|
Hubris
Mar 17, 2005 16:25:15 GMT -5
Post by Electron on Mar 17, 2005 16:25:15 GMT -5
If we want to solve this puzzle I suggest for the moment we 'grow up' a little and face some brute truth. While Satori has managed to temporarily banish god, we find oursleves entirely as the product of evolution in which our morals have evolved along with everything else about us. The universe shows no morals other than the 'laws of physics' and we are a product of those laws.
But we live in societies amongst others like us and we have written laws and such that have evolved to stabilise our communities. But there are no absolutes. All manner of barbarity has been the norm from Gladatorial roman life to the human sacrifices of the ancient South American indians, holocaust to naughty goings on in isolated pacific island communities.
But when let-rip we still have what appear to be some morals - but these are baseline instincts that stem from our genetic heritage (the Limbic system). Evolution pushes us to reproduce, raise and look after our young and families etc. Many of these instincts appear as if they might be morals, but they are far more powerful. Just as it is virtually impossible to resist sex just becasue some righteous fellow tells you to abstain, you can neither trade your own life for your childs in a given tragic situation. Those are examples of our only absolute morals. The rest are an arbitrary product of common consent in isolated environments.
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 17, 2005 21:23:22 GMT -5
Post by Shiggy on Mar 17, 2005 21:23:22 GMT -5
jtoro, I thought the way you expressed your beliefs was very beautiful. I know what you're talking about, and it's absolutely fine to hold a belief based on heartfelt inklings/instinct - whatever you want to call it. It is even more wondeful because you are clearly fully aware that this is actually your basis for your belief. This will allow you to think about these philosophical matters clearly and in a way that is free from self-deception. You are being logical, because you know your belief's true premise. It's when people deceive themselves about their real reasons for believing something that their reasoning gets stuffed up. Never lose that self-awareness. Well, in answer to your question, a number of influences led to me turning towards a relative understanding of morals. Studying sociology has especially opened my eyes to how we can so easily trace changes in social and historical ideas about morals; even (nay, especially) Christianity. The huge leaps in social opinions of Christians over the last few hundred years began to convince me of even it's relativism. This is especially apparent regarding sexual morality and the areas of masturbation, sexual fantasy, premarital sex, and the role of women in the home and in public life. The Church has changed its views SO MUCH. Also, there really are no universals in human morality whatsoever. Killing for fun, as Electron just said, has often been morally valued (eg. the courage, honour and bravery of strength triumphing over the inferior/weak in society), as has raping children. Just look at the ancient Greeks for that. It was a source of manhood and strength. In Sambian male initiation rituals, young men of the tribe are required to fellatiate the tribe's male elders and to ingest their semen to gain sexual maturity and adult tribal status. It is a beautiful time of celebration, maturity and pleasure. There are ALWAYS exceptions to absolutely ANY supposedly universal "moral" you can name. Moral relativism, to be true, needs only to ever show one exception to disprove claims of any universal moral. If there are any exceptions to it whatsoever, objectivism it falls apart. This is why it is a (logically) absurd position. This beautiful world of human diversity just has too much variation to even think about universal morals. Such a theory doesn't do humanity justice because, by definition, it must always exclude and marginalise someone's morality. There is no universal definition which can hold everyone. Someone is always excluded and marginalised, and then it just becomes a task of deciding who to exclude, and then it is value-laden and biased; simply one person's definition of morality being imposed on others who are in the minority. So, to me, any claim of the existence objective moral truth is just one particular morality's hegemony over others. An arbitrary allocation of "correctness" to one person/group as a mechanism of social power and cultural dominance.
