1. FrayVader - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:36 AM PDT
As usual, a series of suggestions from fraygrants led to the creation of this thread. In place of my usual starting thoughts on the subject, I'd like to repost a post from the Suggestions thread, which offers some very good questions:
"16101. Msivorytower - Oct. 13, 1998 - 9:10 AM PDT
FrayVader
Why don't you create a religion thread that deals with ethical and moral issues like
honesty,
caring,
what is love,
how does one become a good parent,
respect and honor,
greed,
envy,
pride,
etc
and what various religious perspectives tell us about them, how they address them, place value on them, emphasize or demphasize them, and how they affect our daily lives, individually. It would also be interesting to include some historical discussion of the impact these ideas, ethical standards etc, have had on how societies have been shaped (ie, has blatant disregard for any ethical standards been the single most important factor in the development of human civilization?)
I'd suggest addressing them as weekly topics, or in groups for a specified period of time."
In addition, vonKreedon has suggested that the topic of moral relativism be covered, which I too feel could be very interesting.
2. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:46 AM PDT
Here is an excellent resource for a discussion on Ethics.
3. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:51 AM PDT
The Truth in Ethical Relativism, by Hugh LaFollette (Journal of Social Philosophy).
4. FrayVader - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:00 AM PDT
Wow, thanks, Maria!
What better resource could we have for starting off this thread?
5. Msivorytower - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:45 AM PDT
Maria
I'd be interested in your take on LaFollette's position. I read it, and despite his claims to the contrary, found his position highly relativistic.
I thought his discussion of ethical relativism verus absolutism interesting, but not particularly revealing of any new method of ethical evaluation or decision making. Indeed, his approach seems almost useless to me.
6. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 9:04 AM PDT
The Ms,
LaFollette is an unabashed relativist, using ethics as a moral compass in _context_.
His article can best be summarized by the following, in my opinion:
'Some people talk as if ethical theories give us moral prescriptions. They think we should apply ethical principles as we would a poultice: after diagnosing the ailment, we apply the appropriate dressing.
But that is a mistake. No theory provides a set of abstract solutions to apply straightforwardly. But then, I doubt if most ethical theorists ever thought they did. Ethical theories are important not because they solve all moral dilemmas but because they help us notice salient features of moral problems and help us understand those problems in context. They help us see problems we had not seen, to understand problems we had not understood, and thereby empower us to make informed moral judgments, judgement we could not have made without an appreciation of moral theories.'
I agree with those sentiments. Ethics can be used to guide, but not to command. LaFollette is enunciating those principles inherent in the burden of freedom - the freedom to be responsible for our own choices.
7. Msivorytower - Oct. 19, 1998 - 9:16 AM PDT
Maria
Then I misread his argument, since I believed he was trying to find a middle of the road position between absolutism and relativism. If that was his goal, I think he failed, and simply found one more reason to argue the legitimacy of a relativistic position.
Really, I don't even see how it can be applied other than self judgement.
Ethics as guiding principles for relativistic judgement? How in the world would one find any consensus for behavior beyond those minimum standards below which we can all agree none should fall?
And what about murder of an evil person? Should all murder even be condemned?
8. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 9:48 AM PDT
The Ms,
LaFollette is trying to claim the middle ground between Absolutists and Relativists who insist that all ethics are subjective or non-rational.
With a few bottom line exceptions, I can't think of any ethical 'rules' which are not really _guidelines_ for ethical behavior. LaFollette isn't positing '(e)thics as guiding principles for relativistic judgement', but says that
'we should strive for a rational yet relativistic ethic which emphasizes the exercise of cultivated moral judgement rather than the rote application of extant moral rules.'
The development of this 'moral judgement' is what he sees as the ultimate goal of a system of ethics, not a system of rules which would exist to be gotten around, like our system of laws.
Murder itself is a relativistic term, depending upon 'situational sensitivity', as LaFollette calls it, for its definition. Your example is one reason why the _discussion_ of ethical considerations must be ongoing.
What does murder mean to you?
9. Msivorytower - Oct. 19, 1998 - 10:28 AM PDT
Maria
Yes, that's what I thought he was trying to do. It's what I think he didn't do well since I still don't know how we would go about determining what the guidelines are. Unlike language, which has rules that are accepted by all, where are the rules in ethics outside those minimum standards beyond which no one should fall (murder and rape, I suppose are the main two that everyone can agree upon).
What is murder to me? Hmmmm, well, on one level it's simply taking the life of another fully cognizant human being. It can be legitimate when it's linked to actions taken for self defense.
10. cllrdr - Oct. 19, 1998 - 10:35 AM PDT
"Ethics are the esthetics of the future." -- Lenin
11. vonKreedon - Oct. 19, 1998 - 10:37 AM PDT
A couple of things regarding LaFollette:
- He values rationality unreflexibly. I also value rationality, but it is not the only basis for ethics/morality.
- He supports the notion of generalization with the example of, "It explains, for example, why I should not walk on the grass even though my doing so will not hurt the grass. If everyone walked on the grass, the grass would die. Moreover, it would be unfair to allow me to walk on the grass while forbidding you from doing so. Thus, the generalization argument shows that it is wrong for me (and you and everyone else)." This example assumes that all people value the grass over the convenience of walking over the grass.
