Moral Relativism, Part 1

[Aštra’el]

Well now I am fascinated. You are actually stating -- in your own words and without coercion -- that sacred prostitution and human sacrifices may well be good things -- and not because they're good for us, but because they're good for generating "mana for the gods."

Do you know what? I rather suspect you don't actually believe very much of what you say at all. Fret not, there's a lot of that going around. It's the angst of our present age, when nobody can remember how to think for themselves and cope in a world that's grown too complex.

I never said that these actions are "good", only that I have nothing against these particular things. The terms "good" and "evil" are so reductive that I almost never use them.

If you decide to get all offended about my ability to recognize how acts that evoke powerful emotions can be used to inspire, motivate and influence individuals or a people, and how these acts can contribute to the growth and power of a religion and its god(s)... then be offended. Not my problem... but I highly suggest you take a step back and just let yourself open your mind in an unbiased attempt to understand what it is I am describing.

 

[Nous]

If I may be forgiven, I'm going to restrict myself to this one part of you post for now (I will address the rest later, as time allows, and as your effort merits).

No apologies necessary. I'd say you've focused on the most essential issue.

I have a very real problem with this notion of "objective moral fact." Since we humans -- each and every one of us, without exception -- are all very much subjective creatures. Everything we know, everything we think, everything we plan, do, like, resent, fear, love -- all of it -- is filtered through an immense complex of preconditioned beliefs, present moods, and whatever else you'd like to throw in.

As you pointed out, I did indeed say that I "think it is always wrong..." Notice that "think?" It says "this is me talking." I am not citing objective moral fact. In truth, I myself asked the question about how it could possibly be moral for an Inca to object to a human sacrifice if that sacrifice was deemed by everyone in the whole society (including herself) to be absolutely required by the gods to ensure the well-being of everybody else.

I know of no law of physics at present that depends upon the particular belief system, or mood, of the physicist doing the measurements. (Except for sloppy work due to a really bad hangover, of course.)

When you say that you "think that "X" [rape, ripping the heart out of living persons, etc.] is wrong," what uncertainties do you harbor about the moral wrongness of such acts?

When you say, "I want to behave ethically," how would behaving ethically be possible if there were no objective moral or ethical fact about, say, killing someone merely because you want to drive his new Mercedes? In short, how is it possible to behave ethically if there are no objective ethical facts about any act you could possibly perform?

BTW, some people would argue that the truth of what we recognize as "the laws of physics" do depend upon assuming certain propositions that are not ultimately proven. Someone on another thread recently and rightly noted how a number of findings are equivocated in order to maintain the sanctity of the law of conservation of energy (which is a law proven by theorem). However, I not only advocate moral realism, I advocate scientific realism--I believe that the scientific method(s) do(es) provide us with true facts about empirical reality, even though those facts might often be highly complex and difficult to comprehend.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I never said that these actions are "good", only that I have nothing against these particular things. The terms "good" and "evil" are so reductive that I almost never use them.

If you decide to get all offended about my ability to recognize how acts that evoke powerful emotions can be used to inspire, motivate and influence individuals or a people, and how these acts can contribute to the growth and power of a religion and its god(s)... then be offended. Not my problem... but I highly suggest you take a step back and just let yourself open your mind in an unbiased attempt to understand what it is I am describing.

If you look back, I did not say I was "all offended." I said I was fascinated. But here's what you said, that I found so fascinating:

I personally have nothing against sacred prostitution, throwing virgins into volcanoes, or ripping out people's hearts in ritualized acts of human sacrifice to the gods... as they are all incredible ways to generate mana for the gods. Mana, as in spiritual energy... something that is measured by how much a spiritual-religious act inspires, motivates, and influences an individual or a people, and/or how much these acts contribute to the growth and power of a religion and its god(s).

Just out of curiosity, would you "personally have nothing against" any of those things if it was your daughter being impressed into sacred prostitution, you son's hear being cut out, or you as the subject of ritualized sacrifice? Or do you only have nothing against those things so long as they only affect other people?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

When you say that you "think that "X" [rape, ripping the heart out of living persons, etc.] is wrong," what uncertainties do you harbor about the moral wrongness of such acts?

I have said before that I am an atheist, but I have no proof that no gods exist, I simply don't believe it. But what if there really were one (or more), and what if it (or they) actually did demand (even though I was not there to witness the demand) such sacrifices, with the threat of mayhem for an entire community? I do not think such to be the case, but the community (if they are prepared to carry out such an act) obviously does think so. Which of us is wrong? Them or me? I think it's them, but what's my proof? There is always that element of doubt.

But let me assure you, it is very, very small.

When you say, "I want to behave ethically," how would behaving ethically be possible if there were no objective moral or ethical fact about, say, killing someone merely because you want to drive his new Mercedes? In short, how is it possible to behave ethically if there are no objective ethical facts about any act you could possibly perform?

I have trouble understanding what you mean by "objective ethical facts" in such a case. I would argue that I am an objective fact, the Mercedes and its owner are objective facts. I rather think that the "Golden Rule" is the ultimate attempt to try and get our subjective selves ("I want that Mercedes") to recognize that I share that reality with that other subjective self.

Trouble is, it might not work, and so, of course, we create laws. When the Golden Rule fails to achieve its objective, we can at least try to put a threat in the way. "Take the car, go to jail." Maybe not such a good idea after all.