|
|
jtoro
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Hubris
Mar 19, 2005 0:57:09 GMT -5
Post by jtoro on Mar 19, 2005 0:57:09 GMT -5
Shiggy, this is the kind of deliberation I seek. Now, I have read a little on relative moral theories and it seems possible to reconcile different moral practices with universal morality. The reconciliation mechanism is that though different societies have different practices, mores, and customs that exists, they all hold the same moral principles to be objective. E.g., the Callations ate their dead while the ancient Greeks cremated their dead. From a cultural relativist's standpoint, one would have to conclude that neither the Callations nor the Greeks were wrong for doing what they did because they were doing what was moral according to their ethical guidelines. However, prima facie, it appears that an objective moral theorists would have to say that one of them was wrong, perhaps the contemporary answer would be that the Callations committed iniquities by eating their dead. But does a Universal Moral theorists really have to hold that one is wrong? The answer is no. Brilliantly, universal moral theorists have circumvented the problem. Though they both have different mores or practices, they do both do things that they think shows respect for the dead. Furthermore, the Greeks killed for what appears to be fun, and we don't, but they did so because they thought the gods honored those that were strong. Again, though we denounce killing for fun, we do advocate(as a society) expressing veneration to our "deitie(s)." See the common thread and thus the solution to the problem and objection that different moral practices seemed, at first, to have on objective moral theories. In summary, the way objective theorists deal with your formidable objection is to say that though different acts/practices are deemed immoral in some places and moral in others, all of their underlying moral principles are congruent. On a different note, to answer your claim (at leats it seems like your claim) that the existence of different "moral practices" being evidence for subjective theories of morals, I will provide a simple example. Some cultures/individuals can be wrong. For example, any group that values child rape might just have interpreted the absolutes incorrectly and, thus, be flat out wrong. They could be wrong for a number of reasons, and I agree that religion can play a deleterious role in breeding moral aptitude. Just look at the Taliban who were behind the atrocities that took place on 9/11. Without a doubt, their religious interpretation, according to them, told them that they were doing a moral act. But, most (except you)would hold that they weren't. Their religion caused them to bypass reason and adhere blindly to wrong-doings. The reason they possessed was strangled by their strict religious adherence. Finally, let me point out some horrible consequences of a true subjective theory of morals. You can't say that Hitler was wrong nor can you say that the Taliban was wrong; nor Stalin, Castro, Heussein, etc. Why? because you have to judge them according to their own standards which told them that they were in th right. For the aforementioned reasons, I refuse to accept any relative moral theory because I just can't believe that Hitler was inside the Binds og morality.
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 19, 2005 2:15:03 GMT -5
Post by Shiggy on Mar 19, 2005 2:15:03 GMT -5
Yes, I see your point, but if you allow that some cultures can be "flat out wrong" (which of course they could be if morality was objective - I'm not disputing that), any definition of who is right (and who is not) still relies on judging it by some previously defined moral standard. Where can we get this from without being illogical and biased?
This argument also means that simply looking for universal morals isn't sufficient to show that they are the universally "correct" laws, as it is also possible for everyone in all cultures to be wrong about them.
Also, I can condemn Hitler from my own moral viewpoint/law; all moral relativism requires is the acknowledgement that Hitler himself probably believed he was doing the right thing. Moral relativism doesn't deny morals any truth value whatsoever - it merely acknowledges that the truth value of morals is relative; relative to person, culture, place, time, etc, and that's how it so obviously is when you look at it from Hitler's point of view, and from our own. Hitler can be condemned relative to OUR morals, but NOT relative to his own. This in no way "justifies" his actions to you and I, but rather preserves our opposition to them. If you think differently and remove the idea of some "objective" morality, it makes such perfect sense and you realise that all that such claims ever do is elevate the particular speaker's own morality above others' as the one and only "correct" way to judge morals. If we asked Hitler what he thought the one, true objective morality was, he would probably tell us that it is the need to permanently better the human race for future generations of the dearly loved Aryan children by weeding out the less-than-human jews holding back social and economic progress for everyone else.