- My favorite part of the piece,
"As I see it, ethical inquiry proceed like this: we are taught moral principles by parents, teachers, and society at large. As we grow older we become exposed to competing views. These may lead us to reevaluate presently held beliefs. Or we may find ourselves inexplicably making certain valuations, possibly because of inherited altruistic tendencies.[17] We may "learn the hard way" that some actions generate unacceptable consequences. Or we may reflect upon our own and others' "theories" or patterns of behavior and decide they are inconsistent. The resulting views are "tested"; we act as we think we should and evaluate the consequences of those actions on ourselves and on others. We thereby correct our mistakes in light of the test of time.
Of course we may not like such a ragtag process. We may yearn for the "good ole days" when we thought our ethical principles had the stamp of certainty, when we thought we had a foolproof univocal procedure for determining right and wrong. But those days, like the noumenal world, are well lost.[18] They are mere dreams, flights of philosophical fancy. It is time to grow up, to recognize that certainty is not on the menu -- nor was it ever. "
- He d
12. vonKreedon - Oct. 19, 1998 - 10:39 AM PDT
cont.
- He did not (nor is it in the scope of his short piece) deal with the dangers of rigid morality.
I am working on a thesis piece on moral relativism, look for it later today.
13. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 11:06 AM PDT
The Ms,
His analogy involving ethics and grammar was one of the most thought-provoking parts of his article (no pun intended). Grammar, which most of us think of as an unvarying set of rules, is relativistic even without taking into account the old descriptivist/prescriptivist debate. E. B. White's example of Thomas Paine's 'These are the times that try men's souls' and why no rule explains why it should be preferable to any other grammatical equivalent shows the relativism of language in a nutshell.
LaFollette summarizes his position on language as follows:
1) language developed to enhance communication.
2) Although there are limits on how language could have evolved, no language is privileged.
3) No set of linguistic rules covers all cases; nonetheless
4) knowing those rules is vital for effective communication. Finally
5) we can debate the wisdom of rules of grammar: we can determine when it is reasonable to ignore those rules; we can decide if the rules no longer serve their original purposes and therefore ought to be discarded.
As he says, these points are the ways in which ethics can be relative without being subjective.
As regards your definition of murder, I wanted to pursue your notion of the murder of an evil person. Would that fall under the category 'murder'?
14. Msivorytower - Oct. 19, 1998 - 11:11 AM PDT
Maria
I agree the example of language was thought provoking. However, he didn't explain how the "rules" of ethics emerge, unlike with language.
Yes, the killing of an evil person can be an act of murder. Under those circumstances (outside of the area of self defense), is it immoral?
Here's my relativism: depends.
15. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 11:21 AM PDT
The Ms,
I'm looking for another article on the development of ethics; vonKreedon is right, this short piece does not include many of the salient points you bring up.
I'd love to have a discussion on what contstitutes 'murder' once we have the appropriate context in place.
As for your relativism: HAH! I knew it!
16. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 11:22 AM PDT
That would be 'constitutes'.
17. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 11:46 AM PDT
The Ms,
Here is a good intro to various aspects of philosophy. Take a look at the section on 'Moral Philosophy' for a short overview of ethical thought since the Enlightenment.
18. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 12:06 PM PDT
The Ms,
This set of guidelines is by no means a scholarly discourse, but I think that it provides a good framework for a discussion on applied ethics. Be sure to follow the author's other link.
19. aldavis - Oct. 19, 1998 - 12:23 PM PDT
I am a bit hesitant to speak as I have not read LaFollette and, quite frankly, most of what I have read on this thread is over my intellect. However, I would like to comment on the grass thing. First, walking on the grass does not kill it even though everybody does it. People have been walking on the grass at Golden Gate Park and it thrives. Walking or not walking on the grass is not an ethical or moral question, it is a legal question. If I own the grass and do not want you on it, then you better stay off, as long as I have the might to keep you off. If absolutes do not exist, as you so blithly declare, societies are free to do what ever they agree upon. I know I'm simplistic, but maybe things are not really all that complicated. At any rate, it's 78 degrees in Hawaii and I'm off to walk on the grass and punish golf balls. Aloha and mahalo.
20. Msivorytower - Oct. 19, 1998 - 12:27 PM PDT
Maria
Thanks for the additional links. I'll look at them this afternoon and get on with the discussion.
"I'd love to have a discussion on what contstitutes 'murder' once we have the appropriate context in place."
Me too.
Aldavis,
Interesting distinction between ethics and law. I'm thinking about it. Btw, the link to LaFollette's piece under discussion in given in Message #3 above.
21. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 12:33 PM PDT
I agree with the Ms, aldavis, on the distinction between ethics and law. Any other thoughts along these lines?
22. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 1:33 PM PDT
An overview of Aristotle's _Ethics_ might be worthwhile, too.
23. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 1:48 PM PDT
This definition of 'ethics' from the Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names should help narrow the focus of future discussions:
ethics
Branch of philosophy concerned with the evaluation of human conduct. Philosophers commonly distinguish between: descriptive ethics, the factual study of the ethical standards or principles of a group or tradition; normative ethics, the development of theories that systematically denominate right and wrong actions; applied ethics, the use of these theories to form judgments regarding practical cases; and meta-ethics, careful analysis of the meaning and justification of ethical claims.
24. Seamus - Oct. 19, 1998 - 2:12 PM PDT
Is it ethical to post and run?
25. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 2:14 PM PDT
A question for the ages!
26. vonKreedon - Oct. 19, 1998 - 4:21 PM PDT
Moral Relativism
My thesis is that all morality is relative, that this is a human condition. Further, I argue that when people try to deny this fact of the human condition, to say that they subscribe to a “true, empirical” morality this sets the stage for some of the most horrendous human actions in history.
You are all individuals:
Our morality cannot hope but to be relative; we are each individual humans, our inner life inaccessible to those outside of us, often inaccessible to ourselves! I observe an incident and will have very different understanding of that incident that another witness, the case study of seven witnesses to a car accident having seven VERY different understandings of what occurred is cliché but illuminating. So it is that we develop our morality individually, and this is good as one person's morality is unlikely to give the same priorities to things that mine does. However, we do not develop our morality in a vacuum, it is informed by the culture we live in.
cont...
27. vonKreedon - Oct. 19, 1998 - 4:22 PM PDT
...cont.
We do not grow up alone:
Now, as LaFollette says,
“As I see it, ethical inquiry proceed like this: we are taught moral principles by parents, teachers, and society at large. As we grow older we become exposed to competing views. These may lead us to reevaluate presently held beliefs. Or we may find ourselves inexplicably making certain valuations, possibly because of inherited altruistic tendencies.[17] We may "learn the hard way" that some actions generate unacceptable consequences. Or we may reflect upon our own and others' "theories" or patterns of behavior and decide they are inconsistent. The resulting views are "tested"; we act as we think we should and evaluate the consequences of those actions on ourselves and on others. We thereby correct our mistakes in light of the test of time.”
So, in addition to each of us being a unique set of personality and experiences, we are also a product of our culture. I would not expect a person raised in Afghanistan to have all of the same moral tenets that I have, but I am likely to expect a North American to have the most of the same tenets, though not the same flavor/weight/urgency that I have.
Humans are adaptable:
One of the attributes of humans that makes us such successful animals is that we are extremely adaptable. Moral rigidity is a negative mind set for humans because it robs us of our ability to adapt to new moral situations. This is particularly true if we surrender our morality to an external source because we then must reference this source for insight rather than referencing ourselves.
cont...
28. vonKreedon - Oct. 19, 1998 - 4:24 PM PDT
...cont.
Morality is internal, but we can externalize it:
We build our own morality, but we don't have to take ownership of it, we can surrender our moral compass to an external source, a holy book/person, a party ideology, what we see on TV. This is very dangerous because we are then alienated from our morality and no longer have the brakes on our behavior that true individual morality would give us.
Group think, the basis for atrocities:
It is true that some individuals, we call them psychotics, have a moral compass that is so completely individual that has no place for others, this allows them to do horrific things to other individuals. But as Stalin said, “One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.” For humans to perform enormous works of horror on each other requires that we give up our internal moral compass and take moral direction from outside of ourselves.
cont...
29. vonKreedon - Oct. 19, 1998 - 4:24 PM PDT
...cont.
When a group of people surrender their morality to an external source, holy story, holy man, Party ideology, they enter into a contract with each other that they are right and everyone else is wrong. They have the pure morality, everyone else is mistaken at best and evil at worst. Since the morality is external and held by the group there can develop an hysteria to show that you are truly pure at heart, or at least doing a better job of walking the walk than others. This can result in atrocities internal to the group, from criticism/self-criticism denunciation sessions, to witch trials, to torture and executions of apostates. It can also turn outside of the group, to crusades, to ethnic cleansing and genocide, to firebombing defenseless cities. These are not acts that the individuals would take by themselves, their internal morality would be unlikely to justify the wholesale murder of their friends and neighbors based on fine differentiation's of race or thought or sex, but it happens over and over when humans surrender their flexible internal morality for an inflexible group held external morality.
vK
30. mintcar - Oct. 19, 1998 - 5:17 PM PDT
vK:
I found your thesis interesting, but there's a few things in it that might need rethinking or at least refinement. First of all, your argument doesn't seem to involve morality so much as individual's perception of morality. An analogy: this is the difference between showing that people's perception of disease have been different at different times and places, and showing that the causes of disease differ over time periods and cultures. It may be possible to convincingly argue that, unlike disease, there is no model of morality that everyone should prefer on objective grounds, but simply saying that people have different beliefs about morality does not remove the possibility of a single, objectively superior set of beliefs being out there, somewhere.
For this reason your example of the seven eye witnesses to a car crash seems inappropriate. Surely there is a factually correct account of the car crash, regardless of whether different witnesses agree?
