• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Social and Political Regressiveness of Moral Anti-realism

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Was there anything immoral in white Americans (and colonists before them) importing and subjugating Africans as their slaves? The moral nihilist would deny any immorality in it, and the relativist would have to say that there was nothing ultimately or objectively wrong with it--many white Americans in non-slave states and about 100% of slaves considered slavery abhorrent and inhumane, but, since Americans in Confederate states were willing to try to secede and fight a bloody war in order to maintain the institution of slavery, it was not immoral there, according to the relativist.

Was there anything wrong with Jim Crow laws and other legalized inequalities inflicted upon African Americans after the Civil War? Again, the moral anti-realists can only assert that there was nothing (ultimately or objectively) immoral with such denigration and lawful discriminatory treatment of African Americans.

What was wrong with the ancient doctrine of coverture (in which a woman was deprived of any legal status beyond that of her husband), the denial of suffrage for women, or the non-recognition that a man could rape his wife? Nothing, according to the nihilist; and nothing in those societies that approved of such injustices toward women, according to the relativist. Even today there are countries where women are deprived of the legal status and rights that men enjoy.

In this century in the US, after the Goodridge decisions by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2003/2004, there were eventually 30-something states that amended their constitutions in order to deny same-sex couples and their children the important rights and benefits that come with the couple's ability to participate in civil marriage. Some of these amendments passed by huge majorities of voters. Did any moral anti-realist speak out against these provisions, express any umbrage about the injustice to same-sex couples and their children? Apparently not, unless they were being inconsistent with their nihilism or relativism.

By not recognizing any wrongs or injustices beyond legal wrongs, moral anti-realists are and will always be social/political regressives, unprogressives. illiberals who lack any impetus for change. Social and political wrongs can never be righted by those who are blind to moral wrongs, that is, blind to wrongs beyond legal wrongs.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
By not recognizing any wrongs or injustices beyond legal wrongs, moral anti-realists are and will always be social/political regressives, unprogressives. illiberals who lack any impetus for change. Social and political wrongs can never be righted by those who are blind to moral wrongs, that is, blind to wrongs beyond legal wrongs.

Might makes right, not your moral feelings. What I personally feel is right and wrong is irrelevant unless I can enforce them.

Morality I choose to support are based on my feelings. Doesn't make them right or wrong, it's just how I feel. Personally I'm against slavery, pro-life, I'm fine with gay marriage though I think marriage is probably a mistake for anyone but I believe everyone should have a chance to be loved. If they feel they need marriage for this then that is ok by me.

So a majority of folks decide what is moral based on their feelings about it and enact laws to enforce that morality as civil law. Doesn't make it right or wrong. Just means it's something the majority wants enforced.

So a majority decide to bring back slavery. My feelings about it doesn't matter if I can't enforce what I feel is right.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Prove it. (Be sure to cite your evidence.)
Where is this not the case?
The US justice system. It is only right because it is enforced. If Sharia law was enforced then Sharia law would be right. You'd be punished or held accountable for breaking it.
Were the law in not enforced it doesn't matter what you do. For religious folks, God is right because God is all powerful. You get punished for breaking God's law. So to avoid punishment the right thing to do is to not break the law.

You want evidence? Look around. Where is this not the case. Israel has the right to be a country as long as it can enforce its borders. When it can no longer enforce it's borders it no longer has that right.

We may have different morals. The only thing that make my morals right and your's wrong or vice versa is our ability to enforce those morals. Nothing else.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Where is this not the case?
The US justice system. It is only right because it is enforced. If Sharia law was enforced then Sharia law would be right. You'd be punished or held accountable for breaking it.
Were the law in not enforced it doesn't matter what you do. For religious folks, God is right because God is all powerful. You get punished for breaking God's law. So to avoid punishment the right thing to do is to not break the law.

You want evidence? Look around. Where is this not the case. Israel has the right to be a country as long as it can enforce its borders. When it can no longer enforce it's borders it no longer has that right.

We may have different morals. The only thing that make my morals right and your's wrong or vice versa is our ability to enforce those morals. Nothing else.
Laws reflect a society's ideas of morality, but that doesn't make it right or wrong. Laws can be unjust, can be based on misinformation or perpetuate factually untrue sentiments.
Laws aren't more right than individual morals by enforcement, they're just more enforced.
In other words, might makes law. Might does not necessarily make right.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Laws reflect a society's ideas of morality, but that doesn't make it right or wrong. Laws can be unjust, can be based on misinformation or perpetuate factually untrue sentiments.
Laws aren't more right than individual morals by enforcement, they're just more enforced.
In other words, might makes law. Might does not necessarily make right.

What does make right? Rightness is based on...?
 

CogentPhilosopher

Philosophy Student
Was there anything immoral in white Americans (and colonists before them) importing and subjugating Africans as their slaves? The moral nihilist would deny any immorality in it, and the relativist would have to say that there was nothing ultimately or objectively wrong with it--many white Americans in non-slave states and about 100% of slaves considered slavery abhorrent and inhumane, but, since Americans in Confederate states were willing to try to secede and fight a bloody war in order to maintain the institution of slavery, it was not immoral there, according to the relativist.

Was there anything wrong with Jim Crow laws and other legalized inequalities inflicted upon African Americans after the Civil War? Again, the moral anti-realists can only assert that there was nothing (ultimately or objectively) immoral with such denigration and lawful discriminatory treatment of African Americans.

What was wrong with the ancient doctrine of coverture (in which a woman was deprived of any legal status beyond that of her husband), the denial of suffrage for women, or the non-recognition that a man could rape his wife? Nothing, according to the nihilist; and nothing in those societies that approved of such injustices toward women, according to the relativist. Even today there are countries where women are deprived of the legal status and rights that men enjoy.