BTW, some people would argue that the truth of what we recognize as "the laws of physics" do depend upon assuming certain propositions that are not ultimately proven. Someone on another thread recently and rightly noted how a number of findings are equivocated in order to maintain the sanctity of the law of conservation of energy (which is a law proven by theorem). However, I not only advocate moral realism, I advocate scientific realism--I believe that the scientific method(s) do(es) provide us with true facts about empirical reality, even though those facts might often be highly complex and difficult to comprehend.

But of course. You cannot reason without propositions that you consider true. Problem is you'll never even get to the first of those unless you make some assumption(s). But like Euclid, keep your assumptions very simple, very obvious, and very few. And hopefully you wont' go too far wrong.

 

[Aštra’el]

Just out of curiosity, would you "personally have nothing against" any of those things if it was your daughter being impressed into sacred prostitution, you son's hear being cut out, or you as the subject of ritualized sacrifice? Or do you only have nothing against those things so long as they only affect other people?

No, I do not have anything against sacred prostitution or human sacrifice regardless of who is involved.

You should be aware that sacred prostitution has frequently involved willing participants who worship and celebrate their gods and religion through fertility rites and sex rituals which often involve highly euphoric and spiritual experiences with varying degrees of pleasure and pain... all very powerful feelings and sensations that can certainly strengthen a religion or the gods within the subjective universe of the individual and the collective subjective universe of the culture. Sacred prostitution was practiced in various ancient Mesopotamian temples in worship of the goddess Ishtar (a prominent goddess within my own pantheon as well), and also in other parts of the world in worship of Venus and others. I find this erotic, enchanting practice to be beautiful and captivating.

Death, like sex, evokes powerful thoughts and emotions. Like it or not, human sacrifice can be a powerful way to strengthen a religion and its gods... whether it's ritual sacrifice atop ancient pyramids, sacrificing one's body through "sacred prostitution", tossing virgins into volcanos, sacrificing someone you love, dying for one's religious beliefs as a sacrifice or or a martyr, or culling off the religious opposition through war or spectacular executional displays.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, I do not have anything against sacred prostitution or human sacrifice regardless of who is involved.

You should be aware that sacred prostitution has frequently involved willing participants who worship and celebrate their gods and religion through fertility rites and sex rituals which often involve highly euphoric and spiritual experiences with varying degrees of pleasure and pain... all very powerful feelings and sensations that can certainly strengthen a religion or the gods within the subjective universe of the individual and the collective subjective universe of the culture. Sacred prostitution was practiced in various ancient Mesopotamian temples in worship of the goddess Ishtar (a prominent goddess within my own pantheon as well), and also in other parts of the world in worship of Venus and others. I find this erotic, enchanting practice to be beautiful and captivating.

Death, like sex, evokes powerful thoughts and emotions. Like it or not, human sacrifice can be a powerful way to strengthen a religion and its gods... whether it's ritual sacrifice atop ancient pyramids, sacrificing one's body through "sacred prostitution", tossing virgins into volcanos, sacrificing someone you love, dying for one's religious beliefs as a sacrifice or or a martyr, or culling off the religious opposition through war or spectacular executional displays.

You, like everyone, are entitled to your own beliefs and opinions. And I am entitled to mine. And it is precisely here that I think that religious belief goes so inexcusable off the rails. Killing for beliefs that cannot possibly be demonstrated to be true. The mutilation of children's genitals for who knows what silly reason. Shooting women in the heads in soccer stadiums for showing a little hair, or leg, or whatever. Sending missionaries to rob entire cultures of their own sense of self and community, and trash their belief systems in favour of one not in any demonstrable way better.

If religions (and gods) need death, human sacrifice, ritual prostitution to (as you put it) "strengthen" themselves, this tells me nothing more than that their weakness ought to have killed them, instead.

 

[Aštra’el]

And it is precisely here that I think that religious belief goes so inexcusable off the rails. Killing for beliefs that cannot possibly be demonstrated to be true.

I hope you are not under the impression that the supreme purpose of religion is to experience some dramatic descent into delusion and accept some blind, subservient belief in "unprovable" claims about supernatural places or entities.

Gods and goddesses tell us more about the people worshipping them then about anything supernatural. Depictions of YHWH in the Bible reveal to us more about our own capacity for Creation and Destruction- and the benefits and consequences of Order over Chaos- than it does about anything supernatural. Anu, Enki, Enlil, Tiamat, Marduk, Ishtar, and others reveal to us what ancient Mesopotamians revered and in many cases, why. They show us that although our technology and cultures evolve, human Nature never changes. The myths and religious depictions of various gods and goddesses throughout religion and mythology give us profound insights into individual human Nature and collective human Nature, and teach us incredible lessons about ourselves and humanity that we can absorb great strength, power, and wisdom from.

Even when religion is used for nefarious indoctrination, manipulation, deception, and the exploitation of masses of people, we still learn valuable lessons about human Nature... from those in power, as well as those being ruled.

If religions (and gods) need death, human sacrifice, ritual prostitution to (as you put it) "strengthen" themselves tells me nothing more than that their weakness ought to have killed them, instead.

There are many ways a religion and its gods can grow in strength and power in the hearts and minds of an individual or a people, and the world around them. There are many ways to "generate mana"...not all of them involve sex or death. Art and music are two incredibly powerful examples. One must understand, however, that human Nature has many faces, so one must not expect humanity's collective spiritual-religious thoughts and experiences to exclude the violent, painful, erotic, carnal, terroristic, or malevolent aspects of collective human Nature.