31. VicKuligin - Oct. 19, 1998 - 5:22 PM PDT
vonK
"I observe an incident and will have very different understanding of that incident that another witness, the case study of seven witnesses to a car accident having seven VERY different understandings of what occurred is cliché but illuminating."
mintcar beat me to the punch, but I too found your thesis wanting on this very issue.
So what if we have FIFTY different accounts. There still *is* an objective reality to the account, something that *is* correct when describing the accident, one which *does* exclude all explanations that are false about the accident.
And thus my point in the other thread to you. Christians speak of an objective reality, which, regardless of perception by humans, remains objective in and of itself.
32. mintcar - Oct. 19, 1998 - 5:41 PM PDT
Re post 26: "You are all individuals"
(Obligatory Monty Python quote): "We are all individuals!"
33. VicKuligin - Oct. 19, 1998 - 5:44 PM PDT
vonK
Your material on "group think" is interesting, but in and of itself it in no way serves as an argument against objective moral truths.
34. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 5:46 PM PDT
Vic,
What objective moral truths?
Can you name them and explain why they are objective?
35. VicKuligin - Oct. 19, 1998 - 5:48 PM PDT
maria
Do you believe that God exists??
36. ChristinO - Oct. 19, 1998 - 5:50 PM PDT
Mintcar and VicKuligin:
I agree with you that the witness analogy is inapplicable here, but not for the same reasons.
In the case of an automobile accident there actually is a chain of events that occurred. In the case of any ethical argument there is no ultimate veracity. It comes down to values which are completely subjective. Now, certainly theists will argue that this is not so---that there is an "Other" that has decreed what is ultimately right and what is ultimately wrong, but this cannot be effectively argued as a means of determining morality unless all people subscribe to the view that there is such an Other.
37. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 5:51 PM PDT
Vic,
Answer my questions, please. It's bad form to attempt to answer a question with another question.
38. VicKuligin - Oct. 19, 1998 - 6:00 PM PDT
maria
I like to think that I have learned at least one thing in the Fray, namely, to not jump to conclusions concerning the views of others.
My answer will be rooted in the existence of God, and I refuse to waste my time and yours with posting several posts about this issue, only to have you way down the road say it is all a moot point because, well, God doesn't exist at all.
If you want me to answer your question, then, you will first have to answer my simply little question. Are you a theist? Thanks.
39. VicKuligin - Oct. 19, 1998 - 6:02 PM PDT
ChristinO
"Now, certainly theists will argue that this is not so---that there is an "Other" that has decreed what is ultimately right and what is ultimately wrong, but this cannot be effectively argued as a means of determining morality unless all people subscribe to the view that there is such an Other."
I'm not sure I agree here. Are you saying that ALL people must first believe in God and then believe in the exact same things about this God, before they can determine morality??
40. elliot803 - Oct. 19, 1998 - 6:04 PM PDT
mintcar:
"...simply saying that people have different beliefs about morality does not remove the possibility of a single, objectively superior set of beliefs being out there, somewhere."
How may we discover the single, objectively superior set of beliefs, even if it exists?
41. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 6:04 PM PDT
Vic,
The existence of 'objective moral truths' does not depend on me or anyone else. If these truths are 'objective', they stand alone.
Hence my questions:
What objective moral truths?
Can you name them and explain why they are objective?
42. mintcar - Oct. 19, 1998 - 6:07 PM PDT
There is an argument in ethics, which I associate with Hume, that is (crudely) summarized as "There is no way to go from 'is' to 'ought to be,'" in other words there is no way to go from statements about the nature of reality to statements of what is morally better or worse. For example, it could be argued, the existence of a God does not have any inherent moral implication, since it could be a good God or a bad God, and deciding that requires a moral framework already in place.
VicKuligin, how do you draw a moral conclusion from your beliefs about existence? I'm guessing it's not as simple as "If a God exists, then whatever that God says is moral is moral." Or is it?
ChristinO: I think our complaints are the same, actually, as long as vonKreedon was trying to argue for a subjective view of morality like you are. I was trying to point out that the analogy doesn't strengthen that argument.
43. Msivorytower - Oct. 19, 1998 - 6:15 PM PDT
Maria Message #41
This is my understanding of "objective" moral truths as well. They should be evident regardless of what personal beliefs one may hold.
How do these objective moral truths reveal themselves to members of a community such that all (or most) recognize them?
44. mintcar - Oct. 19, 1998 - 6:33 PM PDT
Elliot:
"How may we discover the single, objectively superior set of beliefs, even if it exists?"
Rigorous application of the scientific method!
Actually, I'm not arguing for (or against) an objectively superior set of beliefs that can be determined. I think vK's argument was essentially a statement about the fallibility of human knowledge and reasoning, and didn't adequately explain what is the difference between trying to understand morality and trying to understand, say, weather. Which is not to say I don't think there's a difference.
45. elliot803 - Oct. 19, 1998 - 6:33 PM PDT
mintcar:
"There is an argument in ethics, which I associate with Hume, that is (crudely) summarized as "There is no way to go from 'is' to 'ought to be,'" in other words there is no way to go from statements about the nature of reality to statements of what is morally better or worse."