In this century in the US, after the Goodridge decisions by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2003/2004, there were eventually 30-something states that amended their constitutions in order to deny same-sex couples and their children the important rights and benefits that come with the couple's ability to participate in civil marriage. Some of these amendments passed by huge majorities of voters. Did any moral anti-realist speak out against these provisions, express any umbrage about the injustice to same-sex couples and their children? Apparently not, unless they were being inconsistent with their nihilism or relativism.

By not recognizing any wrongs or injustices beyond legal wrongs, moral anti-realists are and will always be social/political regressives, unprogressives. illiberals who lack any impetus for change. Social and political wrongs can never be righted by those who are blind to moral wrongs, that is, blind to wrongs beyond legal wrongs.

They go against basic human empathy.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
My morality is based on a mixture of utilitarian consequentialism and pragmatism.
Neither consequentialism nor pragmatism implies that there are no objective moral facts, or that the principles of these ethical theses are not (or do not entail) objective moral facts.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Was there anything immoral in white Americans (and colonists before them) importing and subjugating Africans as their slaves? The moral nihilist would deny any immorality in it, and the relativist would have to say that there was nothing ultimately or objectively wrong with it--many white Americans in non-slave states and about 100% of slaves considered slavery abhorrent and inhumane, but, since Americans in Confederate states were willing to try to secede and fight a bloody war in order to maintain the institution of slavery, it was not immoral there, according to the relativist.

Was there anything wrong with Jim Crow laws and other legalized inequalities inflicted upon African Americans after the Civil War? Again, the moral anti-realists can only assert that there was nothing (ultimately or objectively) immoral with such denigration and lawful discriminatory treatment of African Americans.

What was wrong with the ancient doctrine of coverture (in which a woman was deprived of any legal status beyond that of her husband), the denial of suffrage for women, or the non-recognition that a man could rape his wife? Nothing, according to the nihilist; and nothing in those societies that approved of such injustices toward women, according to the relativist. Even today there are countries where women are deprived of the legal status and rights that men enjoy.

In this century in the US, after the Goodridge decisions by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2003/2004, there were eventually 30-something states that amended their constitutions in order to deny same-sex couples and their children the important rights and benefits that come with the couple's ability to participate in civil marriage. Some of these amendments passed by huge majorities of voters. Did any moral anti-realist speak out against these provisions, express any umbrage about the injustice to same-sex couples and their children? Apparently not, unless they were being inconsistent with their nihilism or relativism.

By not recognizing any wrongs or injustices beyond legal wrongs, moral anti-realists are and will always be social/political regressives, unprogressives. illiberals who lack any impetus for change. Social and political wrongs can never be righted by those who are blind to moral wrongs, that is, blind to wrongs beyond legal wrongs.

And where are all these fictional people you've invented in your head?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Nous, are you seriously arguing that someone cannot be adamantly opposed to, say, slavery unless they believe that their morality is purely objective? If so, where is your empirical evidence of that?
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Nous, are you seriously arguing that someone cannot be adamantly opposed to, say, slavery unless they believe that their morality is purely objective?
No, I didn't say anything about what anyone believes about his/her meta-ethical position. Here is what I did say:

Was there anything immoral in white Americans (and colonists before them) importing and subjugating Africans as their slaves? The moral nihilist would deny any immorality in it, and the relativist would have to say that there was nothing ultimately or objectively wrong with it--many white Americans in non-slave states and about 100% of slaves considered slavery abhorrent and inhumane, but, since Americans in Confederate states were willing to try to secede and fight a bloody war in order to maintain the institution of slavery, it was not immoral there, according to the relativist.​

If you dispute anything that I actually said, then quote it and demonstrate its error.
 

LukeS

Active Member
Was there anything immoral in white Americans (and colonists before them) importing and subjugating Africans as their slaves? The moral nihilist would deny any immorality in it, and the relativist would have to say that there was nothing ultimately or objectively wrong with it--many white Americans in non-slave states and about 100% of slaves considered slavery abhorrent and inhumane, but, since Americans in Confederate states were willing to try to secede and fight a bloody war in order to maintain the institution of slavery, it was not immoral there, according to the relativist.

Was there anything wrong with Jim Crow laws and other legalized inequalities inflicted upon African Americans after the Civil War? Again, the moral anti-realists can only assert that there was nothing (ultimately or objectively) immoral with such denigration and lawful discriminatory treatment of African Americans.

What was wrong with the ancient doctrine of coverture (in which a woman was deprived of any legal status beyond that of her husband), the denial of suffrage for women, or the non-recognition that a man could rape his wife? Nothing, according to the nihilist; and nothing in those societies that approved of such injustices toward women, according to the relativist. Even today there are countries where women are deprived of the legal status and rights that men enjoy.

In this century in the US, after the Goodridge decisions by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2003/2004, there were eventually 30-something states that amended their constitutions in order to deny same-sex couples and their children the important rights and benefits that come with the couple's ability to participate in civil marriage. Some of these amendments passed by huge majorities of voters. Did any moral anti-realist speak out against these provisions, express any umbrage about the injustice to same-sex couples and their children? Apparently not, unless they were being inconsistent with their nihilism or relativism.

By not recognizing any wrongs or injustices beyond legal wrongs, moral anti-realists are and will always be social/political regressives, unprogressives. illiberals who lack any impetus for change. Social and political wrongs can never be righted by those who are blind to moral wrongs, that is, blind to wrongs beyond legal wrongs.
Agreed.
 
Top