 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
The question is whether you believe what you are saying, or are you just bullshitting.
|
Ad hominem. What we believe as a person is irrelevant, as far as the debate is concerned I could quite happily be playing devils advocate, it is incidental that I do actually believe what I'm saying, and where do you see in my argument that firstly there is a contradiction in personal belief, and secondly where do you get the impression that I don't believe what I'm saying?
quote:
The same goes for Ramo
|
Or anyone that disagrees or uses this argument right?  . If you want to resort to pathetic ad hominems, you lose the right to be taken seriously.
quote:
Whaleboy, correct me if I'm wrong, but the "moral relativist" would seek to determine whether the taking of a possession of one person by another was immoral by first determining the context of the taking.
|
No, that's more social or cultural relativism... moral relativism denies the attachment of an objective moral condition to the context of that given situation.
quote:
Not exactly. I think Whaleboy's use of "context" is misleading and imprecise. What he means by "in a certain context" is "assuming a particular moral system".
|
I'll tell you what I mean and you won't strawman me and think I'd let you get away with it  . Firstly I would ask how context is misleading? If you hold that all propositions are equally valid / equally invalid (latterly more accurately) then is a given situation, to a beholder within that situation with given dimensions, that is context... I refer back to my court example. Now WITHIN a particular moral system, say for example, the 10 commandments, which says killing is wrong... and I go and kill, WITHIN the 10 commandments that act is immoral. Of course, that's a deductive statement and you can't really do a lot with it... it has the revelatory value of 2+2=4. In order to make it apply objectively outside of context you need to induce it in the wider context, which Hume's gap forbids... hence we have a clear context within which to examine a given situation... I often use the analogy of a house of cards. Two triangles supporting one triangle... that is a context where... it also illustrates the fractal nature of what I propose.
quote:
My wife came from a country where people could not own the land or the trees. Our first Christmas, she wanted to cut down a tree growing in someone's yard. You would be surprised, but it took me quite a while to explain to her why that was "wrong."
|
And thus we have context.
quote:
Kuciwalker believes in the natual rights code. He is not a moral relativist.
|
So it seems  ... or at least seems to assume rights and an inconsistency with determinism, but I don't that's massively relevant here. When he grows up a little he'll lose his naivity and get an understanding of both human nature and existence, and he'll eat his words... of that I'm sure, he's an intelligent kid after all.
quote:
They wouldn't be concurrent. The underlying moral system is exactly the same. If some people happen to adopt the second principles as the first principles, then they've merely corrupted the moral system in which they claim to believe.
|
You present it almost as a concept up in the air that they freely choose to obey, while ignoring the emotive element that seems to refute your position accordingly.
quote:
Rights are things that one can demand from society.
|
Ummm wtf? Rights are pretty much granted by society in a symbiotic relationship with the individual according to the needs of both where it is both of their mutual benefits. No communist slaves and oppressors crap please.
quote:
Believing that people have rights is an empirical question, not a moral one.
|
Again wtf? Rights, the artificial constructs that they are, are an ethical question, their application is moral... only an argument consistent with objective free will would hold that it is an empirical question. Too many flawed assumptions Kuci, try harder.
quote:
Yes. Liberty of expression, liberty of religion, etc. are all rights I think people should have. Protection from coercion is another.
|
Then where do they come from?
On a different note, Snowflake is solid gold in this thread 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
If you realize that your beliefs aren't true you can't realize that they are. If you don't know that's a different story, but if you know, then you can't not know. |
Your problem is that you're applying two-tone thinking to a complex problem.
Look at it like this -- if you've got one athlete who's the world record holder in the 100-meter dash, and another athlete who's the world record holder in the 400-meter dash, then which runner is "faster"? There is no a priori means of determining the answer. In fact, many people would simply choose to leave the answer as indeterminate. Nevertheless, some people are bound to hold opinions on the matter with various justifications, and will lobby for their side even knowing that there is no definitive right or wrong answer to the question. (F'rinstance, when drafting a football player it's usually impossible to determine which player is the "best," but the various members of the coaching staff will still voice their opinions on who to draft becaues they still have a stake in the answer.)
Moral systems are far more complex than such a simple athletic competition, and likewise it's usually impossible to determine what moral sytem is the "best" (or "true" or "valid" or whatever). Still, that doesn't stop people from holding opinions on the question, even knowing that there isn't any sort of divine writ defining the "perfect" moral code. In fact, just as there is no such thing as a "perfect" athlete, there probably isn't such a thing as a "perfect" moral code.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Look, a lot of bad arguements for relativism are going on here.
1. Just because you might have different beliefs if you grow up in a different place, does not imply that all beliefs are equal. Anymore than it implies the nutrition and nurishment you got from either place would be equal. In other words, that there are differences is merely on observation of how the world works, but it doesn't imply equality of result.
2. Similarly, just because different people have different beliefs, it does not mean they are equally valid. Again, it is just an observation of fact.
