jlowder

I think these are well-written.

<a href="http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/wes/moral-relativism.html" target="_blank">http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/wes/moral-relativism.html</a>

Jeffery Jay Lowder

bd-from-kg

jlowder:

This does seem, on the whole, to be a pretty good summary of the issues involved. But I have to take issue with Morriston’s failure to deal more critically with what he calls “naturalistic theories”. The crux of such theories, as he describes them, is:

To some extent this is true. But it can hardly be the ground for moral values. The major problem is hidden in that word “we”. It’s true that most people must follow certain rules in order for society to flourish. But it’s not true that I must follow these rules in order to for me to flourish. Thus, if everyone tries to live by stealing from others, the economy will soon collapse, but if I live by stealing from others it’s highly unlikely that this will make the economy collapse. Similarly, if everyone lied whenever it was in their interest society probably couldn’t function, but it doesn’t follow that it can’t function if I lie whenever it’s to my advantage. Thus this “moral theory” amounts to no more than an observation; there is no way to get from “if everyone acts in such-and-such a way society will flourish” to “you ought to act in such-and-such a way”.

Besides, if the justification for saying that we have a duty to adhere to certain “moral standards” is that this will benefit society, doesn’t it follow that we have a duty to perform any act that will benefit society? Why should this duty be limited to adhering to certain specified standards? But this leads to a problem, because no matter what standards you specify there will be cases when violating the standard benefits society more than adhering to it. For example, in a specific case it might benefit society to convict a man of a crime of which he’s innocent. (Perhaps he’s a professional hit man, but you can’t prove it in court.) But your moral standards say that you should never knowingly convict a man of a crime of which he’s innocent. If the justification for adhering to this standard is that doing so benefits society, how can you justify adhering to it in this case when it doesn’t benefit society?

Also, suppose that society will “flourish” best if we treat an entire class of people unjustly – for example by enslaving them? It won’t do to say that this can never be the case. In the first place it would be easy to give examples where it does seem to be the case. More importantly, this reply makes the wrongness of slavery a function of its effects on society as a whole rather than on the fundamental injustice involved.

Finally, this kind of “theory” is incapable of giving any reason for adhering to any kind of moral standard when dealing with people with whom we have no intention of living together. Thus, the Israelites apparently wiped out everyone in the city of Jericho because the wanted Jericho for themselves How can this kind of theory provide any reasons why they shouldn’t have done so? Similarly, the Vikings’ practice of pillaging coastal villages seems to have allowed them to “flourish as human beings” for quite a long time. In fact, they seem to have adopted a moral standard that said they ought to live this way. What could be wrong with that in terms of this kind of moral theory? Or finally, the Nazis believed that exterminating the Jews would help their society to flourish. Did the wrongness of the Holocaust consist only in the fact that they were mistaken in this belief?

shamon

You can flourish personally from stealing? What moral values are good for society but NOT for the individual (or vice versa)?

People always lie b/c it’s in their interest, otherwise why not tell the truth? What’s good for society is necessarily good for the individual; otherwise it’s not good for either. Isn’t this a good litmus test for whether a moral idea is valid?

Adhering to moral standards doesn’t say that we have to go out of our way to do ‘good deeds’ only that we don’t do bad deeds.

Letting a guilty man go free b/c there isn’t enough evidence to convict always benefits society b/c it seeks to prevent innocent incarceration. Flaws?

A society can never flourish b/c of slavery. They can gain monetary wealth but not flourish. It will always result in innumerable problems.

If any act has “fundamental injustice” then it’s bad for society.

The Nazis did believe this, but that doesn’t make it so. You can never flourish by building on a foundation of exploitation. Never. The holocaust was horrible b/c of ignorance of this fundamental truth. You can’t kill others and simultaneously being yourself UP. When you hurt others (verbally or physically) you ALWAYS bring yourself to a lower position than you were before. Those that insult others feel worse about themselves after doing it. Just simple human nature.

If an action is detrimental to the individual OR society then it’s wrong for humans. There are no moral dilemmas.