Any claim to objective morality is simply a differential weighting of some different, relative truths over others.
|
|
jtoro
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Hubris
Mar 20, 2005 20:28:47 GMT -5
Post by jtoro on Mar 20, 2005 20:28:47 GMT -5
Shiggy, your advocating of subjective moral theories is based on different moral practices, isn't it? But it has yet to acknowledge or refute my claim that all moral societies value and abide by the same underlying moral principles even though the way in which they carry out these principles might be utterly different. If this were true, then the evidence for the verification of relativism would be made futile. Why? Because even though different acts are deemed moral in some cultures and immoral in others, the underlying principles that would delegate these acts/judments are universal. According to this logic, yes, perhaps even Hitler was moral because he adhered to the underlying principle of bettering the race of humans (which seems to hold true for all just societies); I just think that the way in which he carried out this task was immoral, but, again, I suppose that this claim could be based on my OWN moral framework. My question is: would Hitler be moral even if he wished to annihilate the entire human race, a practice that seems to be denounced by nearly every society? According to your argument, he could. Hitler was a moral carte blanche upon birth and could have been socialized to believe that human annihilation was correct. His believing that amelioration of the human race is moral is COMPLETELY arbitrary, and he could just have easily been socialized to believe the opposite to be moral. Furthermore, as we have touched on before, it seems that the existence of different moral practices does nothing to prove relativism true. That argument states: Society A thinks act x is moral; Society B thinks act x is immoral. Therefore, neither society holds a universal moral because they hold two different moral practices to be right (even though they might or might not still hold the same principles to be true). Providing a counter example and thus, a refutation to your line of reasoning . . . Society A thinks the earth is the center of our galaxy; society B holds the sun to be the center of the galaxy. Therefore, neither society is right. Well, this line of reason is fallacious because, like I previously said, one society can be wrong, which, in this case, is society A- or is it according to you? Subjective theories provide too much immunity to immoral practices. Another problem with a true culturally relative theory: There could be no moral progress. Whatever is moral is totally learned and therefore, if one learned that slavery or anti-Semitism was moral, he would not have been able to deem it wrong. However, people in practicing societies have deemed these two practices wrong. Many people in America (including slave holders like T. Jefferson who it would have benefited by holding the opposite view) condemned the slave trade, and many ex-Nazis admitted that they thought that what they did was wrong and that the only reason they complied with Hitler’s plans was coercion. The dissenters saw that these acts breached their innate senses of justice. Cultural relativism makes no room for such “progress” and deems any status quo to be just as moral as any other take on morality Let me ask you the question you asked me. How can you say you avoid dogmatism by believing relative moral theories and disbelieving universal moral theories; where is your unobjectionable argument for the verification of subjective theories? Aren’t you guilty of the same illogic you accuse me of? Yes, it can be ARGUED that morality is Socialized (nurtured), but it can also be argued that it is innate (Nature),but you hold my perspective to be dogmatic while holding yours to be completely rational, when, in fact, the nature v. nurture debate has yet to be resolved. I don’t feel I am being totally dogmatic as I have examined the arguments in favor and disfavor of both types of theories and have sided with objectivism. However, I still admit that I am somewhat dogmatic. It seems the only way to totally avoid dogmatism is to suspend judgment on the issue- to be morally “agnostic.” --If you don’t mind, may I ask you what you studied in college and thereafter? I am just curious to know; you’re obviously well-read and educated.