 

[Nous]

I have said before that I am an atheist, but I have no proof that no gods exist, I simply don't believe it. But what if there really were one (or more), and what if it (or they) actually did demand (even though I was not there to witness the demand) such sacrifices, with the threat of mayhem for an entire community? I do not think such to be the case, but the community (if they are prepared to carry out such an act) obviously does think so. Which of us is wrong? Them or me? I think it's them, but what's my proof? There is always that element of doubt.

What? I asked you what are your uncertainties about the immorality of the acts that you say you “think” are immoral. And I don't have a clue as to how anything you said here is supposed to relate to a possible answer to my question. (What does “it” in your first sentence refer to?)

I will ask my question in a different way. When you say that you “think” that ripping the heart out of a living person in a act of sacrifice is “wrong” or immoral, why do you “think” that such an act is wrong or immoral? What is your premise by which you have come to have that thought?

Do you not agree that one should use reason in determining what acts are moral acts and what acts are immoral? Let us deduce that rape of a 4-year-old child is an immoral act:

P1: All human acts that harm a person, are perpetrated without that person's consent and are perpetrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure are immoral acts.
P2: Rape of a 4-year-old child is a human act that harms the child, is perpetrated without that child's consent and is perpertrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure.
C: Therefore, rape of a 4-year-old child is an immoral act.

M = P.
S = M.
Therefore, S = P.

(AAA-1)

How would you deduce that rape of a 4-year-old child is a moral act? What premises would you use to deduce that rape of a 4-year-old child is a moral act? If you can't think of any premises by which to deduce that rape of a 4-year-old child is a moral act, then you obviously cannot use reason to deduce that such an act is moral.

I have trouble understanding what you mean by "objective ethical facts" in such a case. I would argue that I am an objective fact, the Mercedes and its owner are objective facts.

I would argue that you are not a fact but a person, and that a Mercedes-Benz is not a fact but an automobile

Facts are not objects that have a spacetime location. Facts are propositions that are true. A couple of examples of objective mathematical facts would be: all plane right triangles obey the relation a2 + b2 = c2 (Pythagorean theorem); and: the power set of a countably infinite set is of greater cardinality than the countably infinite set (consequence of Cantor's Theorem). A presumably true objective fact of physics is the mathematical relation E=mc2. An undeniably true objective fact of physics is that quantum mechanics is statistical.

In the context of moral realism, “objective” in the phrase “objective moral fact” just means that the fact is not a subject experience--it is a fact regardless of whether anyone is thinking it.

In any case, what did you mean by your statement that you want to act ethically? Your statement certainly indicates that by "behav[ing] ethically" you do not mean merely having a subjective experience of some sort. What is entailed by the goal you express by that statement? Does “behav[ing] ethically” include you lying under oath about the whereabouts of your bothersome neighbor so that he will be wrongly convicted of a crime and no longer bothersome to you? How would you determine whether you have acted ethically?

Why don't you want to behave unethically?

I rather think that the "Golden Rule" is the ultimate attempt to try and get our subjective selves ("I want that Mercedes") to recognize that I share that reality with that other subjective self.

Obviously one can recognize the existence of other conscious beings without formulating a moral rule about one's own behavior.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What? I asked you what are your uncertainties about the immorality of the acts that you say you “think” are immoral. And I don't have a clue as to how anything you said here is supposed to relate to a possible answer to my question. (What does “it” in your first sentence refer to?)

Apparently, I have as difficult a time understanding you. I can't answer your question, for example, because I don't know which "first sentence" you're referring to. The first sentence in the post you quoted doesn't contain an "it."

I will ask my question in a different way. When you say that you “think” that ripping the heart out of a living person in a act of sacrifice is “wrong” or immoral, why do you “think” that such an act is wrong or immoral? What is your premise by which you have come to have that thought?

I "think" it is wrong because the only possible thing that could make it "right" is the unassailable demand of a GOD that it be done. I don't believe in gods, nor have I ever seen any evidence of such an unassailable demand. For me, then, it is immoral because it does unquestionable harm to the person whose heart is being ripped out, because I would not want it done to me, and there appears to be no compelling (i.e. god-commanded) reason to do so.

But is my argument valid for somebody born into a community where such a belief is socially ingrained and inculcated into community members from infancy? How would you deny it? Prove that their god doesn't exist, or doesn't demand such sacrifice? How will you do that?

Do you not agree that one should use reason in determining what acts are moral acts and what acts are immoral?

Certainly I agree, and have said so. Just be clear, though, that reasoning (in the way you are about to use it, requires that you have some axiom or premise that you accept as true. The reasoning falls if the premise is false, after all.

Let us deduce that rape of a 4-year-old child is an immoral act:

P1: All human acts that harm a person, are perpetrated without that person's consent and are perpetrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure are immoral acts.
P2: Rape of a 4-year-old child is a human act that harms the child, is perpetrated without that child's consent and is perpertrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure.
C: Therefore, rape of a 4-year-old child is an immoral act.

M = P.
S = M.
Therefore, S = P.

(AAA-1)

Did you leave out the overriding premise?
P0: Everything demanded by heaven (or god) is mandatory no matter what else you might think.

