Vorkosigan

But that is irrelevant as I am not really interested in how they act, only on whether they can logically justify their actions.

ROTFL. There's no logical justification for morality. Moral values are values and exist only in networks of other values, beliefs, and facts.

Since I am not particularly familar with Confusian and Buddhist etc beliefs, perhaps you would like to explain how their moral actions are logically justified?

I am grossly ignorant of Buddhist moral thought, which in any case is quite complex and rich.
Modern Confucians, however, take the social order and a person's status in it as the basis for their moral system. Originally Confucianism was a lot more human-centered.....

Tercel

Yes it is. When faced with big/many posts on a topic I have already argued for six pages on and am getting very sick of and when I have little time for responses and would like to spend that time on other threads too I have a tendency to be extremely selective about what I answer. If points are being made that are: too silly for comment, or that I agree with, or that aren't really adding much of value to the discussion, or that I disagree with but arguing would take too much time and space to be worth it, or I've already given the answers to that or a similar point/question, then I'll simply ignore them.

This is an example of what I would normally ignore. I have already argued why this is not the case. You still hold to your opinions despite my arguments: That's okay, but I'm not going to repeat myself ad infinitum arguing with you. I think you are flat out wrong and I have explained why already (twice I think).

No. As I pointed out Western society has the leftovers of Christian moral standards floating about. The athiests are likely to act morally because they've been indoctrinated by their societies moral standard.

I'm all the way serious and more.

I can't say I follow.


That the separation of Church and State and reduction of Christian power over the secular world has proved extremely useful, I grant. However the diminishment of the political power of the instituational Church should not be equated with a rejection of Christianity.

Plump-DJ

To Vork.

So if we cannot ground moral's and ethics in some objective principle then what do you see as the logical conclusion of all of this?

Hayden

How about a pseudo-evolutionary justification?

1) A society which has rules (morals) and whose members follow those rules (have morality) has more stability than one that doesn't have rules.

2) A stable society is better able to survive than an unstable society (due to less wastage of resources, etc)

Therefore:

3) Stable societies tend to prosper, while unstable societies do not, perpetuating the values that that society holds.


Further, many other species display "good" moral values. For example, if a young gorilla is orphaned, another adult will adopt the baby. Many animals display a social "order", the rules of which could be called "morality" without stretching the imagination too much.

(This needs some work, I know.)

HR

Vorkosigan

Why do we need to "ground" morals at all? The only purpose of "objective" morals is to give their wielder the power to control the minds and bodies of others. It has nothing to do with right behavior.

The logical conclusion of "ungrounded" morals is that morals, values and ethics have many sources, are somewhat ad hoc, are subjective and relative, and are subject to negotiation and revision. All of these are good things.

Vorkosigan

Plump-DJ

Vork..

Well a couple of points.

1) The part about the motivation of those who wish to ground our morals in objectively defined and agreed upon princples (reason and logic for example) is just pure conjecture. In otherwords that's just your opinion, which i don't agree with one bit.

2) I've discussed this (not extensively mind you) with atheists and they seemed to feel that moral relativism was problematic. Hence the last fellow i spoke to about this appealed to Kant's Categorical Imperitive (which i've read very little about) for example. At least they can see the importance trying.

Now to the real meat and bones of all of this.

So granting that.. i'm going to make some statements which i feel logicaly flow from what you've said above in regards to moral's being relative.

* What's true for you may not be true for me.
* No society is better or worse than another (in regard to social ethics)
* Ethical judgments are just a matter of personal opinion

If there is no objective grounding for moral's they are conventions and in which case how can you say that one thing is more "wrong" or "right" then another? Could we live consistenty with moral's being relative? What do we appeal to if asked why we think sometihng is wrong? As soon as one says that killing babies or Hitler's Germany *is* wrong one is no longer being consistent with the claimed position of moral relativist because they are appealing to a standard. Judgments regarding a human act cannot be judged as right or wrong without appealing to some standard used as a criterion for judging the behavior. This standard, by its very nature, is "absolutist." Moral relativism cannot appeal to a standard, simply because "relativism" itself means there are no standards.

Vorkosigan

Originally posted by Plump-DJ:

1) The part about the motivation of those who wish to ground our morals in objectively defined and agreed upon princples (reason and logic for example) is just pure conjecture. In otherwords that's just your opinion, which i don't agree with one bit.

Well, just look into the history of Communism, Christianity, Islam, Facism, Naziism, and get back to me.

2) I've discussed this (not extensively mind you) with atheists and they seemed to feel that moral relativism was problematic. Hence the last fellow i spoke to about this appealed to Kant's Categorical Imperitive (which i've read very little about) for example. At least they can see the importance trying.

