[JCFolsom]

Is morality relative to the individual? To the culture? Nation? What unit or collective does a particular moral code apply to? In a world of relative morality, how do we justify acting to stop aggression? Does moral relativism just boil down to "Might makes right?

Or is there a single absolute morality waiting to be discovered? How could it be discovered? Must we rely on revelatory texts? Even if we could somehow figure out why God(s) made us and what he/she/they/it wanted us to do, why should we obey? 'Cause God is bigger?

Can we find it with logic? How can we overcome the barrier that we don't have a robust definition for morality, any more than we do for the consciousness on which it relies? Without such a definition, how do we logically show that a rule or code or what have you matches that definition? Can we rely on intuition? How can that be universalized?

[jhbowden79]

Morality is not only relative to the individual, but to the situational circumstances. This is a different proposition from saying morality is arbitrary, which is what most "relativists" usually intend to say.

Morality is absolute in that we don't get to choose the nature of ourselves or the nature of the world around us. Once the "is" is nailed down, then the "ought" follows, whether we like it or not.

For example, if George Kirk is a father and becomes captain of a starship, and if his family and subordinates are in danger, then it follows that he must do what a father and captain should. These are institutional facts that reductionist, scientistic views of the world overlook.

[JCFolsom]

Originally Posted by jhbowden79 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Morality is not only relative to the individual, but to the situational circumstances. This is a different proposition from saying morality is arbitrary, which is what most "relativists" usually intend to say. Morality is absolute in that we don't get to choose the nature of ourselves or the nature of the world around us. Once the "is" is nailed down, then the "ought" follows, whether we like it or not. For example, if George Kirk is a father and becomes captain of a starship, and if his family and subordinates are in danger, then it follows that he must do what a father and captain should. These are institutional facts that reductionist, scientistic views of the world overlook.

George Kirk?!? Hmph!

I see, so he should act in this way because the institutional rules of the institution he is a part of say so? Need he volunteer to become part of this institution?

[jhbowden79]

JCFolsom--

George Kirk shouldn't act to save his family and crew because of external compulsion. After all, saving his family and crew may entail his demise; better to face your superiors than oblivion, right? He must act to save his family and crew because by choosing to become a father and a Starfleet officer, he places himself under obligation by definition. It is like the act of making a promise.

To put my cards on the table, I defend an aretaic, Aristotelian moral philosophy.

[JCFolsom]

Originally Posted by jhbowden79 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

JCFolsom-- George Kirk shouldn't act to save his family and crew because of external compulsion. After all, saving his family and crew may entail his demise; better to face your superiors than oblivion, right? He must act to save his family and crew because by choosing to become a father and a Starfleet officer, he places himself under obligation by definition. It is like the act of making a promise. To put my cards on the table, I defend an aretaic, Aristotelian moral philosophy.

I have great sympathy for the idea of virtue ethics, but I've had trouble grasping how they operate separate from an implied deontological or consequentialist context. For instance, why should Kirk be held to his promise? What is the justification for such an adherence? Why is keeping a promise better than breaking it?

[Azen]

There is so much confusion when it comes to people discussing these things, and even in the scholar circles, I think they're all chasing their tails and comparing apples to oranges in order to label their 'master' belief or rule that can always be applied.

(I had to do a bunch of research before I could post on this because honestly I find it subversive to know all the details and terminology of the topic , and rightly so I find after I finished. )

In the effort to keep things simple and accessible, I'll try and leave out as many terms as possible, and instead just look at the basics.

"In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. An example of the descriptive usage could be "common conceptions of morality have changed significantly over time."

In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. In this "prescriptive" sense of morality as opposed to the above described "descriptive" sort of sense, moral value judgments such as "murder is immoral" are made. To deny 'morality' in this sense is a position known as moral skepticism, in which the existence of objective moral "truths" is rejected.[1]", As per wiki

It's hard for someone who operates from within the bounds of morality to make reasonable judgements on what is 'right', especially when that very thing is the morality which they base their judgements on.

I would be closer to a moral skeptic in that I do not believe that there is an inherent right or wrong to any action despite the intent. Time and moments are a very intricate web of actions, reactions, and events far too elaborate for me to believe that my limited perception is capable of forming a 'moral' consensus. Even Kant's,

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

which I really thought was one of the better 'rules', sounds stupid to me when he defended that you should never lie. Even when not lying would mean a murderer would find the location of a victim close to you.