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 21, 2005 1:33:33 GMT -5
Post by Shiggy on Mar 21, 2005 1:33:33 GMT -5
Shiggy, your advocating of subjective moral theories is based on different moral practices, isn't it? But it has yet to acknowledge or refute my claim that all moral societies value and abide by the same underlying moral principles even though the way in which they carry out these principles might be utterly different. If this were true, then the evidence for the verification of relativism would be made futile. Why? Because even though different acts are deemed moral in some cultures and immoral in others, the underlying principles that would delegate these acts/judments are universal. According to this logic, yes, perhaps even Hitler was moral because he adhered to the underlying principle of bettering the race of humans (which seems to hold true for all just societies); I just think that the way in which he carried out this task was immoral, but, again, I suppose that this claim could be based on my OWN moral framework. My question is: would Hitler be moral even if he wished to annihilate the entire human race, a practice that seems to be denounced by nearly every society? According to your argument, he could. To me, your category of still being "moral" is based on an assumption that such a universal "morality" exists, and I don't agree with this. It is an artificial category. Show me your universals. The burden of proof lies with you if you wish to assert the existence of this mystical, all-encompassing moral law. What are these "universal moral principles", exactly? Give me some examples. Nom matter what you say, there will always be exceptions. This is especially apparent when there are moral beliefs which are in direct contradiction and cannot possibly coexist as different parts of a universal moral law (eg. the killing of children being NEVER acceptable in Western society, but previously a non-issue in many asian countries in the case of female babies, and also in ancient roman society. There are countless examples). And yes, why wouldn't Hitler be "moral" if his desire was annihilation? You have no basis for separating this from "other" moralities other than your own inner moral beliefs. The fact that there ARE people in the world who desire, and believe it correct, even morally, to torture, maim, kill and be cruel shows that such moralities exist. What basis, then, is there to exclude the moral definitions of those people from "morality" as a category? As I previously said, this amounts to nothing other than you enforcing YOUR specific morality on them, and using it as a benchmark to judge other moralities by. Hitler was a moral carte blanche upon birth and could have been socialized to believe that human annihilation was correct. His believing that amelioration of the human race is moral is COMPLETELY arbitrary, and he could just have easily been socialized to believe the opposite to be moral. Exactly. This my whole point; morality is totally subject to conditioning and socialisation. There are no "higher" or more "correct" moralities than others, as they all originate from the same source: socialisation. Thus, the positioning of specific moralities over others is always arbitrary. Furthermore, as we have touched on before, it seems that the existence of different moral practices does nothing to prove relativism true. That argument states: Society A thinks act x is moral; Society B thinks act x is immoral. Therefore, neither society holds a universal moral because they hold two different moral practices to be right (even though they might or might not still hold the same principles to be true). Providing a counter example and thus, a refutation to your line of reasoning . . . Society A thinks the earth is the center of our galaxy; society B holds the sun to be the center of the galaxy. Therefore, neither society is right. Well, this line of reason is fallacious because, like I previously said, one society can be wrong, which, in this case, is society A- or is it according to you? Subjective theories provide too much immunity to immoral practices. You are assuming that there are such things as "immoral practices" at all. Morals have only relative truth value, unlike facts such as the physical position of the Earth or sun. Regarding morals, there IS no universal "right" or "wrong"; only relatively true moral judgements to individuals or societies. The huge diversity between them is proof enough for me. Calling any of them "wrong" never has any basis other than the speaker's particular perspective, which is relative - not universal. Another problem with a true culturally relative theory: There could be no moral progress. Whatever is moral is totally learned and therefore, if one learned that slavery or anti-Semitism was moral, he would not have been able to deem it wrong. However, people in practicing societies have deemed these two practices wrong. Many people in America (including slave holders like T. Jefferson who it would have benefited by holding the opposite view) condemned the slave trade, and many ex-Nazis admitted that they thought that what they did was wrong and that the only reason they complied with Hitler’s plans was coercion. The dissenters saw that these acts breached their innate senses of justice. "Moral progress"? This is crazy to me. Surely you don't believe that no-one in the current world advocates or practices slavery, torture, etc? And if these acts breached their "innate senses of justice" (whatever that means), why were they ever carried out at all? There are HEAPS of people in the world who firmly believe in racism today. There are even institutions dedicated to such moral causes, such as the KKK. And surely you don't believe that Hitler had no genuine supporters of his philosophy. What authority do you have, besides your own morals, to declare such beliefs to be "not really moral", or somehow illegitimate? If there are contradictory moral beliefs, then you cannot argue that there exists inside every person an innate, universal sense of "justice", because it clearly does not influence countless millions of people. The peole who changed their moral views after events such as the holocaust, slave trade, etc. were simply responding to additional social forces, such as the social pressure arising from perceiving the suffering of the people. BUT, before you step in and claim that, therefore, empathy, must be a universal moral absolute, I remind you that this effect was NOT universal. This fact shows that all humans do not possess some fantastical, innate sense of a universal morality.