Yes. It has a name: the naturalistic fallacy.
46. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 6:38 PM PDT
The Ms,
Your question is a good one, especially as it pertains to communities instead of individuals. Revealed moral principles cannot, by definition, be objective. The fact that a community may agree on certain 'truths' doesn't make them objective either, because otherwise schisms would not occur over matters of allegedly 'objective reality'.
47. VicKuligin - Oct. 19, 1998 - 6:39 PM PDT
maria
"The existence of 'objective moral truths' does not depend on me or anyone else. If these truths are 'objective', they stand alone."
I will have to disagree with this one. If indeed God exists, and if he has a will for his creatures, and if he can reveal this will to his creatures, then that will is objectively true. In other words, whether I choose to accept it or reject it is irrelevant to the objectivity of the revelation.
Any "moral objective truth" must be measured against something other than itself. "Thou shalt not kill" is meaningless apart from some measure apart from the truth itself.
Again, in order for us to say "this is good" or "this is morally superior," we must be able to measure it against something else.
Therefore, I disagree with your statement above.
48. mintcar - Oct. 19, 1998 - 6:47 PM PDT
VicKuligin:
"I will have to disagree with this one. If indeed God exists, and if he has a will for his creatures, and if he can reveal this will to his creatures, then that will is objectively true. In other words, whether I choose to accept it or reject it is irrelevant to the objectivity of the revelation."
Assuming that the will of God is objectively true, what makes it morally compelling?
49. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 6:56 PM PDT
Too many 'ifs', Vic. To say that something is an 'objective truth' means that it is unhampered by 'ifs'.
50. ChristinO - Oct. 19, 1998 - 6:57 PM PDT
Vic, in order to establish a Deity as the arbiter of morality then all people must accept that Deity. All people do not accept this as we have firmly established in even such a small community as the Fray. Even were all people to accept such a Deity they would still not automatically agree on the will of that Deity as we have also firmly established in the even smaller community of theists here in the Fray. That I say that something is so does not make it so. Not even if I say "God told me it is so".
That you disagree with Maria's statement about objectivity suggests to me that you aren't clear on the concept. Unless the will of God can be objectively proven it doesn't serve to command all people. Since it is the whole point of Faith that this cannot be proven I'm not sure what exactly you are disagreeing with.
51. ChristinO - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:02 PM PDT
Mintcar,
My apologies. I wasn't clear on your point. I see that we were thinking along the same lines regarding vK's example.
Ms,
Is Limited Objective moral truth an oxymoron? The reason I ask is that among certain small groups a truth might be considered objective, but if exposed to the scrutiny of any outside observer that objectivity would be nullified, right?
52. VicKuligin - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:22 PM PDT
ChristinO
"Unless the will of God can be objectively proven it doesn't serve to command all people."
I never said that it would do that. What I *did* say, though, was that regardless of whether people accept it or reject it, it still remains objective. In fact, in my statement one could read that implication that there WILL be people that will reject it.
This stands in stark contrast to a relativism that states something is true because *I* believe it to be true.
What I mean by "objective" is that it is true regardless of the subjects. That my wall is yellow is objectively true, whether I choose to believe it is black or not.
And in theism, this is supremely logically. If one denies theism, though, of course it is not reasonable.
53. VicKuligin - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:23 PM PDT
BTW, and I haven't even started with the issue of how to know it, or what it is, and so on. I am merely arguing for the existence of objective truths.
54. Raskolnikov - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:48 PM PDT
If you define "objective truth" to mean "reality as viewed and created by the Judeo-Christian God", you are still left with the problem of proving that God's view is at all discernable.
With the car accident analogy, you can at least use witness memory, forensic investigation of the crash, and knowledge of emprically determined physics principles to make a damn good approximation of what happened. With morality, you can't even test.
55. ChristinO - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:49 PM PDT
Vic,
If you want to argue the existence of objective moral truth based on the existence of God then you must first prove the existence of God. This is beyond the power of man to date, so your argument remains "The Great What If". Sure you believe and I believe and others believe, but in the everyday world this doesn't amount to much but strife.
I suppose I was getting ahead of things thinking about the application of morality, but I fail to see that the objectivity of moral truth can be proven. The reality of application must take into account believers and non-believers alike so for me the issue of whether or not there is a God doesn't come into the equation. It means a lot to me, but it carries no weight with anyone else so it's not useful as a method of persuasion.
56. ChristinO - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:50 PM PDT
Rask,
Sure you can. There's Combat,Dunking, Pressing, Burning.......
57. Msivorytower - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:53 PM PDT
ChristinO re Message #51
I would say that limited objective moral truth is an oxymoron. Something is either "objective" or not, no middle ground here.
58. Raskolnikov - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:53 PM PDT
...or build a bridge out of 'em. I stand corrected.
59. ChristinO - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:56 PM PDT
Ms, then I'd have to say that I have yet to see proof of objective moral truth and I seriously doubt that such can be offered.
