14 Nov 14
Originally posted by moonbusThe conditions under which it is appropriate to render a moral judgment aren't the very same conditions under which such a moral judgment is justified, and certainly not the same conditions under which it is appropriate to coerce another to abide by that moral judgment. This is pretty basic stuff.
Would you say that the Americans would be within their rights to tell the British to dump their monarchy and get themselves a president? If not, why not?
Would the British be within their rights to tell the Americans to recant their Declaration of Independence and to return to being a crown colony? If not, why not?
Could it, maybe, just possibly, be because it’s none of their business? Because it’s an internal matter?
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by bbarrIt's also pretty basic stuff that there isn't only one morality in the world. And that's the point you don't get.
The conditions under which it is appropriate to render a moral judgment aren't the very same conditions under which such a moral judgment is justified, and certainly not the same conditions under which it is appropriate to coerce another to abide by that moral judgment. This is pretty basic stuff.
14 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt would be interesting to watch you make your case in front of a council of elders in Waziristan. They would not be so indulgent of your hubris as I am.
Do you have a point yet?
Oh yes, I get your message: for you and br, it's all about proving yourselves to be in the right, no matter what the cost--and if that means inflaming a world-wide conflagration, well, you're prepared to go down that road, aren't you? Me, I'd rather live in peace with my neighbors, and if some of them believe they have a direct hotline to the Almighty, that's no skin off my nose. I'll still send my kids to the same public school as the Tamils and the Pakistanis and the Turks down the street.
15 Nov 14
2 edits
Sorry for the bump. I’ll try to get back on track. A case has been made here that the verdict from the standpoint of Absolute Truth is that it is Absolutely wrong and immoral for some people to be doing what they’re doing, no matter where they live or who they are. I’m guessing that stoning adulteresses is one of those things.
The problem I have with that line of reasoning is this: the people who live in Waziristan also claim to be in possession of Absolute Truth, and not coincidentally they claim that it comes from the same God as yours. Yet they come to radically different conclusions as to what things are morally required and morally forbidden.
Myself not being in possession of Absolute Truth, yet susceptible to doubt, see no compelling reason to give more credence to your verdict as to what the moral implications of this putative Absolute Truth are than to someone else’s verdict. Comprende?
15 Nov 14
Originally posted by moonbusWhy do you keep making this sort of statement without explaining what the point is?
It would be interesting to watch you make your case in front of a council of elders in Waziristan. They would not be so indulgent of your hubris as I am.
Oh yes, I get your message: for you and br, it's all about proving yourselves to be in the right, no matter what the cost--and if that means inflaming a world-wide conflagration, well, you're prepared to go down that road, aren't you?
No, you clearly do not get my message at all. You seem to be totally confused between the concept of what is right or wrong ie morality, and the totally separate concept of forcing your beliefs on others.
When did I say or imply that I would force others to do what I believe is right?
Me, I'd rather live in peace with my neighbors, and if some of them believe they have a direct hotline to the Almighty, that's no skin off my nose. I'll still send my kids to the same public school as the Tamils and the Pakistanis and the Turks down the street.
Again, I am not different in that regard. But since they live down the road, they must be part of your society? So surely you now feel it is acceptable for you to criticize them morally? You are inconsistent.
15 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusYou appear to be totally without morals and feel that it doesn't matter who murders whom. If not, what am I missing?
Myself not being in possession of Absolute Truth, yet susceptible to doubt, see no compelling reason to give more credence to your verdict as to what the moral implications of this putative Absolute Truth are than to someone else’s verdict. Comprende?
If your neighbor told you he was going to murder you, would you say 'go right ahead, after all, I don't know whether you are morally correct to do so, so I will abstain from commenting.'?
15 Nov 14
Originally posted by moonbusThey come to radically different conclusions as to what things are morally required and morally forbidden because they define morality in a different way; as a set of rules (handed over from generation to generation by means of religion, secular laws and traditions) based solely on specific consensus, morality is expressed differently by different societies through time, yes. In fact, I argue that morality is not some kind of Absolute Truth, but just another empty invention of the human mind.
