21-04-2005 05:51									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat Yes. Moral relativism isn't a moral position, its a theory of morality. So "there is no absolute moral truth" doesn't exclude moral relativity from being correct as a theory.

But then as a theory it has to apply a value (0 or 1 in a bivalent system) to moral statements.

	21-04-2005 05:55									#62
	Inflate your Upload Space

No it doesn't. Its a theory about morality, not a system of morals.

	21-04-2005 06:06									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: Relativism is the statement - the blindingly obvious statement - that there's no way to establish any particular moral code as "true". Clearly you cannot perform an experiment to measure morality, and just as obviously there is no reason to assume that any particular set of moral axioms are correct a priori. No it isn't. That's moral scepticism. Scepticism could be true and yet a single moral code could exist -- it's just that we wouldn't know it.

And that it's unknowable. At which point it's like saying "You can't prove god exists, but you can't prove he doesn't either, so THERE!"

quote: Relativism is different: it specifies that the acceptability of a moral code is relative to a person or a group.

...

This is blindingly obvious. Different people and groups find different moral codes acceptable.

	21-04-2005 06:07									#64
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Dracon II Yeah... later in the post I concede that your point can be made. Personally I believe it... it's just a dangerous thing to believe.

It's an empirical truth. It doesn't matter whether you believe it.

	21-04-2005 06:07									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

[QUOTE] Originally posted by grumbler
These statements are both only partially true. Science CAN measure moral reasoning, and moral reasoning falls within a hierarchy of moral reasoning stages that everyone goes through.[/q]

I didn't say it couldn't. It cannot, however, measure morality. No supercollider experiment will confirm that killing is wrong

	21-04-2005 06:28									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker [QUOTE] I didn't say it couldn't. It cannot, however, measure morality. No supercollider experiment will confirm that killing is wrong

The distinction between morality and moral reasoning seems to me a distinction without a difference. What is morality but the process of reasoning used to determine what is right and what is wrong?

If you accept that definition, then "morality" can be scientifically measured, and has been. Not with supercollider experiments, of course, but then you knew that.

If you dispute that definition of morality, then you have to come up with one of your own that does not use the concept of reasoning.

	21-04-2005 06:29									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: What is morality but the process of reasoning used to determine what is right and what is wrong?

A quick interlude: There has been, in the past, Christian morality. It wasn't reasoning of what was right and wrong, but what God said. Isn't that morality as well?

	21-04-2005 06:32									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

[QUOTE] Originally posted by grumbler
The distinction between morality and moral reasoning seems to me a distinction without a difference. What is morality but the process of reasoning used to determine what is right and what is wrong?[/q]

Moral reasoning is a process individuals go through (if I understand what you mean by it). As such, you can state that certain individuals go through a particular type of moral reasoning. However, one cannot claim that some underlying moral principle is "true".

	21-04-2005 06:54									#69
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui A quick interlude: There has been, in the past, Christian morality. It wasn't reasoning of what was right and wrong, but what God said. Isn't that morality as well?

But the moral reasoning that decided that the moral dictates of the "Christian Church" were correct is, in fact, moral reasoning. There have always been other choices. Following religious dogma blindly is classic stage two morality (out of six stages, according to Kohlberg). Even the religious hierarchy has not uniormly folowed church doctrine, as we can see from liberation theology in the Catholic Church in our own lifetimes.

"Religious morality" is not "low level" morality, according to kohlberg - it is extrinsic morality (ie dictated morality0 that is low level. The greatest moral reasoners acording to Kohlberg were Jesus of Nazereth (if he existed) and the Buddha, and Kohlberg postulates they would have few differences in their outcomes of moral reasoning.

I think that probably the height of moral reasoning as humans can understand it is "do onto others as you would have them do onto you" which is such a recurrent theme in moral philosophy that one must wonder if it is not the universal moral principal.

	21-04-2005 07:01									#70
	Support Apolyton

quote: Following religious dogma blindly is classic stage two morality

It's morality, is it not... without any reasoning. And making the Pope infallible is intended to have followers follow dogma blindly.

	21-04-2005 07:01									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Moral reasoning is a process individuals go through (if I understand what you mean by it). As such, you can state that certain individuals go through a particular type of moral reasoning. However, one cannot claim that some underlying moral principle is "true".

Correct, given the POSSIBLE exception that "morality is the treatment of others as you would wish to be treated by them" which is by not means universal (and in fact is absolutely rare in real life) but which seems an ideal that almost everyone could subscribe to in the abstract.

The outcome of such reasoning may differ. One person may decide that they themselves should, indeed, be executed for speeding if it causes an accident fatal to another, while the next person might decide that this was not forseeable to them because they did not grasp how dangerous speding was on such a rainy night.