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 21, 2005 1:33:53 GMT -5
Post by Shiggy on Mar 21, 2005 1:33:53 GMT -5
Cultural relativism makes no room for such “progress” and deems any status quo to be just as moral as any other take on morality As I have said, the notion of moral "progress" reflects nothing more than successive approximations to the speaker's OWN personal morality; in this case, current western morality. And, as I have also said, the expression "just as moral as" entails an assumption that there IS such a universal moral standard of correctness, one which I and many others reject. And yes, moral relativism does deny any one morality precedence and arbitrary correctness over others. That is the whole point. How is this a problem? Your only answer can be that not all moralities are compatible with one another and that, therefore, one has to be most "correct", according to an imagined "third standard", which I don't believe exists. For your argument to work, one must already believe it. You would have to demonstrate the existence of the universality you claim exists first. May I add, however, that even if it COULD be shown that there were universal moral principles, this could still be, as I think you stated earlier, due to many other factors such as coincidence, socially beneficial/efficient worldviews which simply benefit personal happiness, the economy, or any number of things, or moral consensus could also be due to mere hegemony of certain societies over others due to economic power. We can actually SEE this latter one happening today as the world becomes more "developed" (ie. westernised) in its economic and political systems, fostering a sameness in social values, worldviews and, therefore, moralities as well. This isn't due to any "correctness", but merely expedience. Let me ask you the question you asked me. How can you say you avoid dogmatism by believing relative moral theories and disbelieving universal moral theories; where is your unobjectionable argument for the verification of subjective theories? Aren’t you guilty of the same illogic you accuse me of? Yes, it can be ARGUED that morality is Socialized (nurtured), but it can also be argued that it is innate (Nature),but you hold my perspective to be dogmatic while holding yours to be completely rational, when, in fact, the nature v. nurture debate has yet to be resolved. I don’t feel I am being totally dogmatic as I have examined the arguments in favor and disfavor of both types of theories and have sided with objectivism. However, I still admit that I am somewhat dogmatic. I am aware of psychological knowledge of such basic concepts of social learning and belief formation such as conditioning, observational learning, stereotype formation, etc, etc, etc, which more than adequately describe and explain the formation of morality. It is simply another kind of worldview which is learned. The only "natural" human universals are biological and I doubt you could refer to any of these as moral universals. I don't know of any compelling arguments FOR a universal, innate human morality. What are they? Once again, I do think I have provided enough logical support for my position (eg. existence of contradictory moral beliefs, cultural diversity and irreconcilable contradiction, etc), and I say again that since it is you who is claiming the existence of a universal human moral law, you are the one who needs to provide proof or support for your position; the burden of proof is on the person who makes the assertion - why believe something if no evidence is brought forward to support it? Until this happens, absence of belief is the default position. It seems the only way to totally avoid dogmatism is to suspend judgment on the issue- to be morally “agnostic.” Yes; to recognise that there IS no objective moral "truth" - the only reason you see anything wrong with this logical conclusion is because you personally value your particular morality. What is wrong with being morally "agnostic"? The answer is becuse it threatens contradictory views; certainly not a genuine logical problem at all. --If you don’t mind, may I ask you what you studied in college and thereafter? I am just curious to know; you’re obviously well-read and educated. I am currently doing a Bachelor of Psychology with honours in Australia. I have also done heaps of undergraduate sociology and a little philosophy. My main interest in this kind of stuff comes from my experiences with Christianity, though. I really love this forum because it has really helped me see things more logically
|
|
jtoro
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Hubris
Mar 25, 2005 14:03:54 GMT -5
Post by jtoro on Mar 25, 2005 14:03:54 GMT -5