Sorry for the bump. I’ll try to get back on track. A case has been made here that the verdict from the standpoint of Absolute Truth is that it is Absolutely wrong and immoral for some people to be doing what they’re doing, no matter where they live or who they are. I’m guessing that stoning adulteresses is one of those things.
The problem I have with that ...[text shortened]... oral implications of this putative Absolute Truth are than to someone else’s verdict. Comprende?
However, since morality is an ever open to criticism object of evaluation, step by step we are evolving from the ancient viewpoint of “Sins in front of G-d” to the current viewpoint of “Specific crimes against persons, against humanity, against animals, against Life, against the environment”. So the minorities in Switzerland have to live according to the secular laws of the country and they are free to follow their traditions if they remain loyal to the secular laws, whilst the people in S. Arabia still have to live according to Sharia Law; well, I could live in Switzerland and respect in full the secular laws of that country, but if I were forced to live forever in S. Arabia I would be soon executed as a common criminal because I would strongly oppose Sharia by any means, for my personal, purely subjective view of morality would force me to act this way –and not because my view of morality is either “objectively right” or “superior”.
I have the feeling our world is evolving because our societies are evolving, and our societies are evolving when the individuals are evolving; in other words, we keep up changing our collective, deeply subjective view of morality (which it cannot be properly said that is objective) as we are evolving through time
😵
16 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe don't seem to be getting anywhere with this line of discussion, so I would like to propose a change of tack. I propose to ask three questions of tw and br, simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice, not trick questions. Then we'll see where we stand.
You appear to be totally without morals and feel that it doesn't matter who murders whom. If not, what am I missing?
If your neighbor told you he was going to murder you, would you say 'go right ahead, after all, I don't know whether you are morally correct to do so, so I will abstain from commenting.'?
Q1. Would you criticize (as immoral) or demean (as silly) Jewish customs regarding food (kushrut)?
Same re islamic food customs (halal)?
16 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf my neighbor threatens me, in the country where I live that is a crime and there are legal mechanisms for dealing with it (police, courts, fines or injunctions, etc.). I would certainly avail myself of those mechanisms.
You appear to be totally without morals and feel that it doesn't matter who murders whom. If not, what am I missing?
If your neighbor told you he was going to murder you, would you say 'go right ahead, after all, I don't know whether you are morally correct to do so, so I will abstain from commenting.'?
17 Nov 14
2 edits
Originally posted by moonbusI'm not even sure what you mean by this claim...
It's also pretty basic stuff that there isn't only one morality in the world. And that's the point you don't get.
Yes, different cultures, just like different people, have different evaluative or normative beliefs. This is an anthropological fact.
Similarly, different cultures, just like different people, have different empirical or descriptive beliefs. This, too, is an anthropological fact.
What's not clear is why you think anything special follows from facts like these. Just because different cultures or people disagree on things like the age of the universe or the evolution of species, for instance, it doesn't somehow follow that everybody is correct, or that nobody is, or that, bizarrely, there's no fact of the matter about who is correct and who is not.
Unless you have an argument to the contrary, I'm not sure why I shouldn't be similarly dismissive about your resistance to the idea that there is no fact of the matter about what's right and what's wrong.
And note that from the commitment to there being something objective and real about morality it doesn't follow that anybody is justified in believing they have all the moral answers nor that anybody is justified in imposing their moral beliefs on others. This is the faulty inference you keep making.
In any case, the way you're trying to draw the lines in this debate is pretty naive. You cast Moral Absolutism against Normative Cultural Relativism, claiming that the first grounds intolerance and imperialism while the second makes room for toleration and respect. Besides the fact that neither of these claims are necessarily true (i.e., a Moral Absolutist could believe that toleration and respect of differing views is morally obligatory, and a Cultural Relativist could adhere to intolerant and disrespectful norms endorsed by his culture), you're missing some other pretty obvious options.