60. VicKuligin - Oct. 19, 1998 - 7:58 PM PDT
ChristinO
"If you want to argue the existence of objective moral truth based on the existence of God then you must first prove the existence of God."
And this is precisely why I asked maria FIRST if she was a theist. The existence of God must FIRST be dealt with, before one can discuss objective truths from the Christian perspective. And I didn't want to give a full-blown explanation only to have her come back down the road with, "Well, God doesn't exist anyway, so this was a waste of time." That happens far too often in the Fray, IMO.
But, if a person IS a theist, than the idea that objective truths DO exist isn't too far of a "leap" at all.
61. mintcar - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:03 PM PDT
"But, if a person IS a theist, than the idea that objective truths DO exist isn't too far of a "leap" at all."
VicK, I'm still curious how these objective truths about the nature of God translate into a basis for morality. How do you avoid the (thanks elliot) naturalistic fallacy? How do you know God is not a bad diety?
62. ChristinO - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:09 PM PDT
Vic,
My apologies for butting in. I wasn't aware that this was all about being able to debate with Maria. Your question of whether or not she believes in God assumes a lot, however. If one assumes the existence of both God and objective moral truth that's still as far as one can go with the argument until the nature of that God is agreed upon.
63. mariagleason - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:21 PM PDT
Christin,
You're doing great!
Vic,
Objective truths do not exist within a carefully constructed framework; that makes them subjective.
64. ChristinO - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:32 PM PDT
Does that mean I can call you Mowie?
65. Msivorytower - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:33 PM PDT
Yes, for instance, here's an objective truth.
Fire burns in an oxygen environment. When fire is put on dried wood, the wood burns. Under no circumstances is it possible that fire added to dried wood wouldn't burn on this planet.
This requires no constructed framework to understand. The word for fire and burn may not be universally known, but the truth of the event is constant across all cultures and languages.
66. ChristinO - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:38 PM PDT
Ms,
I'm not disputing that there is objective truth. Not at all. I specifically stated objective moral truth. As I've told Vic, I personally believe in it, but that is Faith, not Proof of which I have none to offer nor have I seen that anyone else does. I'd be interested to see it attempted, though.
67. Msivorytower - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:39 PM PDT
ChristinO
No, I didn't think you were arguing that there is no objective truth. I was actually illustrating Maria's point in Message #63.
68. ChristinO - Oct. 19, 1998 - 8:52 PM PDT
Oh, duh. >:-|
69. davidmeyer - Oct. 19, 1998 - 11:54 PM PDT
A couple of things.
First, reading Fem IR theory, I came upon the concept of dynamic objectivity (in relation to everyday reality, not just ethics). I forget who it was attributed to, and i don't have it to quote, but it was something like this:
reality exists independently, but humans are incapable of viewing it objectively.
Not really that substantial sounding, but I bet that it can be used in a lot of discussions that develop in this thread.
Also, there seem to be several categories of knowledge, some of which are contingent on existential truth, others of which are not. A description of a car crash seems to be contingent on reality.
A math equation also seems to be contingent, but in an entirely different form; it is not one hundred percent conventional. 2 + 2 = 4. Why? Because it is the result of the application of a conventionally determined system of rules to a set of data. But numbers denote, so there is some relationship to reality (two cows plus two cows is always going to result in a group of cows which have the characteristics of four). Perhaps language fits in here also, since it has denotative qualities.
Finally, moral theory seems to be entirely conventional. Normativity is a concept that can not exist without humanness and rationality.
I notice that this thread has been created along with a 10 commandments thread; perhaps this is evidence that the two topics are different?
70. cigarlaw - Oct. 20, 1998 - 12:20 AM PDT
ethics is like virginity. either you are ethical or you are not.
each lawyer in the U.S. has to pass an ethics exam. What a stupid idea. If you are ethical you don't need a test and if you are not you will just cheat anyway.
71. davidmeyer - Oct. 20, 1998 - 12:46 AM PDT
cigarlaw:
Everybody is ethical. Systems of ethics are different for difft. people. People who cheat obviously have a difft. ethical standard than those who do not.
vonKreedon:
Might I suggest that you look into some of Foucault's histories? His method for determining value (essentially, hindsight, as someone called it in feminism) is similar to that which you describe.
In short, it involves an historical analysis of the origin, development, and application of an idea; the worth of a concept is often demonstrated by the actions that have been based on it.
72. bubbaette - Oct. 20, 1998 - 5:50 AM PDT
Ciglaw
Ethics opinions issued by the state bar can be a little obtuse. Although I consider myself an ethical person, I wouldn't have necessarily answered the questions the same way the bar did. Sometimes, with explaination, I can see why they reasoned the way they did. Other times the opinions seem almost arbitrary. My point being that ethics to an attorney may not be the same as they are to a layperson.
One of the things I do for a living is put on one or two conferences a year that offer Continuing Education Legal credits. In Virginia, members of the bar are required to have 2 credits a year in Ethics, and its gotten to be a draw for conferences if they offer ethics credits. Unfortunately, the sessions tend to be as dry as dust and many of the attorneys talk through them, read the paper, etc. In that respect, I agree that the ethics tests are pointless. On the other hand, the opinions of what is ethical come down rather frequently, and it's not a bad idea to keep current on them. Now only if I could find a speaker who makes ethics interesting.
