Doubting Didymus

I have defended logic as the basis for my morality enough. Now I will force you to defend your morality.

I'm very sorry to have called you a cultural relativist. From the above quote, I guess you are a personal relativist. Tell me, If morals are whatever the individual feels is right, if hitler was right because he felt he was right, what can ever be wrong, under any circumstance? If I feel, for some reason, that it would be right for me to kill and eat my neighbors child, am I actually wrong to do that?

The examples you list all assume that the individual places his own benefit over that of all others, and that morals are never used in logic. How many times must I say: Moral codes should be used in logical arguments to generate moral actions. Morals should be used in logic. Morals should be used in logic.

Try it out, using your own elusive moral code.

1) opressing a minority will benifit me

this is where you would have the argument end. But there is more to this than just the calculation of personal gain. you have to include YOUR MORALS in the argument.

2) my moral code is X (whatever your moral code is based on)
3) oppressing a minority for personal gain is not moral under my moral code: X (I assume)
conclusion: I can not morally supress a minority.

I sincerely believe that this is what you personally are doing when you personally decide on an action based on your code. Whether you do it conciously of not is irrelevant. Now will you stop saying that injustice is logical? it is only logical to a person with a moral code that allows it, which I would consider an inferior moral code.

I know I would not find much support for moral objectivity here, but I am sure that most people agree that certain things are always immoral, regardless of a persons belief. These things might include murder of an innocent for no known reason, theift in the abscence of need, etc. My grounds for saying that one code or other is superior than another is based on the capacity to logically derive these known moralities from that code.

Red Expendable

Regarding your comment about 'theft in the absence of need' -- What about theft in the presence of need? If you are hungry, you might steal to get it (food, money, etc)? I've met plenty of people who would find this not moral (wrong).

RedEx

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Theft in need is OK?

Sure, if it's better to be a live thief, than an honest dead person.

(See, it's a question of how much you value your own integrity.)

As for racism, I fail to see how it could ever benefit anyone. The Nazis (slave labour and genocide) and the American South (slave labour and massive human rights violations) were destroyed utterly.

Slavery/racism may have benefitted them in the 'short term', but they paid a terrible price for that rather small short-term gain.

And, if we're discussing individuals, rather than nations or races, dealing with others as members of a race, tribe, nation, or group of any kind can easily be seen as making far less sense than dealing with individuals as...individuals.

I cannot imagine why anyone would wish to be judged based on the other members of their race/nation/group, rather than on their own merits.

If they don't feel so hot about their own merits, then there's the work that needs to be done.

Keith.