Now, in the case of the rape of a 4-year-old child, perhaps I may not find a religion in that was heaven-directed. But in the case of human sacrifice, I can find many. I rather suspect that the Taliban in Afghanistan could find scriptural (i.e. heavenly) justification for shooting veiled women in the middle of a stadium before an audience of soccer watchers. I suppose. Certainly the thousands in the stands didn't swarm the dozen on the field doing the shooting, so what should I believe?

How would you deduce that rape of a 4-year-old child is a moral act? What premises would you use to deduce that rape of a 4-year-old child is a moral act? If you can't think of any premises by which to deduce that rape of a 4-year-old child is a moral act, then you obviously cannot use reason to deduce that such an act is moral.

I could not, of course, deduce any such thing -- nor have I so far in this debate -- for the simple reason that I do not accept any deities many any demands on any of us. Therefore, I cannot use that overriding premise ("P0" above) in my reasoning. But am I the measure of all humans?

I would argue that you are not a fact but a person, and that a Mercedes-Benz is not a fact but an automobile.

This is a bit of word-play that I don't find helpful in our discussion. If it is a fact that I am a person, than I am also that fact. It is a fact that the gun identified in a murder trial is, indeed, a gun. It is also, by definition, a "fact in evidence."

Facts are not objects that have a spacetime location. Facts are propositions that are true. A couple of examples of objective mathematical facts would be: all plane right triangles obey the relation a2 + b2 = c2 (Pythagorean theorem); and: the power set of a countably infinite set is of greater cardinality than the countably infinite set (consequence of Cantor's Theorem). A presumably true objective fact of physics is the mathematical relation E=mc2. An undeniably true objective fact of physics is that quantum mechanics is statistical.

Still word-play that I consider limiting. That I am the person that I think I am, occupying this place in time and space is an objective truth -- a fact. (In my humble view.)

In the context of moral realism, “objective” in the phrase “objective moral fact” just means that the fact is not a subject experience--it is a fact regardless of whether anyone is thinking it.

And I contend that I am sitting here communicating with you, whether you, I or anybody else thinks so. In that sense, I am an objective, moral fact (which happens to be susceptible to subjective experience).

In any case, what did you mean by your statement that you want to act ethically? Your statement certainly indicates that by "behav[ing] ethically" you do not mean merely having a subjective experience of some sort. What is entailed by the goal you express by that statement? Does “behav[ing] ethically” include you lying under oath about the whereabouts of your bothersome neighbor so that he will be wrongly convicted of a crime and no longer bothersome to you? How would you determine whether you have acted ethically?

Why don't you want to behave unethically?

I want to act ethically because of my understanding of how my existence within my community (and community of communities) tells me what works and what doesn't -- for me, for the community, and reciprocally, because they health of the community impacts on me.

And because I feel better when I do.

And because I know when I am lying, and I know how a lie can cause harm, having had the experience of being lied about.[/quote]

Obviously one can recognize the existence of other conscious beings without formulating a moral rule about one's own behavior.

Here's a little challenge for you: suppose you notice that an co-worker has a package of one of your favourite snacks at their desk, and you comment on it. Suppose, further, that this nice individual agrees with you: "Oh yes, they're my favourite, too! Help yourself to all you want."

Now, you have been given explicit carte-blanche to do exactly as you will: will you take the entire package?

 

[Nous]

Apparently, I have as difficult a time understanding you. I can't answer your question, for example, because I don't know which "first sentence" you're referring to. The first sentence in the post you quoted doesn't contain an "it."

Hello? The first sentence of yours that I quoted in #28 does indeed contain the word "it"--it is the last word of your sentence: "I have said before that I am an atheist, but I have no proof that no gods exist, I simply don't believe it."

I "think" it is wrong because the only possible thing that could make it "right" is the unassailable demand of a GOD that it be done. I don't believe in gods, nor have I ever seen any evidence of such an unassailable demand. For me, then, it is immoral because it does unquestionable harm to the person whose heart is being ripped out, because I would not want it done to me, and there appears to be no compelling (i.e. god-commanded) reason to do so.

But is my argument valid for somebody born into a community where such a belief is socially ingrained and inculcated into community members from infancy? How would you deny it? Prove that their god doesn't exist, or doesn't demand such sacrifice? How will you do that?

It seems your primary concern here is not the metaethical topic of moral realism vs. moral relativism, but theology or theological propositions. I think if you were to do some reading of the scholarly literature in ethics (specifically metaethics), you would find all that mixing up of topics is not what occurs in the scholarly literature.

Did you leave out the overriding premise?
P0: Everything demanded by heaven (or god) is mandatory no matter what else you might think.

How silly. There is no such premise as "P0" in any syllogism. My argument does not leave out a premise.

This is a bit of word-play that I don't find helpful in our discussion. If it is a fact that I am a person, than I am also that fact. It is a fact that the gun identified in a murder trial is, indeed, a gun. It is also, by definition, a "fact in evidence."

Still word-play that I consider limiting. That I am the person that I think I am, occupying this place in time and space is an objective truth -- a fact. (In my humble view.)

And I contend that I am sitting here communicating with you, whether you, I or anybody else thinks so. In that sense, I am an objective, moral fact (which happens to be susceptible to subjective experience).

You said you had difficulty understanding what is meant by "objective moral fact". I tried to explain the term to the best of my ability, according to the ethics literature I've read. Objective moral facts are not objects that have a location in spacetime.