73. vonKreedon - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:48 AM PDT
Mint wrote Message #30,
"Surely there is a factually correct account of the car crash, regardless of whether different witnesses agree?"
A couple of things about this analogy. We are not dealing with physical reality here, but with moral reality. The response to an event is what has a moral character, not the physical process of the event. What I am trying to communicate with the analogy is that the human response to an event is relative to the individual. If my personal world view includes the concept that, for example, people driving red sports cars are prone to drive dangerously then my moral response to the accident may cause me to perceive that the driver of the red sports car caused the accident. If I have a rigid moral position on the character of red sports car drivers then I will maintain my perception despite what evidence may be developed. We actually see this sort of behavior in cases involving Isrealis and Palestinians.
VicK wrote Message #31,
"Christians speak of an objective reality, which, regardless of perception by humans, remains objective in and of itself."
But of what use to us humans is such an inapproachable concept, speaking of objective moral reality as opposed to objective physical reality.
vK
74. vonKreedon - Oct. 20, 1998 - 8:49 AM PDT
DavidM - Could you provide any online links to Foucalt?
Thanks
75. VicKuligin - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:36 AM PDT
ChristinO
"My apologies for butting in. I wasn't aware that this was all about being able to debate with Maria."
I'm not sure why you say this. Are you being a bit too sensitive here, or what?
BTW, I agree that one's view of God must be discussed first. That was my whole point in discussing this with maria originally.
As for you "butting in," I think what you have said is good. In fact, it has only supported my original point. Thanks.
76. VicKuligin - Oct. 20, 1998 - 9:37 AM PDT
maria
"Objective truths do not exist within a carefully constructed framework; that makes them subjective."
Could you explain this please? Thank you.
77. ChristinO - Oct. 20, 1998 - 11:04 AM PDT
Vic,
I wasn't miffed I was being facetious. You asked Maria "Do you believe in God??" as if her answer would magically cause all other things to fall in place. What you need to establish is "Do you believe exactly as I believe". You know that she doesn't so what's the point in asking?
There is morality without belief in God. To bog down at less than 100 posts to re-hash the existence of Divinity seems a waste.
78. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 11:32 AM PDT
There is a long and venerable tradition of atheistic morality in western philosophy, to which Socrates, Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus, Spinoza, Erasmus, Hume, Voltaire, Kant, Bentham, Mill, G.E. Moore, Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, and many others have all contributed.
79. ChristinO - Oct. 20, 1998 - 12:03 PM PDT
Here's a thought:
If there is a Supreme Deity then there is moral absolutism, but if there is no Supreme Deity then there can be no moral absolutes.
How does that grab you?
80. vonKreedon - Oct. 20, 1998 - 12:32 PM PDT
If there is a deity there MAY be moral absolutism, OTOH a supreme deity may well be amoral. "If God is good he is not God." A. McCleish
81. bubbaette - Oct. 20, 1998 - 12:39 PM PDT
vK
I agree. If there is a primary mover and shaker, what proof is there that the heavens and earth were not just set in motion and the supreme diety is not supremely aloof?
I tend to think that ethics, like religion, is a set of constructs that we place on our behaviour for the greater good of society.
82. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 12:42 PM PDT
As I argued earlier, even if there is a set of "moral absolutes" (regardless of whether a deity is needed for that to be true or not), we have no generally agreed on way of discovering what they are, so relativism is inescapable anyway.
83. BunEBear - Oct. 20, 1998 - 12:45 PM PDT
Message #80 Or more to the point, even if there is a "Supreme Being", we still have to decide (as individuals) whether we find such being to be good. This decision is a subjective one.
84. vonKreedon - Oct. 20, 1998 - 12:45 PM PDT
Bub - Yes! If we do not impose limits on ourselves we cannot live with others. In a larger sense, if we, the human race, do not place limits on ourselves we cannot live on the planet. But, for reasons that escape me, we insist on externalizing the reason for these limits. Instead of saying, "I want to live in human society on this planet, so I believe that it is best for met to...," we say, "The holy story/man/party ideology says that this is the right way to be." Paradoxically this externalizing of morality then tends to make it harder for us to live together on the planet because our holy story/man/party ideology in order to be valid must be Right, and of course everyone else is Wrong and needs to be re-educated, Comrade.
vK
85. VicKuligin - Oct. 20, 1998 - 2:25 PM PDT
bubbaette
"If there is a primary mover and shaker, what proof is there that the heavens and earth were not just set in motion and the supreme diety is not supremely aloof?"
The "proof" may very well be that this being DID and DOES interact with his creation. For Deism to be correct, one would have to prove in some fashion that this being does not do this.
86. VicKuligin - Oct. 20, 1998 - 2:29 PM PDT
christinO
"You asked Maria "Do you believe in God??" as if her answer would magically cause all other things to fall in place."
Just take the question at its base understanding. I asked simply to know IF she was a theist. There is nothing "magical" about that.