Shiggy, you are quoted, "Once again, I do think I have provided enough logical support for my position (e.g. existence of contradictory moral beliefs, cultural diversity and irreconcilable contradiction, etc),” I also see all of these diversities that you cite; it's not that I am unaware that different cultures have different moral practices and deem certain things moral and others immoral, but you have still EVADED my question. How is my reconciliation of different moral practices and universal morality implausible? Just because different societies deem a certain act moral and others don't doesn't mean that morality is learned. Your conclusions Do NOT follow LOGICALLY from your premises. One society could be wrong, and, therefore, you have yet to prove your theory of "moral oppression" right. Why? Because you can't know for sure that a society just didn't interpret the universal incorrectly, so please quit relying on dogmas that just don't add up. Even if they weren't wrong, and both societies were performing moral acts that seemed to contradict each other, it would not mean that universal morality is null. Like I have said a countless number of times (and you have evaded a countless number of times), societies still deem certain acts moral/immoral based on universal principles (Don't focus on the existence of different acts, but on their corresponding underlying principles). The question to answer is, 'why did society A deem act x moral and Society B deem act x immoral. The answer is simply that they both abide by the same underlying principle but carry it out differently. E.g., though we would shun doing something like sending our disabled elders out to sea on an ice float to die, the Inuit culture does so and sees nothing morally wrong with it. This seems like an example of two different takes on morality UNTIL you investigate why; they perform this “moral act” as a means of perpetuating society. With their nomadic lifestyle, their whole society would perish if they were forced to provide the extensive care that is needed for disabled elders; the only way to ensure survival for their society is to rid it of its burdensome elders. We might not agree with the act, but we do agree with the underlying principle of perpetuating society. Now, see how the apparent discrepancy was solved. It follows that there is less disagreement that there seems. We both value perpetuating society, etc, but carry out this universal in different manners because of very different social forces. No moral society has ever collectively wanted to wipe itself out and disallow itself to flourish; in other words, no moral society has ever really breached the universal principle of perpetuating the group. Even, the KKK and the ACLU are morally compatible. They both believe in doing what is “best” for humanity and protecting people. The KKK just sees Africans, Jews, etc as inferior and that the world would be better if we undertook genocide of them. The ACLU steadfastly believes in human egalitarianism because it is their recognized medium of carrying out the universal of: bettering the world/ society. Any society (or cult would be the better term) that abides by and attempts to carry out the universal of worsening the human race is just wrong. They have breached morality. As a thought experiment to your theory; imagine an island where everything that is vicious in our world is virtuous over there, and vice versa. What an implausible and absurd existence. There is something more to morality than you think.
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 25, 2005 19:50:17 GMT -5
Post by Satori on Mar 25, 2005 19:50:17 GMT -5
Just because different societies deem a certain act moral and others don't doesn't mean that morality is learned. How else could we possibly get morality? Genetics? Unlikely. Maybe 'learned' isn't the best word: perhaps 'conditioned' is more appropriate. Yes we can because there is no source for a 'universal' set of morals. The universe simply doeasn't need morals to operate - only societies and people do. Yes, because the things you see as 'universal' are those acquired survival traits that are common to most people in the modern world. It's reasonable to assume that as the human race globalizes then morals will polarize because we now have to survive in a global society. This wasn't always the case in the past, which is why certain morals that we consider to be abhorent now existed in disparate parts of the globe. A tribe in South America (say) could exist in a society where head-hunting was good sport (probably an 'alpha-dominance' trait), but they are now forced to succumb to a more global morality in order to survive. Exactly! That underlying principle is survival. That's the prime objective. Then there's the instinct to challenge for an alpha position in society (talk to any psychologist about that). Today many tend to see money as the power-enabler, but it might have been head-hunting, war or what we now consider to be 'barbaric' preactices in the past. I agree 100%, but the 'universal' you speak of is the perpetuation of society itself. Nothing more than that; no grand 'universal morals in the sky'. Or perhaps there's a lot less to it than you think. Just to clarify, I'm not disagreeing that there's a 'universal' that drives the way we behave and that the same 'universal' can be the source of very different - sometimes seemingly opposed - behaviours. However, these universals are related to survival rather than some esoteric sets of behaviour that are some sort of ultimate right.
