reason you do something does not change the morality of the thing.Is it moral to protect someone from harm? Is it moral to kill another in order to protect someone from harm?
I do not have an answer, I just think it is more grey.
I'm going to go with "white as the driven snow." If you're being beaten to death and someone comes along and saves you by killing your assailant, you're likely to see that person as a hero, and rightfully so. I will qualify by saying that most people are by nature nonviolent, and abdicate the responsibility to protect themselves. Specialization of labor then produces cops, soldiers, etc. Clearly I will disagree with TOZ's assertion that killing in self-defense is immoral (though I believe we share the profession of arms). You must maintain proportionality (no using lethal force if someone is attacking you with a tickle feather) but not at all immoral. Wasteful and regrettable, yes.
TOZ is right, assuming that there are moral absolutes. Killing in defense of another has two parts: one moral (defense), and one immoral (killing). In most cases, the former outweighs the latter, and you have a net good. Claiming inability to distinguish the two parts leads to all kinds of "useful" rationalizations for immoral or even downright evil acts: "Well, it's okay to commit murder, because they were bad people!" We discussed a Biblical example about 100 pages ago, and the bombing of abortion clinics is too obvious to dwell on (and will have me accused of Christian-bashing), so how about this one: "It's good to fly planes into the WTC because they are full of evil Muslim-oppressing Americans." That's a logic fail -- protecting against oppression is arguably moral, yes, but killing civilians is immoral, no matter what the cause. You can't just blur the two together and call it good. Anyone who does so has a log in their eye.
|
|
Well, I'm not one of the trigger-pullers, just service support, for precisely the reason that I cannot make my job killing others. While I believe there are moral absolutes, I do not believe man can meet the standards of morality in this world. The immoral men of the world prevent him from achieving that. Sometimes even the reality of the world prevents it, in the case of choosing between aborting a fetus or risking the life of the mother. Only when all men can and do choose to be moral can we actually claim to be moral people. In the case of your hero CB, yes is rightfully a hero, but a hero can perform immoral acts just like anyone else.
This is all rather stream of consciousness, so hopefully it makes some sort of sense.
Edit: Also, I don't claim to be a moral person. I don't come to complete stops at stop signs, and I will kill someone to save my life without qualms.
Let me see if I understand you correctly, because most of this has been going right over my head.
There are greater and lesser evils? Because to me, varying degrees seems to contradict absolutes. But I admit I may not be fully understanding.
|
|
Let me see if I understand you correctly, because most of this has been going right over my head.
There are greater and lesser evils? Because to me, varying degrees seems to contradict absolutes. But I admit I may not be fully understanding.
I think the argument is that sometimes goods conflict. Protecting people=Good. Not killing=Good. What happens when you have to kill someone to protect someone else? One of the two goods must be sacrificed. They're both goods, but you can't do both. So which do you choose?
It's the whole necessary evil thing. Sometimes, to accomplish a good, you have to do something that is not good. Sometimes really not good. And that can lead to a slope made of teflon if you take it to its ultimate utilitarian conclusion.
THE GREATER GOOD. THE GREATER GOOD.
:)
Shut it!
;)
|
|
Hence the comment about the Teflon slope. An awful lot of evil can be justified in the name of the Greater Good.THE GREATER GOOD. THE GREATER GOOD.
:)
No it can not.
Evil is never justified, though sometimes there is few other options.
What is the saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
This leads to the argument that the ends justifies the means. It does not, history can bear this out.
We as people have the means the intellect and for lack of a better term faith to rise above such quibbles if only we would communicate and at least attempt to listen to the other side.
Kirth:
Would you be interested in a discussion up on the Kingmaker forum pertaining to the geology of the Stolen Lands if such a thread were posted, or would this be too much of the day job?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Rebuttal: That people practice moral principles differently does not mean that the principles themselves are relative. This is a case of a distinction between descriptive relativism and meta-ethical relativism (as Samnell pointed out). That some people come up with justifications for murder does not make murder OK. Let us go ahead and draw a distinction between murder and killing, granting that we may disagree as to where that distinction actually is.
Proposition: Everybody believes in some sort of meta-ethical absolute, even if it is reduced to an extremely simple and basic principle such as the Wiccan Rede or the Golden Rule. The utilitarian ethic is just such a moral absolute: "the greatest good for the greatest number" is a statement of an absolute meta-ethic. When I say that I think everybody is a moral absolutist, this is what I mean, not that every single person agrees 100% on the right course of action in all circumstances, or that moral principles are always applied exactly the same way.
Corollary proposition: Everybody believes in a set of moral absolutes. Nearly every decision involves applying these principles. The ethical life is an exercise in prioritizing these principles in application.