Consider etiquette as an analogy. We shake hands, they nod, they bow, they slap each other in greeting, whatever... There are cultural differences in forms of greeting. I can believe that etiquette is an objective matter while also believing that each of these forms of greeting is justified. That is, me being an objectivist about etiquette doesn't require me to reject any of the forms of greeting above. Suppose the purpose of a greeting norm in a culture is to express recognition, respect and trust to others. That's rough, but it's close to right. Now, the actual form a greeting takes may differ from culture to culture; an objective greeting norm may have a cultural flavor. Any greeting form that serves this purpose will be acceptable. A form of greeting where somebody stabs another in the face, however, doesn't do what greetings are supposed to do. And it's because we are creatures for whom getting stabbed in the face is a severe trauma that this form of greeting could never become culturally embedded.
So with morality, perhaps. The structure of the family, the bounds of honesty and deception, the demands of compassion and respect; these can have cultural flavors as well, though their expression may be constrained by higher-level, more general moral norms.
It is perfectly consistent for me to believe in objective, general moral norms that follow from facts about the type of creature humans are and also that there are different cultural expressions of these norms that should be respected and, in fact, celebrated as forms of life.
But there are also cultural norms that are simply intolerable. Forced female circumcision, beheading women for being raped, burning girls with acid for trying to get an education... I take the perpetration of these forms of inhumanity as grounds for direct intervention. You should too.
17 Nov 14
Originally posted by moonbusFor symmetry you would have to have the Americans telling us to remove the monarchy and become a dependency of the United States. One of your options involves one of the countries giving up it's system of government. The other involve them giving up their independence. So twhitehead's post is essentially correct (if slightly annoying).
Would you say that the Americans would be within their rights to tell the British to dump their monarchy and get themselves a president? If not, why not?
Would the British be within their rights to tell the Americans to recant their Declaration of Independence and to return to being a crown colony? If not, why not?
Could it, maybe, just possibly, be because it’s none of their business? Because it’s an internal matter?
It rather depends on what you mean by "telling". If you mean ordering then no it's not acceptable from either. If you mean suggesting then it's perfectly reasonable from either country. I can't imagine either country would follow the suggestion but there you are.
17 Nov 14
Originally posted by SuzianneThreads topics frequently drift away from the OP. What constitutes moral or immoral and whether it is universal or not has significant bearing on the thread subject so I don't see that the discussion has drifted away from the OP, what you are seeing is a refining of the question.
Don't you mean, "Is this another attempt to derail the discussion?"
The current discussion and the OP's discussion are hardly the same discussion.
I thought the Community Charge [1] was an immoral tax because everyone had to pay the same, independently of income, others thought it was moral for exactly the same reason. So on balance my starting position, that morality is a social construct and not absolute, is the same as moonbuses', however I'm still going back through the thread and I'm not convinced I agree with his argument.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Charge
17 Nov 14
Originally posted by bbarrIs your position that there is an underlying and universal metamorality which is expressed as a culturally specific morality? I did a quick check on the word metamorality on Wikipedia and I mean it in the same sense as Joshua Greene [1]. I was going to disagree with you and say that my justification for interfering in the affairs of other cultures was on utilitarian grounds, although since he's putting forward utilitarianism as a candidate, universal metamorality I find myself agreeing instead. My reason for wanting to disagree is that I'm deeply distrustful of the notion of things like morality, law and rights being described as "natural". At some point I intend to start a thread over in debates as No1Marauder frequently refers to natural rights and natural law, my problem is I need to work out what to say in the OP...
I'm not even sure what you mean by this claim...
Yes, different cultures, just like different people, have different evaluative or normative beliefs. This is an anthropological fact.
Similarly, different cultures, just like different people, have different empirical or descriptive beliefs. This, too, is an anthropological fact.
What's not clear is ...[text shortened]... e perpetration of these forms of inhumanity as grounds for direct intervention. You should too.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Greene_(psychologist)