I am not responsible for the feelings of other atheists, and I doubt they care much what I think. Do you think we atheists should all adhere to some imaginary Party line? In any case, I am comfortable with my moral position, even if others are uneasy with it.

Vork..
So granting that.. i'm going to make some statements which i feel logicaly flow from what you've said above in regards to moral's being relative.

* What's true for you may not be true for me.

No problem here. That's why social tolerance is a value I hold dear.

* No society is better or worse than another (in regard to social ethics)

Nope. I reserve the right to call some societies worse than others with regard to certain ethical standpoints I hold dear. Others may not agree. What is your solution to the problem of clashing moral opinions?

* Ethical judgments are just a matter of personal opinion

Horseshit. Ever hear of evolution? Lots of our ethical impulses are built into us.

Further, don't confuse "opinion" with "ill-considered opinion." Moral judgements can be flip, or they can be as deeply considered as scholarly judgements. Depends on the person. Just because something reduces to one's opinion does not mean that it reduces to a crude like/dislike foundation. It just means that its foundations are human rather than inhuman.

If there is no objective grounding for moral's they are conventions and in which case how can you say that one thing is more "wrong" or "right" then another?

Lots of ways. I could make an argument based on shared moral values, on evidence, on pragmatics, on prior agreements, on majoritarian grounds...the issue is not whether one can say an action is right or wrong, but whether one can convince anyone else. That is the purpose of those advocating "objective" and "absolute" morals -- to short-circuit these social negotiations and impose the will of one group on society.

Could we live consistenty with moral's being relative?

Perfectly consistent, no. Effectively consistent, yes. Perfection, alas, is beyond us.

What do we appeal to if asked why we think sometihng is wrong?

The same things we always do -- tradition, evidence, facts, beliefs, practices, other cultures, etc. Even with an "objective" moral we're still in the same boat. Everyone still has to figure out what the Oracle meant when it said XYZ, and how to apply that to our current novel situation. There's no escape from the necessity of interpretation and negotiation, except to give ourselves up to morals facists who have THE ANSWER.

As soon as one says that killing babies or Hitler's Germany *is* wrong one is no longer being consistent with the claimed position of moral relativist because they are appealing to a standard.

"Hitler's killing of babies is wrong."

I've made the statement. Wherein is a standard mentioned? I don't see one. Of course, if I want to convince you, it would be nice to have a standard that you found compelling. But not necessary. You might simply bow to my overwhelming authority, or have an epiphany. Who knows?

However, note that I don't need an overtly moral standard to oppose Hitler or to attempt to convince him to stop misbehaving. I could refer to outcomes and self-interest (many Germans opposed Hitler for just such reasons). For example, I could note that if Hitler valued a large army, killing future soldiers is a bad idea. Again, I could pragmatically point out that killing babies is liable to piss off others in Europe who hold different values, and thus spur them into active opposition to Hitler's power. Arguments like this prevent expansionist nations like China from overruning Asia. One does not have to appeal to shared values or universal standards. One could simply point out that if X has the ultimate goal of A, it might be to the detriment of A if X does a particular action. Moral suasion from some outside/shared standpoint need never enter into it.


Judgments regarding a human act cannot be judged as right or wrong without appealing to some standard used as a criterion for judging the behavior.

Assuming for the nonce that you are correct, where is it written that the standard cannot be created through negotiation or enculturation? You seem to think that standards must exist outside of human beings. But there is nothing to say that standards cannot be erected among them, by agreement. That's what things like the Constitution are about. That's why cultures work hard to educate their young in shared values. Because many people agree with your view, including me.

I think you are stuck on the idea that there must be some ultimate standard that underlies moral behavior. But this is not the case. Morals exist and are supported by networks of other values, facts, axioms, opinions, and beliefs. I can always appeal to some standard, but it does not follow that the standard has to be absolute. It does not have even have to be supported. Or even shared.

This standard, by its very nature, is "absolutist." Moral relativism cannot appeal to a standard, simply because "relativism" itself means there are no standards.

By no means. This is a naive formulation. "Relativism" means that standards are not handed down from some entity outside of humanity, and must instead be developed by humans. It recognizes, but does not deplore, the fact that different people will have different morals. It may or may not imply that some morals are not better than others. It seeks tolerate and understand. It expects to learn something about morals from the other cultures it encounters. It expects moral behavior to progress and change. It believes that standards may exist, but they are probably going to be human-produced rather than by inhuman fiat.

Vorkosigan

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

HRG

Why exactly, pray tell ?
No. It means that there are more than one standard - quite a different thing.

Regards,
HRG.

Jobar

This really should have been put in the Moral Foundations & Principles forum from the beginning. I hereby rectify that oversight...