I want to act ethically because of my understanding of how my existence within my community (and community of communities) tells me what works and what doesn't -- for me, for the community, and reciprocally, because they health of the community impacts on me.

And because I feel better when I do.

And because I know when I am lying, and I know how a lie can cause harm, having had the experience of being lied about.

But in the example I asked you about, sending your bothersome neighbor off to jail would relieve you of his bothering.

Here's a little challenge for you: suppose you notice that an co-worker has a package of one of your favourite snacks at their desk, and you comment on it. Suppose, further, that this nice individual agrees with you: "Oh yes, they're my favourite, too! Help yourself to all you want."

Now, you have been given explicit carte-blanche to do exactly as you will: will you take the entire package?

No.

I have no idea how that is supposed to be a "challenge". I have a great appetite for knowledge, not for snacks in a package.

And I have no idea how that question or my answer is supposed to address any issue of that this thread is concerned with.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hello? The first sentence of yours that I quoted in #28 does indeed contain the word "it"--it is the last word of your sentence: "I have said before that I am an atheist, but I have no proof that no gods exist, I simply don't believe it."

Ah yes, you are correct. But I find it somewhat odd that in the sentence in question, you cannot find an antecedent subject to which the "it" most obviously makes reference.

It seems your primary concern here is not the metaethical topic of moral realism vs. moral relativism, but theology or theological propositions. I think if you were to do some reading of the scholarly literature in ethics (specifically metaethics), you would find all that mixing up of topics is not what occurs in the scholarly literature.

It would seem so -- especially since I previously said so. If I wanted scholarship, rather than humble conversation, I sincerely doubt that I would be coming to this forum to get it. I have made no claim to being a scholar.

How silly. There is no such premise as "P0" in any syllogism. My argument does not leave out a premise.

Label it P3 or P247 for all I care. But if you make the claim that there are only the two premises that you list in your syllogism, then I think you have left something out. Let's try it with virgin sacrifice rather than child rape, and see:

P1: All human acts that harm a person, are perpetrated without that person's consent and are perpetrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure are immoral acts.
P2: Sacrifice of a virgin is a human act that harms the virgin, is perpetrated without the virgin's consent and is perpetrated merely for the perpetrator's pleasure.
(Brief pause to note: no, of course it's not for the perpetrator's pleasure, so already we ought to be able to safely argue that virgin sacrifice is not an immoral act. It is, of course, for the purpose of appeasing the deity, so that the perpetrator may enjoy the deity's favour. Which, my goodness, wait a moment, is actually for the perpetrator's pleasure after all.)
C: Therefore, sacrifice of a virgin is an immoral act.

But we have left something out. The act is actually at the specific (so it is believed) command of the deity. And if that is the case, then there must of necessity be an "override," another premise that negates other premises when the deity insists. Isn't that really the essence of Euthyphro?

You said you had difficulty understanding what is meant by "objective moral fact". I tried to explain the term to the best of my ability, according to the ethics literature I've read. Objective moral facts are not objects that have a location in spacetime.

Fine, objective moral facts, to you, are statements about doing. "Adultery is wrong." "We should not tell lies." "We should keep promises." Is that more or less it?

And how do you know that they qualify as objective moral facts? "We should not tell lies," but the doctor just told us that granny will be dead before the week's out. Should we tell her? What if she asks? Should we tell the kids? What if they ask? Is there a place for judgment here, or is it really just an objective moral fact that will render us immoral for defaulting?

But in the example I asked you about, sending your bothersome neighbor off to jail would relieve you of his bothering.

And at the same time gravely harm the neighbour (spelling, I'm Canadian). And therefore I would not do it.

No.

I have no idea how that is supposed to be a "challenge". I have a great appetite for knowledge, not for snacks in a package.

And I have no idea how that question or my answer is supposed to address any issue of that this thread is concerned with.

I think it's a challenge because I can think of people who would be obliged (if they were honest) to answer "yes." Having been granted licence to do as we wish, I still see that there are moral issues in actually doing so.

I am sorry that you chose to be dismissive. Even little, trivial examples can sometimes be instructive, or at least worth thinking about.

 

[Nous]

Ah yes, you are correct. But I find it somewhat odd that in the sentence in question, you cannot find an antecedent subject to which the "it" most obviously makes reference.

The reason I asked is because there isn't a referent for "it" in your sentence.

If I wanted scholarship . . .

You shouldn't reject scholarship on any subject, especially one where you have begun a discussion by misconstruing the term "moral relativism".

Label it P3 or P247 for all I care. But if you make the claim that there are only the two premises that you list in your syllogism, then I think you have left something out.

Nothing in the syllogism I stated is "left out". From the two premises given it correctly deduces that rape of a 4-year-old child is an immoral act. I stated that deduction because you seemed to indicate that there might be some reason to conclude that such an act is a moral act. Yet you haven't articulated any such argument. Since no one can think of any premise by which to conclude that rape of a 4-year-old child is a moral act, it would seem that the conclusion of my syllogism is a true moral proposition--an objective moral fact.

And at the same time gravely harm the neighbour (spelling, I'm Canadian). And therefore I would not do it.

Again and again you reveal your moral realism.

I think it's a challenge because I can think of people who would be obliged (if they were honest) to answer "yes." Having been granted licence to do as we wish, I still see that there are moral issues in actually doing so.

Again and again you reveal your moral realism.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The reason I asked is because there isn't a referent for "it" in your sentence.