3. You can't be a moral relativist and think that your morality is better than someone else's. That's a contradiction. By accepting that moral relativism is true, you are inherently accepting that there is nothing special about whatever moral system you choose.
The problem with moral relativism, is that it inherently acts like ethics are not supposed to have any particular purpose. It also proposed that all moral systems are equally "true" without giving any basis on how to evaluate wether it is true or not. Moral Relativism logically must lead disaster, since every possible moral rule you propose or system you propose is equally "true" under relativism. That means that the Nazi's were "right" when they slaughtered the Jews and Terrorists are right when the kill children and civilians.
Moral Relativism will always lead to Moral Nihilism; Nothing is "good" or "bad". Because it states that there is equality among all actions on a scale of "good" and "bad" (since any moral system can be proposed that states a particular actions is the ultimate good or the ultimate evil). Moral Relativism is simply not a constructive path to follow.
It makes more sense to talk about what the purpose of ethics is. What goals does it try to acheive? The purpose of ethics is to state the qualities of moral behavior. Moral behavior is about what behaviors have the quality of "goodness". "Goodness" simply means that it is beneficial in some way.
Now, arguements can be made about wether a particular thing is a worthwhile thing to benefit, but to pretend all things are equally worthwhile is ludicrous. Indeed, some things simply benefit nothing (such as the destruction of everything), unless you propose some mythical creature whose existence you cannot prove. Clearly the latter is a lot less valid than other things.
Now, the natural frame of reference to human ethical behavior is the human; what benefits humans, what principles, if generally adopted by as many people as possible, benefit humanity? (With the idea in mind that you can quite possibly in situations where no everyone follows the principles fully, so "unstable" moralities are not good). This is the sort of questions that an ethical system considers, and some of them answer it a lot better than others.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
You can't be a moral relativist and think that your morality is better than someone else's. |
However, you can be a moral relativist and prefer one moral system over another -- questions of "truth" or "validity" don't come into play. I don't believe that vanilla ice cream is inherently superior to chocolate ice cream, but I still prefer vanilla -- my preferences do not equate to a belief that my taste buds are more "pure" than the taste buds of those who prefer chocolate.
quote:
The problem with moral relativism, is that it inherently acts like ethics are not supposed to have any particular purpose. |
Depends on the flavor of relativism. F'rinstance, some relativists believe that ethics are intended to benefit the State, or whoever else happens to be making the rules at the time -- in such a system it would be impossible to determine which State (or whatever) is morally superior to all other States, and so the system would be a relativist one.
quote:
The purpose of ethics is to state the qualities of moral behavior. Moral behavior is about what behaviors have the quality of "goodness". "Goodness" simply means that it is beneficial in some way. |
How is this any different than relativism? Everybody has different opinions as to what is "beneficial," so you're essentially stating that everybody's moral system is different yet is equally valid provided that the system discourages behavior that isn't beneficial "in some way."
quote:
Indeed, some things simply benefit nothing (such as the destruction of everything), unless you propose some mythical creature whose existence you cannot prove. |
Prove to whom?
quote:
Now, the natural frame of reference to human ethical behavior is the human; what benefits humans, what principles, if generally adopted by as many people as possible, benefit humanity? |
Why should somebody try to behave in a way that is beneficial to those who are wicked? Shouldn't he only consider the actions that are beneficial to those who are righteous? Otherwise the wicked would surely overwhelm the righteous...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
Drac, you don't understand what moral relativism is. Just because I cannot say that one moral system is better than another, objectively, doesn't mean that I cannot say that one moral system is better, subjectively. Are the Nazis wrong? Yes, using my basis of morality.
The reason why moral relativism is true is that morality is a purely philosophical construct, and thus can be constructed arbitrarily. It's pretty trivial, when you get down to it. |
Moral Relativism states that ALL MORAL SYSTEMS ARE EQUALLY TRUE, objectively. Hence it inevitably leads to Moral Nihilism, because a moral rule that states killing people for fun is good, is just as valid as one that states you should not kill, according to relativism.
You might not *like* the conclusion moral relativism forces you to draw, but that doesn't change the conclusion you must draw. The moral system you *like* more might say something is wrong, and you might go by that moral system most of the time for convienence. However, when push comes to shove, Moral Relativism forces you to say that the Nazi's Morality is just as good as yours, and hence you can't say what they did is wrong, because they are just as correct in saying it was right.
Don't like it? Tough, that's how Relativism works.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
However, you can be a moral relativist and prefer one moral system over another -- questions of "truth" or "validity" don't come into play. I don't believe that vanilla ice cream is inherently superior to chocolate ice cream, but I still prefer vanilla -- my preferences do not equate to a belief that my taste buds are more "pure" than the taste buds of those who prefer chocolate. |
Truth and validity do come into play. Moral Relativism states that all moral theories, all ethical systems are equally true, are equally valid. One man's morality isn't any better than another's. A serial killer's morality is no better than Gandhi's. They are both just as good, just as valid, just as true.