But morality is not about outcomes, it is about process. And the process of deciding what is moral can be evaluated, categorized, and placed in a hierarchy. That is an astonishing fact, but one that has not been disproven despite half a century's attempts to do so.

	21-04-2005 07:06									#72
	Got spare money?

quote: And the process of deciding what is moral can be evaluated, categorized, and placed in a hierarchy.

But it can't. You can say an argument is more logical than another, but not that the underlying morality is 'better'.

	21-04-2005 07:12									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui It's morality, is it not... without any reasoning. And making the Pope infallible is intended to have followers follow dogma blindly.

Ah, but if you talk to catholics, you will discover that they believe the Pope is infallible (and this is mostly a red herring, IMO, because the infallibility principal has been involked only twice, as I understand it) not because he has been elected by the Cardinals, but because he receives inspiration from their God. The Pope is not just the head of the church, but the living and divinely inspired interpreter of their religion.

I don't believe in gods anymore, and I know exactly why I do not, but I think (having religious and even Catholic family) that i understand why THEY believe.

And this is a charactoristic of the hierarchy of moral reasoning. EVERYONE believes, at some point, that one should do as one is told, either because they will be punished (read "go to hell") if they do not, or because "the authorities know more than I do and I am better off if I please them," or because "if I break the rules then society breaks down" or some such.

Each of these stages inevitably precedes the other, and each fails to answer moral dilemmas that are sufficiently complex.

It is also true that people at one stage of moral reasoning don't fully understand levels of moral reasoning above their own. This is why people tell me that I cannot be pro-life AND pro-choice at the same time. What they mean is that THEY cannot be both at the same time, and they cannot understand how I could be both. This, of course, is their burden and not mine.

	21-04-2005 07:15									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

All you've demonstrated is a progression of beliefs among humans (and you haven't actually proved that, but it's irrelevent). So what? There's no reason to assume that the beliefs assumed later in life are somehow more "true" - or that ANY of them are true.

	21-04-2005 07:16									#75
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui [But it can't. You can say an argument is more logical than another, but not that the underlying morality is 'better'.

I surely can, and has been. Kohlberg's research, and that of his successors, has proven that despite half-century of attempts to prove otherwise.

This isn't some kind of mysticism you can dismiss as subjective, this is hard evidence from scientific studies, with al of the controls that that implies.

As I said, it is had for some to accept, but there it is.

	21-04-2005 07:19									#76
	Put an end to popups!

quote: because he receives inspiration from their God. The Pope is not just the head of the church, but the living and divinely inspired interpreter of their religion.

I don't consider it moral reasoning to blindly follow someone who you consider to be the divinely inspired head of your church. You are just blindly following, not deciding for yourself.

	21-04-2005 07:20									#77
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui A quick interlude: There has been, in the past, Christian morality. It wasn't reasoning of what was right and wrong, but what God said. Isn't that morality as well?

It's still reasoning, though.

	21-04-2005 07:20									#78
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker This is blindingly obvious. Different people and groups find different moral codes acceptable.

It's blindingly obvious that they aren't all right just because they disagree. Simply believing something doesn't make it true.

	21-04-2005 07:22									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Wombat No it doesn't. Its a theory about morality, not a system of morals.

And as such, it's a theory that says that a certain set of values - true or false - have to be applied to moral statements.

In the case of relativism, it has got to be at least a trivalent logical system. You just can't evade the problem of awarding a certain truth value to statements.

	21-04-2005 07:23									#80
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker All you've demonstrated is a progression of beliefs among humans (and you haven't actually proved that, but it's irrelevent). So what? There's no reason to assume that the beliefs assumed later in life are somehow more "true" - or that ANY of them are true.

So you're really just ammoral. You don't believe in morality. You think people just make claims about morality for the sake of power. That's not really the same as being a moral relativist although I believe that most moral relativist are simply ammoral bullshiters like yourself.

	21-04-2005 07:24									#81
	Put an end to popups!

quote: It's blindingly obvious that they aren't all right just because they disagree.

Eh, they ARE all correct in that their particular morality is acceptable to them. I don't believe they ever say "oh, it's acceptable to everyone" - only a few idiots (such as some utilitarians and libertarians, an odd mix) claim that of their morality.

	21-04-2005 07:30									#82
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker All you've demonstrated is a progression of beliefs among humans (and you haven't actually proved that, but it's irrelevent). So what? There's no reason to assume that the beliefs assumed later in life are somehow more "true" - or that ANY of them are true.

The only measure of moral reasoning is the degree to which it can deal with moral dilemmas. "Truth" is not a concept that has any scientific meaning, it is a matter for philosophers.

However, "better" can be measured from the standpoint of that ability to resolve moral dilemmas, and moral reasoning can be measured by that standard.