Well, I think that's a little unfair. My sentence was "I have said before that I am an atheist, but I have no proof that no gods exist, I simply don't believe it." There are, I suppose two possible referents: "I think that I am an atheist" or "no gods exist." It's unlikely I'd say -- in the same sentence -- "I think I'm X but don't believe it."

You shouldn't reject scholarship on any subject, especially one where you have begun a discussion by misconstruing the term "moral relativism".

I am not rejecting scholarship. I'm saying that I'm talking at a level underneath that. It is possible for ordinary folk to talk about philosophical subjects without necessarily resorting to the technical language of philosophy. I regret that I don't have twelve degrees, but growing up Children's Aid and tossed on the streets at 17, somewhat unready for the world as a "disturbed child" resulting from years of abuse that almost killed me twice, and had me institutionalized from 8 years old, I've done the best I could. I did, actually, manage to eventually make it to Vice President of IT for a major Canadian Insurance company, which, considering my circumstances, wasn't bad. But I am still not a scholar, and I still need my science "popularized" for me.

As I said, I do my best. And part of what I'm doing is trying to have a dialogue, not compete with your superior knowledge.

Nothing in the syllogism I stated is "left out". From the two premises given it correctly deduces that rape of a 4-year-old child is an immoral act. I stated that deduction because you seemed to indicate that there might be some reason to conclude that such an act is a moral act. Yet you haven't articulated any such argument. Since no one can think of any premise by which to conclude that rape of a 4-year-old child is a moral act, it would seem that the conclusion of my syllogism is a true moral proposition--an objective moral fact.

"SInce no one can think of any premise?" I thought of one, presented it to you. What if your religion makes it clear that your God demands it?

Yes, in the real world, there probably is not such religion, but there have been religions which demanded human sacrifice, and I presented that as an option. You chose to ignore that -- I'm not entirely certain why. And the fact remains that I think that many evils are perpetrated for precisely that reason. I have been, as a gay many of a certain (less leave it nameless) age, subject to some. I once -- with 4 friends -- confronted a Toronto pastor (of the People's Church) who was insisting that it would be right to have gays executed. We did so publicly by doing nothing more than attending the service in which he had promised to make his greatest sermon on that very topic, looking obviously gay, and behaving impeccably. In the event, the Reverend Paul D. Smith seems to have had a change of heart. Five gays stared down a pastor and his 1200 congregants, and walked out without saying a word.

Again and again you reveal your moral realism.

Again and again you reveal your moral realism.

Do I? Again, I think that's unfair. I've presented my thinking -- as confused (and therefore relative) as it is -- on several topics, like abortion, assisted suicide, and so forth, and tried to figure out how I would answer those. And tried to figure out if there is one right answer to any of those questions.

Are you trying to tell me that there IS, in fact, one right answer to all those questions? Or does it sometimes "depend?"

As I said, trying to have a dialogue. If you are looking for a debate that you can "win," please let me know and I'll stop. I'm not in a contest, and would rather not be.

 

[Nous]

Well, I think that's a little unfair. My sentence was "I have said before that I am an atheist, but I have no proof that no gods exist, I simply don't believe it." There are, I suppose two possible referents: "I think that I am an atheist" or "no gods exist." It's unlikely I'd say -- in the same sentence -- "I think I'm X but don't believe it."

That leaves me more confused than before as to what "it" is supposed to refer to.

I am not rejecting scholarship. I'm saying that I'm talking at a level underneath that. It is possible for ordinary folk to talk about philosophical subjects without necessarily resorting to the technical language of philosophy.

When one is misconstruing or doesn't understand the meaning of terms such as "moral relativism," "moral realism" or "objective moral fact," it seems to me the scholarly literature on the topic would be a good place to turn.

"SInce no one can think of any premise?" I thought of one, presented it to you. What if your religion makes it clear that your God demands it?

In logic a proposition such as required in a deduction (as a premise of a syllogism) is a statement that affirms or denies something. One can't deduce a proposition by beginning with a question. So state the premise that you believe to be a true statement and that leads to the conclusion that rape of a 4-year-old child is a moral act.

Do I? Again, I think that's unfair. I've presented my thinking -- as confused (and therefore relative) as it is -- on several topics, like abortion, assisted suicide, and so forth, and tried to figure out how I would answer those. And tried to figure out if there is one right answer to any of those questions.

Are you trying to tell me that there IS, in fact, one right answer to all those questions? Or does it sometimes "depend?"

I don't see how a moral anti-realist can logically claim that there is a moral issue in someone eating a package of snacks that the person has been offered.

And I don't see why a moral anti-realist would have an qualms about relieving himself of a bothersome neighbor by any available means.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That leaves me more confused than before as to what "it" is supposed to refer to.

Well, then I can't help thinking that you're not much of a reader. Let's try it again, the easy way for you:

"I have no proof that no gods exists, I simply don't believe it." That's what I said. "It" refers to the phrase "gods exist." Rephrased for the poor reader: "I have no proof that no gods exists, I simply don't believe that gods exist. I know a 4-year old, for whom I've been buying books for 2 years, who could manage that much.

When one is misconstruing or doesn't understand the meaning of terms such as "moral relativism," "moral realism" or "objective moral fact," it seems to me the scholarly literature on the topic would be a good place to turn.