In the spirit of non-confrontational discussion and exploration of others' beliefs (the basic premise of this thread), I have a couple questions for all the self-identified utilitarians out there:
If you are a true moral relativist, on what basis do you make determinations of moral right and wrong?
If you are a utilitarian, how do you justify the protection of minorities? It seems that the utilitarian ethic would allow harming a minority if the benefit to the majority were great enough. To put it another way, how do you maintain the utilitarian ethic in light of the basic criticism of Swift's Modest Proposal?
Let us go ahead and draw a distinction between murder and killing, granting that we may disagree as to where that distinction actually is.
Nope. Not me -- that's the sort of weasely justification for violent jihad/genocide/killing doctors that I was talking about earlier.
If you are a utilitarian, how do you justify the protection of minorities? It seems that the utilitarian ethic would allow harming a minority if the benefit to the majority were great enough. To put it another way, how do you maintain the utilitarian ethic in light of the basic criticism of Swift's Modest Proposal?
Short-term gains can ultimately be erased by long-term costs. That's why slavery is immoral from a utilitarian standpoint, despite obvious utility in terms of production rates and labor availability. You make an allowance for what seems like an obvious utility, but ignore (or can't see) the hidden long-term costs that in this case lead all the way up to the civil rights movement and into the present day -- the deal was penny-wise and pound-foolish, as the saying goes. Most cases of persecution of minorities fall firmly into that category, when one takes a long enough view.
One of my daughter's memory verses for this week is Psalm 104:24 which, according to Wikipedia, bares a remarkable similarity to Great Hymn to the Aten.
|
|
Rebuttal: That people practice moral principles differently does not mean that the principles themselves are relative. This is a case of a distinction between descriptive relativism and meta-ethical relativism (as Samnell pointed out). That some people come up with justifications for murder does not make murder OK. Let us go ahead and draw a distinction between murder and killing, granting that we may disagree as to where that distinction actually is.
Proposition: Everybody believes in some sort of meta-ethical absolute, even if it is reduced to an extremely simple and basic principle such as the Wiccan Rede or the Golden Rule. The utilitarian ethic is just such a moral absolute: "the greatest good for the greatest number" is a statement of an absolute meta-ethic. When I say that I think everybody is a moral absolutist, this is what I mean, not that every single person agrees 100% on the right course of action in all circumstances, or that moral principles are always applied exactly the same way.
Corollary proposition: Everybody believes in a set of moral absolutes. Nearly every decision involves applying these principles. The ethical life is an exercise in prioritizing these principles in application.
In the spirit of non-confrontational discussion and exploration of others' beliefs (the basic premise of this thread), I have a couple questions for all the self-identified utilitarians out there:
If you are a true moral relativist, on what basis do you make determinations of moral right and wrong?
If you are a utilitarian, how do you justify the protection of minorities? It seems that the utilitarian ethic would allow harming a minority if the benefit to the majority were great enough. To put it another way, how do you maintain the utilitarian ethic in light of the basic criticism of Swift's Modest Proposal?
Not being a true utilitarian, I can't answer definitively, but I'd imagine that the long-term consequwences of not protecting minorities is a greater harm than the benefits of not protecting them. Thus, it is perfectly utilitarian to protect minorities for the Greater Good.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Let us go ahead and draw a distinction between murder and killing, granting that we may disagree as to where that distinction actually is.Nope. Not me -- that's the sort of weasely justification for violent jihad/genocide/killing doctors that I was talking about earlier.
So, you wouldn't kill someone who was trying to kill you and your family? Are all soldiers murderers, then?
So, you wouldn't kill someone who was trying to kill you and your family? Are all soldiers murderers, then?
Why not read my recent posts on the subject, where I've already answered those questions in some detail? The short answer, if you can't be bothered with moral reasoning, is that (1) Yes I'd kill to protect myself/family, and (2) yes, they are, in the same degree that I am -- which doesn't make them villains:
Killing in defense of another has two parts: one moral (defense), and one immoral (killing). In most cases, the former outweighs the latter, and you have a net good. Claiming inability to distinguish the two parts leads to all kinds of "useful" rationalizations for immoral or even downright evil acts: "Well, it's okay to commit murder, because they were bad people!" We discussed a Biblical example about 100 pages ago, and the bombing of abortion clinics is too obvious to dwell on (and will have me accused of Christian-bashing), so how about this one: "It's good to fly planes into the WTC because they are full of evil Muslim-oppressing Americans." That's a logic fail -- protecting against oppression is arguably moral, yes, but killing civilians is immoral, no matter what the cause. You can't just blur the two together and call it good. Anyone who does so has a log in their eye.
If you want to have a discussion, you can't just conveniently ignore all the posts you don't agree with.