My argument for the existence of moral absolutes is rooted in the existence of God, regardless of how you define "god" at least for the moment. My position would be basically an agnostic argument, in this sense:
Does God exist?
Does he have a will for his creation?
Can he reveal that will to his creation?
My question was asked, simply because I didn't want to waste time.
And instead of just giving a simple answer, maria has caused us in essence to waste time anyway wrt her question of me.
87. VicKuligin - Oct. 20, 1998 - 2:30 PM PDT
christinO
"You asked Maria "Do you believe in God??" as if her answer would magically cause all other things to fall in place."
Just take the question at its base understanding. I asked simply to know IF she was a theist. There is nothing "magical" about that.
My argument for the existence of moral absolutes is rooted in the existence of God, regardless of how you define "god" at least for the moment. My position would be basically an agnostic argument, in this sense:
Does God exist?
Does he have a will for his creation?
Can he reveal that will to his creation?
My question was asked, simply because I didn't want to waste time.
And instead of just giving a simple answer, maria has caused us in essence to waste time anyway wrt her question of me.
88. VicKuligin - Oct. 20, 1998 - 2:30 PM PDT
christinO
"You asked Maria "Do you believe in God??" as if her answer would magically cause all other things to fall in place."
Just take the question at its base understanding. I asked simply to know IF she was a theist. There is nothing "magical" about that.
My argument for the existence of moral absolutes is rooted in the existence of God, regardless of how you define "god" at least for the moment. My position would be basically an agnostic argument, in this sense:
Does God exist?
Does he have a will for his creation?
Can he reveal that will to his creation?
My question was asked, simply because I didn't want to waste time.
And instead of just giving a simple answer, maria has caused us in essence to waste time anyway wrt her question of me.
89. VicKuligin - Oct. 20, 1998 - 2:32 PM PDT
And now *I* have wasted our time!!
90. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 2:40 PM PDT
davidmeyer (Message #71)
"People who cheat obviously have a difft. ethical standard than those who do not."
Sounds like when an economist talks about "revealed preference".
How do you know that a cheater just isn't violating the set of ethical standards he does possess? Can there be hypocrisy if a cheater's cheating is considered merely the reflection of an ethical standard which justifies cheating? (The question poses the same problem for Foucault's historicism. You can't simply observe people's actions and infer an ethics from them.)
91. PseudoErasmus - Oct. 20, 1998 - 2:45 PM PDT
Message #78
(1) Erasmus and Voltaire were not philosophers, and they had no ethical theories at all.
(2) Democritus was a philosopher, but is not known for an ethical theory, as far as I know. Where on earth did you find a Democritean ethics?
(3) I think you mean not "atheistic morality" but an ethical philospohy which doesn't require a deity. Surely you must realise that more than half of your list weren't atheists in the least.
92. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 4:02 PM PDT
pseudo:
No, I mean atheistic. Atheistic properly means non-theistic. And I didn't say that all the names in the list were those of professional philosophers. If I have the time and the inclination, I may try and dig up something on Democritus.
93. VicKuligin - Oct. 20, 1998 - 5:06 PM PDT
elliot
"There is a long and venerable tradition of atheistic morality in western philosophy, to which Socrates, Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus, Spinoza, Erasmus, Hume, Voltaire, Kant, Bentham, Mill, G.E. Moore, Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, and many others have all contributed."
It would be helpful if you CAN show us how the theists on your list contributed to the "long and venerable tradition of ***atheistic*** morality." Thank you.
94. vonKreedon - Oct. 20, 1998 - 5:14 PM PDT
Elliot is going to have a hard time doing that, though what he is arguing is based on a literal definition of atheistic, as in non-theistic, as opposed to the more normal definition as anti-theistic.
95. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 5:18 PM PDT
VicKuligin:
"It would be helpful if you CAN show us how the theists on your list contributed to the "long and venerable tradition of ***atheistic*** morality.""
By presenting theories of morality and ethics that are independent of the existence of God.
96. VicKuligin - Oct. 20, 1998 - 5:50 PM PDT
elliot
PE: "(3) I think you mean not "atheistic morality" but an ethical philospohy which doesn't require a deity."
You: "No, I mean atheistic. Atheistic properly means non-theistic."
You again: "By presenting theories of morality and ethics that are independent of the existence of God."
OK, this clarifies your original comment. Could you give me an example or two? Upon what basis did some of the "theists" you mentioned make their "atheistic moral theories?" Thanks.
97. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 5:54 PM PDT
VicKuligin:
"Could you give me an example or two?"
I could, but I'm not going to.
98. Jenerator - Oct. 20, 1998 - 5:57 PM PDT
Why not Elliot? Prove your point if you think you can.
99. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 6:07 PM PDT
pseudo:
"(1) Erasmus and Voltaire were not philosophers, and they had no ethical theories at all."
Voltaire most definitely was a philosopher and his work included moral philosophy.
100. elliot803 - Oct. 20, 1998 - 6:10 PM PDT
Jenerator:
"Why not Elliot? Prove your point if you think you can."
I have proved my point. Are you denying the existence of an atheistic philosophy of ethics?