I wonder why you call my thoughts "misconstruing." Have you actually read the OP in this thread? Let me refresh your memory:

In the course of debate, I am often taken to task over what is referred to as my "moral relativism." It is true that I often take the side that answers "I don't know" when someone says, "Surely you think that's wrong!" For example, after hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, I opined that looting or other wrongs might be justifiable.

In addition, I often hold that humanity is improving in a moral sense, albeit slowly. There are many who absolutely disagree on this point, given that we no longer punish homosexuals, and people are having abortions, and nobody's going to church anymore, oh my!

I have been told I'm completely dogmatic about my relativism, and horribly irritating and certainly condemned because of it, so I've had to do some reflecting. Are there, in fact, actions which are "objectively and universally wrong?" And am I correct in believing that we humans have, indeed, made some moral progress, and can (with effort) continue to do so?

Did I not say that others called me a moral relativist? I never claimed to be, myself. I merely explained why sometimes I'm not sure what's moral and what isn't, and that I think that on the whole, humans may be improving morally.

In logic a proposition such as required in a deduction (as a premise of a syllogism) is a statement that affirms or denies something. One can't deduce a proposition by beginning with a question. So state the premise that you believe to be a true statement and that leads to the conclusion that rape of a 4-year-old child is a moral act.

I have already admitted that I do not make that conclusion at all, so you are basically asking me, "have you stopped beating your wife?" I also asked (for the second time) about human sacrifice, which has been demanded by many religions throughout history, and which those religions considered not only moral but absolutely necessary. You continue to decline to answer that, while repeatedly challenging me about your posited rape of a 4-year old, which I have already said I consider immoral in all circumstances that I can think of. How long will you continue to beat the dead horse?

I don't see how a moral anti-realist can logically claim that there is a moral issue in someone eating a package of snacks that the person has been offered.

Fine, it was a bad example. It was not a matter of morals, but of good manners. I admit to my egregious guilt and will commit seppuku immediately.

And I don't see why a moral anti-realist would have an qualms about relieving himself of a bothersome neighbor by any available means.

Perhaps it is because I am not, have never claimed to be, and do not perceive myself as, what you seem to have labeled me with for reasons only pertaining to you -- a "moral anti-realist." A person who asks questions is not an "anti-"anything. He's a person asking questions. And I have already explained to you why I would do nothing of the kind, so once again, can't see why you so delight in accusing me of it -- unless, of course, you're just being a d**k.

 

[Nous]

Well, then I can't help thinking that you're not much of a reader. Let's try it again, the easy way for you:

"I have no proof that no gods exists, I simply don't believe it." That's what I said. "It" refers to the phrase "gods exist." Rephrased for the poor reader: "I have no proof that no gods exists, I simply don't believe that gods exist. I know a 4-year old, for whom I've been buying books for 2 years, who could manage that much.

Perhaps you're in the wrong forum for writing sentences that only 4-year-olds understand.

Surely you can understand that there really is no referent for "it" in your sentence, and that someone trying to discern such a referent might wonder if it would be "no gods exist" or "no proof that no gods exist".

I wonder why you call my thoughts "misconstruing."

When I quoted the definition of moral relativism from the SEP and noted numerous statements in your OP that are contrary to that thesis, you replied that you think I am “setting up a false dichotomy,” and you proceeded to “add” various conditions to the term, thereby misconstruing the thesis of moral relativism to mean something other than what the definition says.

You say in the OP, “I have been told I'm completely dogmatic about my relativism, and horribly irritating and certainly condemned because of it, so I've had to do some reflecting.” If you wanted to disavow moral relativist beliefs, all you had to do is make a simple statement. Instead, you wrote 2 posts where you set up a false dichotomy between your idea of “moral relativism” and what you referred to as “moral absolutes”.

In trying to justify your moral disapproval of sexual assault of children--the wrongness of which you say is a "moral absolute"--you seem to try to defend some form of moral relativism. Likewise, in defense of your belief that "it is always wrong to kill a person who doesn't want to be killed," again you suggest that the morality or justification of such an act would be relative to "times" or situations.

Perhaps it's your juxtapositions that give me the impression that in the OP you are trying to defend some sort of misconstrual of the thesis of moral relativism.

I have already admitted that I do not make that conclusion at all

So, again, no one here is able to articulate a premise by which to conclude that rape of a 4-year-old child is a moral act. And the moral disapproval of such an act certainly isn't relative to societies. Thus, the immorality of rape of a 4-year-old child seems to have all the necessary features of an objective fact.

And do note that lots of specific acts could be substituted in that syllogism.

 

[Penumbra]

I consider the field of ethics to be about as relative as the field of medicine or the field of nutrition.

That is, they are somewhat objective relative to starting axioms.

 

[Milton Platt]

In the course of debate, I am often taken to task over what is referred to as my "moral relativism." It is true that I often take the side that answers "I don't know" when someone says, "Surely you think that's wrong!" For example, after hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, I opined that looting or other wrongs might be justifiable.

In addition, I often hold that humanity is improving in a moral sense, albeit slowly. There are many who absolutely disagree on this point, given that we no longer punish homosexuals, and people are having abortions, and nobody's going to church anymore, oh my!

I have been told I'm completely dogmatic about my relativism, and horribly irritating and certainly condemned because of it, so I've had to do some reflecting. Are there, in fact, actions which are "objectively and universally wrong?" And am I correct in believing that we humans have, indeed, made some moral progress, and can (with effort) continue to do so?