Let me give an example that might prove enlightening. At one point in your (and every human's) cognitive development, you did not know that objects were persistant - that is, you did not know that objects existed when you could not see them. This is accepted by every scientist studying human development. Take a baby of a certain age, have them play joyfully with a rattle, and they love it. Put the rattle, riight in front of their eyes, under the edge of a blanket, anbd they will burst into tears, because their rattle does not exist any more.

Later in their cognitive development, do the exact same thing, and the baby will lift the blanket, recover the rattle, and shake it with joy. What has happened? They have "gotten" the idea that the rattle was still in existance, it was just under the blanket. Until this cognitive breakthrough ocurs, they have no idea - none whatsoever - that lifting the blanket would reveal the rattle.

That is why children of a certain age so love to play "peekabboo." Just before that age, the game is meaningless. After that age, it is boring. But just at that cusp where they have figured out that objects exist even when not perceptable, they practicing their new skill.

So it is with moral reasoning. At a certain stage, you cannot acept the idea that someone "gets away with something." later, you consider that they might have had reasons for doing what they did, but still shoud be punished for the sake of deterance. Later yet, you think maybe they didn't consider what they did bad by thier terms. Later still, you consider what they got away with not worth consideration (none of your business) or even counterproductive and self-punishing.

It is all covered by Kohlberg, up to the point he himself reached, which is that not even Kohlberg could fully understand moral reasoning above hos own level.

	21-04-2005 07:33									#83
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Eh, they ARE all correct in that their particular morality is acceptable to them.

No one is arguing whether or not their own morality is acceptable to them. We're arguing whether they are moral or not. If they disagree on what is moral they can't all be acting morally.

	21-04-2005 07:34									#84
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I don't consider it moral reasoning to blindly follow someone who you consider to be the divinely inspired head of your church. You are just blindly following, not deciding for yourself.

i never said it was high-level moral reasonig, just that it was moral reasoning.

There are reletively few high-level moral reasoners, because most people would rather deny a moral dilemma exists than confront it and be forced to change their own moral reasoning.

Education is the single highest predictor of moral reasoning, even across cultures, because the more you know, the more you realize that simple moral codes don't solve all the problems.

	21-04-2005 07:35									#85
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I'm glad grumbler is putting in the effort for you guys. You guys are a lost cause though.

	21-04-2005 07:45									#86
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious No one is arguing whether or not their own morality is acceptable to them. We're arguing whether they are moral or not. If they disagree on what is moral they can't all be acting morally.

Surely they can , if they are truly acting according to moral reasoning and not other reasoning.

Conisder the German conspirators (for there is no other word for them) at the Wannsee Conference. Had they been acting according to their own moral codes, they would not have been so pathelogically concerned that no word of their deliberations get out. Thay knew they were acting "badly' by their own standards. They justified their acts on other than moral grounds, most of them.

Not everyone does as their moral reasoning tells them to. Moral reasoning is not the sole (maybe not even the main, for most people) driver in human behavior.

	21-04-2005 07:48									#87
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious I'm glad grumbler is putting in the effort for you guys. You guys are a lost cause though.

I am putting in an effort for people to understand the science (such as it is) of human behavior. I don't have a horse in the race of "the dictatorship of relativism" because, frankly, I am embarassed that someone who is now a "world leader" uses those kinds of terms. I doubt very much that even he believes in what he says.

	21-04-2005 07:49									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: i never said it was high-level moral reasonig, just that it was moral reasoning.

I deny that it is moral reasoning of any sort. Simply follow the leader.

quote: Thay knew they were acting "badly' by their own standards.

Or rather, they knew it would be seen as bad by those judging them, so they changed their tune.

	21-04-2005 07:53									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by grumbler I am putting in an effort for people to understand the science (such as it is) of human behavior. I don't have a horse in the race of "the dictatorship of relativism" because, frankly, I am embarassed that someone who is now a "world leader" uses those kinds of terms. I doubt very much that even he believes in what he says.

It's a response to the intolerance for alternative ideas within the church I think. It's just a way fo saying he is traditional and that he's not going to entertain any divergence from the traditional views of the church. It's a slap in the face really to anyone in the catholic church who disagrees with him.

	21-04-2005 07:56									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by grumbler Surely they can , if they are truly acting according to moral reasoning and not other reasoning. Conisder the German conspirators (for there is no other word for them) at the Wannsee Conference. Had they been acting according to their own moral codes, they would not have been so pathelogically concerned that no word of their deliberations get out. Thay knew they were acting "badly' by their own standards. They justified their acts on other than moral grounds, most of them. Not everyone does as their moral reasoning tells them to. Moral reasoning is not the sole (maybe not even the main, for most people) driver in human behavior.

I don't think I disagree with you. My point was that their reasoning might be faulty or they might just be full of it.