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 26, 2005 0:34:51 GMT -5
Post by Shiggy on Mar 26, 2005 0:34:51 GMT -5
Shiggy, you are quoted, "Once again, I do think I have provided enough logical support for my position (e.g. existence of contradictory moral beliefs, cultural diversity and irreconcilable contradiction, etc),” I also see all of these diversities that you cite; it's not that I am unaware that different cultures have different moral practices and deem certain things moral and others immoral, but you have still EVADED my question. How is my reconciliation of different moral practices and universal morality implausible? Bescause many cultural variations in morality are based on underlying principles which are not only different, but contradictory and therefore mutually exclusive; which is why they cannot logically coexist within a single, universal moral framework, as in my above examples. Just because different societies deem a certain act moral and others don't doesn't mean that morality is learned. Your conclusions Do NOT follow LOGICALLY from your premises. One society could be wrong, and, therefore, you have yet to prove your theory of "moral oppression" right. Why? Because you can't know for sure that a society just didn't interpret the universal incorrectly, so please quit relying on dogmas that just don't add up. Even if they weren't wrong, and both societies were performing moral acts that seemed to contradict each other, it would not mean that universal morality is null. Like I have said a countless number of times (and you have evaded a countless number of times), societies still deem certain acts moral/immoral based on universal principles (Don't focus on the existence of different acts, but on their corresponding underlying principles). The question to answer is, 'why did society A deem act x moral and Society B deem act x immoral. The answer is simply that they both abide by the same underlying principle but carry it out differently. I am looking at the underlying principles. That is the whole point; there is no set of universalities. There is ALWAYS an exception to any so called "universal" you can name. E.g., though we would shun doing something like sending our disabled elders out to sea on an ice float to die, the Inuit culture does so and sees nothing morally wrong with it. This seems like an example of two different takes on morality UNTIL you investigate why; they perform this “moral act” as a means of perpetuating society. With their nomadic lifestyle, their whole society would perish if they were forced to provide the extensive care that is needed for disabled elders; the only way to ensure survival for their society is to rid it of its burdensome elders. We might not agree with the act, but we do agree with the underlying principle of perpetuating society. Now, see how the apparent discrepancy was solved. It follows that there is less disagreement that there seems. We both value perpetuating society, etc, but carry out this universal in different manners because of very different social forces. No moral society has ever collectively wanted to wipe itself out and disallow itself to flourish; in other words, no moral society has ever really breached the universal principle of perpetuating the group. Actually, there are plenty of people (and, therefore, also probably societies) who derive great pleasure from sadism and masochism; what Freud called the "death instinct" ( thanatos). Bloodlust. Enjoyment of cruelty and power over others. Valued in many cultures. And as Satori said, any attempt of yours to draw these realities into some all-encompassing universal morality is better explained purely in terms of its evolutionary survival function. Of course, I freely admit that neither one of our views can be completely proven logically, because they are simply hypotheses about the nature of things which cannot be experimentally tested; the reason I believe my position is because the evidence suggests it. You are simply starting from the assumption that there are moral universals and then trying to mash the obvious reality of moral diversity into making it appear to have contrived similarities which don't actually relate to the social meanings of the moral acts themselves at all. For example, you describe "perpetuating the group" as a moral universal, but what makes this moral at all? (as it contradicts other supposed "morals" such as valuing all persons as individuals and the avoidance of inflicting unnecessary physical cruelty on others) You can't even say with certainty that this principle is in any way "moral" at all; as Satori said, it is better explained by its purely survival-oriented function. Attributing it to some invisible, supposed universal moral law requires an extra, unnecessary step which has no evidential support whatsoever. It is more accurate to stop where the evidence ends. Like I said before, your position only makes sense if one starts out with the initial assumption that it is already true, ie, that there IS a universal moral law to which similarity can be attributed. There is not sufficient moral similarity to suggest this possibility all by itself. The logical conclusion stops before supernatural assumptions take hold, steering inductive reasoning in a biased direction due to prior beliefs. You have to start without religious assumptions to be logically accurate and unbiased in your conclusions. Any society (or cult would be the better term) that abides by and attempts to carry out the universal of worsening the human race is just wrong. They have breached morality. In your opinion, of course. I'm sure the people who DO hold these moral beliefs would equally consider you "just plain wrong". Thus, you are only elevating your own relative morals to an assumed universal status by which to judge others'. This status is arbitrary and merely your own moral opinion. It has no impact on those beliefs which, in their underlying principles, contradict your own.
|
|