seebs

How many of us have had the experience of spotting a "contradiction" in someone's moral system? Probably all of us. Someone will state a "moral principle", and then later state a conclusion which does not appear to be consistent with that principle.

It is, of course, dangerous to simply assume that the system is "obviously flawed" or that the person is hypocritical. Thus, two possible alternative explanations to consider before getting too smug:

1. There are other moral principles which can sometimes result in "conflicts". This is, perhaps, best understood by considering the interactions of inertia and gravity. If I throw a ball up into the air, it probably goes up for a while (unlike what gravity would predict an object does), and yet, it eventually falls (in contradiction to my theory of inertia). To understand the outcome, we need to know the *whole* system, not just one principle.

2. Often, even a single principle can be "in conflict" in a complicated situation. If you wish to "minimize human suffering or death", do you kill someone to prevent him from torturing someone else? This becomes challenging because of the difficulty of evaluating moral values *precisely*, even in a system which is elegantly consistent and complete. So, for instance, a simple dispute about the *relative* moral values of torture and killing can produce surprising results.

I've found that, once I sort these out, most of the "contradictions" I've seen in people's moral systems turn out not to have been contradictions at all, but insufficient data on my end.

AdamWho

Please don't drag physics into moral issues.
Physics (science in general) is objective moral issues are subjective. Your argument goes like this:

1. Physics is a complicated system
2. Morality is a complicated system
3. Physics sometimes seems to lead contradictions which are not contradictions upon further examination.

Therefore: Contradictions in moral systems are not contradictions if you just examine deeper.

This conclusion assumes that people (probably you) posses a moral system that has the same level of objectivity as physics. If this is true I draw three conclusions:

1. You may be a theist and imagine that your moral principles are based on objectivity, but upon deeper examination you will realize that you are playing a psychological trick on yourself. If this is the case then you will be immune to reason, hence debate is a waste of time.

2. You may be an atheist and think that moral principles are objective, but this would lead me to believe that you haven't read the dozens of threads on this subject already, before starting this thread.

3. You haven’t thought you argument through.

seebs

I was seeing it as a weak analogy, not a very exact one. I'm arguing this of moral systems in general, not my own. I've noticed that nearly every moral system I've ever seen ends up leading to conclusions which people call "contradictory". On further study, I'm not sure that any of them are *actually* contradictory - I think it's just that the rules are complicated enough, and likely enough to end up in opposition, that it's a tough issue.

Mostly I offer this as a general complaint about attempts to show moral systems to be "inconsistent"; most such attempts, I think, end up being unpersuasive because they don't take the whole system into account.

JL

Just the other day I was pondering the contradictions and hypocrisy present in moral systems, particularly Christian as I am most familiar with it.

I suspect there are varying reasons for specific instances of conflict. The one that most quickly came to mind was the edict "Love thy neighbor." coupled with the often repeated capacity to "Butcher thy neighbor with a good conscience."

Hearing Bush on several occasions refer to the war on terrorism as "Battling evil." I think offers some insight. Characterizing these people as religious extremists (which is what they are) I doubt would stir the support of the American people nearly as much.

The pacifism inherent in the Christian faith needs counter-balancing, or else they would have been subjegated/enslaved long ago.

It may be it exists simply because it has made possible a peaceful society which has absolutely no scrupples about crushing its adversaries. The perfect compromise?

But it becomes distasteful to say the least with the global connectiveness technology provides; the line between enemy and neighbor blurs and fades.

As Jung said, let belief be replaced by understanding.

seebs

If I stand by idly while innocents suffer, I'm not showing much love for the innocents.

dk

Ok, How can I possibly love the innocent, without first asking who qualifies, and by what criteria is someone innocent?

seebs

Well, in the moral system I was referring to, you're supposed to love *everyone*, so, if there's any innocent people, you should love them.

AdamWho

I see a contradiction coming...

Of course it is not a contradiction because your (seebs) moral system is complex and upon further examination it won't be a contradiction! This is because physics is complex and often misunderstood too.
Maybe the thread has changed subjects away from the initial premise.

dk

Seebs gave a better answer. How can anyone be sure a contradiction will or will not be resolved in the future?

seebs

One can't, unless one has a very good proof that the contradiction is inherent (which, for all I know it is).

I think the problem is that people tend to interpret "these two principles are in opposition to each other in this circumstance" as a "contradiction". It's no more a contradiction in a moral system than it is in physics; you just have to apply both principles and find out what the net result is.