As a beginning, then, rather than stating that I do not believe in moral absolutes, it would be more accurate to say that I do not believe there are moral absolutes "established by an external agency." That would include, for example, God. As a humanist, I want to behave ethically. The problem for secular types arguing such things with people of faith is that we do not tend to accept "God-given" rules. This can often make agreeing upon what is ethical and moral more difficult.

I do believe that many moral issues have been resolved throughout much of the world. Slavery has been largely dealt with, and we accept women as fully human persons with all the rights and responsibilities that appertain to that estate. These are not yet universal around the planet, but I daresay it's progress. And to the extent that fewer people and nations accept slavery and the subjugation of women, we've gotten better. There are also things that I believe all right-thinking people would agree on. It is always wrong for adults to sexually interfere with children, because children are victims, incapable of giving informed consent to an act they don't understand with a person who - solely because of age- is in a perceived position of authority. This can never be acceptable, and that, I suppose, is a moral absolute. But it is a moral absolute not because "god says so," but because every right-thinking non-pedophile agrees that it is, and because it does harm to the child.

I think it is always wrong to kill a person who doesn't want to be killed. I'm a strong believer in the "Golden Rule" who wouldn't want to be killed, so it makes good sense not to kill. However, there are times when killing might be justified. These would include war, for example, or self-defence, when "it's either him or me!" Is it possible that something may be morally wrong and still justified? I think the answer is yes, and I include such actions as stealing medicine when in mortal peril.

On the other hand, what about capital punishment? Here, I believe, we are not justified. When we have a condemned person on death row for 20 years, or strapped to the table waiting for the lethal injection, that person is unable to prevent what we are about to do. I argue that therefore, the convict is not now a direct threat, so this cannot be self-defence. It is now revenge, and that is insufficient justification for taking a life, in my view. Many western countries have abolished capital punishment. That's moral progress. Unfortunately, the most powerful country on the planet has not, which is unfortunate. Still, we can continue to hope and work toward that end.

Some things, as it turns out, are no longer universally considered wrong, although they certainly were (and are still in many places and cultures). Homosexuality is no longer an offence in most western countries. This may well lead, as it has in 21 countries already, to sanctioning same-sex marriage. I think that is evidence of progress being made -- many others will not agree.

short answer...morals are situational and relative.

 

[Nous]

short answer...morals are situational and relative.

Name the "situations" in which rape of a 4-year-old child is a moral act.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Perhaps you're in the wrong forum for writing sentences that only 4-year-olds understand.

Surely you can understand that there really is no referent for "it" in your sentence, and that someone trying to discern such a referent might wonder if it would be "no gods exist" or "no proof that no gods exist".

Okay, it's ambiguous syntactically. I won't defend it further, just felt that contextually (given that I stated, that I'm an atheist, I can't prove that gods exist and I don't believe it all in the same sentence, it might be understood by the average reader). If you're looking for textbook writing rather than what might occur in dialogue, I'm likely to disappoint.

When I quoted the definition of moral relativism from the SEP and noted numerous statements in your OP that are contrary to that thesis, you replied that you think I am “setting up a false dichotomy,” and you proceeded to “add” various conditions to the term, thereby misconstruing the thesis of moral relativism to mean something other than what the definition says.

Which "definition?" I can find several, including one in Wikipedia that actually states that it means different things to different thinkers. But let's move on to your next comment...

You say in the OP, “I have been told I'm completely dogmatic about my relativism, and horribly irritating and certainly condemned because of it, so I've had to do some reflecting.”

This is exactly what I meant above, that different people have different notions of what moral relativism means. And I am trying to address a more "vernacular" view, while you appear to be attempting to force me to a technically philosophical one. And as I've said, although I like thinking about things like this, I am not a philosopher.

If you wanted to disavow moral relativist beliefs, all you had to do is make a simple statement. Instead, you wrote 2 posts where you set up a false dichotomy between your idea of “moral relativism” and what you referred to as “moral absolutes”.

In trying to justify your moral disapproval of sexual assault of children--the wrongness of which you say is a "moral absolute"--you seem to try to defend some form of moral relativism. Likewise, in defense of your belief that "it is always wrong to kill a person who doesn't want to be killed," again you suggest that the morality or justification of such an act would be relative to "times" or situations.

I don't think what you are saying is quite correct. I'm not setting up a "moral absolute" (in my own mind) nearly as much as I am trying to say, "since I think it would be wrong for you to kill me if I didn't want to be killed, I accept that it would be wrong for me to kill you if you didn't want to be killed."

Perhaps it's your juxtapositions that give me the impression that in the OP you are trying to defend some sort of misconstrual of the thesis of moral relativism.

As I've said, I'm not defending a thesis, I'm having a conversation. I hope there's a difference.

So, again, no one here is able to articulate a premise by which to conclude that rape of a 4-year-old child is a moral act. And the moral disapproval of such an act certainly isn't relative to societies. Thus, the immorality of rape of a 4-year-old child seems to have all the necessary features of an objective fact.

And do note that lots of specific acts could be substituted in that syllogism.

And, I think, lots of specific acts could NOT be substituted in that syllogism. Where does that leave us? Morality is sometimes both, sometimes neither, objective or subjective? And are there rules in place that will help you place them in one box or the other?

Just for example, what is the "rule" when one of your "axioms" begins: "Thou shalt not..." and is presumed a direct commandment from God?