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
Depends on the flavor of relativism. F'rinstance, some relativists believe that ethics are intended to benefit the State, or whoever else happens to be making the rules at the time -- in such a system it would be impossible to determine which State (or whatever) is morally superior to all other States, and so the system would be a relativist one. |
That's an issue of how they think ethics originate, and is different from how you distinguish a good ethical system from a bad one.
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
How is this any different than relativism? Everybody has different opinions as to what is "beneficial," so you're essentially stating that everybody's moral system is different yet is equally valid provided that the system discourages behavior that isn't beneficial "in some way." |
Yes, because while you can argue over some benefits and which is better, there are clearly things that are *not* beneficial. There are certainly absolute wrongs, and you can criticize a given moral system because its rules don't lead to the benefits it is supposed to acheive. There is quite a difference; one allows discussion, one doesn't.
quote:
Why should somebody try to behave in a way that is beneficial to those who are wicked? Shouldn't he only consider the actions that are beneficial to those who are righteous? Otherwise the wicked would surely overwhelm the righteous... |
And certainly you can argue about reference frames and where to start and how to construct a good ethical system. However, you can't do this with intellectual honesty if you believe in Moral Relativism, since all moralities are equally good/valid/true under that premise. Hence all you can talk about is what moral systems you might like more, but not which ones are better than others.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
quote:
Hence it inevitably leads to Moral Nihilism, because a moral rule that states killing people for fun is good, is just as valid as one that states you should not kill, according to relativism.
|
Objectively, not subjectively.
quote:
Moral Relativism forces you to say that the Nazi's Morality is just as good as yours, and hence you can't say what they did is wrong, because they are just as correct in saying it was right. |
Objectively, not subjectively. |
If you objectively believe that no moral law is better than another, and that leads you to the objective conclusion that there are no rules of morality, then if you are rational you must follow the conclusion.
If you reject the premise, then you don't reach the conclusion. Right now you are saying you don't like the conclusion, so you are happy being irrational. That doesn't change the fact the premise you believe leads to a horrible conclusion.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
quote:
If you objectively believe that no moral law is better than another, and that leads you to the objective conclusion that there are no rules of morality, then if you are rational you must follow the conclusion. |
That "logic" doesn't make any sense. |
Yes it does. You are stating that it is a fact that Relativism is true. That is the premise.
However, Relativism implies that all moral laws are equally valid. Moral Nihilism implies that the very idea of moral laws is misguided; there are none that are valid.
Suppose you have a given moral law (killing is bad). According to Moral Relativism it is equally as valid as any other. Propose the opposite moral law (killing is good), this law is equally true as the previous one. Since two things that are in contradiction can't both be true, something must be wrong with the premise. We are excluding moral relativism as having something wrong here, so clearly the idea that there is any morality must be wrong.
You are now at moral nihilism, which Moral Relativism logically implies.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Suppose you have a given moral law (killing is bad). |
Are you assuming that it is objectively true? In that case, you just contradicted the original premise.
If not, I don't see where the contradiction you claimed is. Killing is good can be subjectively true, and killing is bad can be subjectively true.
Last edited by Ramo on 20-10-2004 at 23:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
A serial killer's morality is no better than Gandhi's. They are both just as good, just as valid, just as true. |
Yet the relativist can still prefer one system over another. Questions of truth/validity are irrelevant here because they don't affect the relativist's personal preference, since it is meaningless to apply such terms to matters of personal preference.
quote:
Yes, because while you can argue over some benefits and which is better, there are clearly things that are *not* beneficial. |
Like what? Murder? Murder presumably benefits the murderer, else why would the murderer be committing murder? Ditto with theft, rape, genocide, torture, etc.
quote:
And certainly you can argue about reference frames and where to start and how to construct a good ethical system. |
You can only argue this if you presuppose the absence of morality -- a righteous person has no reason to consider the moral system proposed by somebody who is wicked, and so the conclusions reached by the righteous person will be necessarily skewed by the moral system to which the righteous person ascribed prior to the debate on morality. In other words, since everybody is "righteous" according to his own moral system, you're simply providing them a means by which they can claim that their moral systems are better than everybody else's without their even having to modify their moral system in any way shape or form.
quote:
Suppose you have a given moral law (killing is bad). According to Moral Relativism it is equally as valid as any other. Propose the opposite moral law (killing is good), this law is equally true as the previous one. Since two things that are in contradiction can't both be true, something must be wrong with the premise. We are excluding moral relativism as having something wrong here, so clearly the idea that there is any morality must be wrong. |
You're doing the same thing as Kidicious and inappropriately applying the law of the excluded middle. Many types of logic include this axiom, but many do not -- the statement (A equals not A) is a contradiction in some systems of logic, but in others it simply means that A has a truth value between "true" and "false." So, according to moral relativism, all moral laws are equally valid -- they all have a truth value of 1/2.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-10-2004 21:19
|