So in this I will first say there is no concrete universal right and wrong, only relative perspective on a specific 'frame' of time.

Without right and wrong, morality becomes what it is; "The set of 'rules to live by' based on what I think is 'right' and 'wrong', based on my version of GOOD". They really are personal, not universal, cannot be transferred except through might( whether it be might of reason or might of arms. ) because of the relative nature of existence. Dismissing the moral compass of a psychopathic culture would dismiss your own by the same rule. All things have their place, even the shitty stuff.

That being said, my belief is that despite where people stand morally, reason can still transcend morality if both participants see 'truth' as an 'ever expanding flower', and therefore are open to reason and change/evolution of thought.

1. But if you've ever said, "Well that's just what I believe, if you don't like it your entitled to your own opinion" you are a moralist, who cares what type.
2. And if you've said, "Your beliefs are wrong", you are perhaps worse off than the first in that, within the realm of right and wrong, you believe you have actually learned of a non relative rule.
3. And if you are like me and could care less as long as things make sense and people are open to discussion then you are obviously the only right one in the bunch.

(I'm so kidding but if I don't explicitly state that I get all these nasty notes/replies from the more "humourously-challenged" among us)

[jhbowden79]

JCFolsom: "Why is keeping a promise better than breaking it?"

Remember who Dante places in the lowest depths of Hell and why. The fraudulent and the treacherous are deserving of greater punishments than even the violent -- such evil is purely human, and undermines the rational cooperation which makes human flourishing possible.

"Fraud, which gnaws every conscience, a man may practice upon one who confides in him; and upon him who reposes no confidence. This latter mode seems only to cut off the bond of love which Nature makes: hence the second (8th -- jhb) circle nests hypocrisy, flattery, sorcerers, cheating, theft and simony, panders, barrators, and like filth."

"In the other mode is forgotten that love which Nature makes, and also that which afterwards is added, giving birth to special trust: hence in the smallest circle, at the centre of the universe and the seat of Dis, every traitor is eternally consumed."

This seems foreign to us, given we take a Hobbesian psychology for granted. Hobbes's idea of the human order resembles the physics of Boyle -- man is just a blind, mechanical gas of selfish atoms, which is why he needs a container, a commonwealth, to keep society in some shape and order to maximize attainment of our desires. This is a revolutionary idea, very much in the spirit of Machiavelli, who subtracted any teleology from the nature of man.

We forget though that man has to be man by choice if he wants to survive -- we have the ability to act as our own destroyers. This is the telos in the human condition; man is a cripple without any physical survival advantages, armed only with the reason shared with the rest of his species.

Azen: "there is no concrete universal right and wrong, only relative perspective"

Moral skepticism can be formulated in different ways. Some assert morality is noncognitive. If true, only those who suffer from autism can be moral skeptics. Perhaps he has likes and dislikes, but he is unable to approve and disapprove of anything. Other moral skeptics claim morality is cognitive, in that we can approve and disapprove of certain propositions and rationally discuss them, but only against a background of arbitrarily chosen standards a society agrees upon. This seems closer to what you are saying, but it is still an evasion of the question of ends-- when two "frames" collide in a contest of arms, the skeptic can only recommend paralysis of action. (Which is what we see with modern liberalism today.)

[JCFolsom]

Excellent comments, thank you both. I have sympathy, too, for the moral skeptic's position. The ambiguity of the words involved leaves arguments for any definite moral position on very precarious ground. To be honest, though, I have a belief in a universal, set morality, but I am unable to justify it logically, or even fully identify it. I just find the idea of relative morality, or a lack thereof, to be abhorrent, but this is a very much an emotional reaction.

I still see more consequentialism in your arguments than pure virtue ethics, Mr. Bowden. Hobbes is certainly an interesting thinker, as is Machiavelli, but their views are rather grim, I'd say. This, of course, does not mean they are incorrect. To the degree I have any base to build an idea of universal morality from it is teleology. I think that the place one would have to start in building (revealing?) a concrete morality for humanity is in a clear view of human nature and the nature of the universe. This, however, is itself in contention.

I hope this is clear. I feel a bit scattered. I need coffee.

[Brion]

I had the opportunity once to teach an ethics course where we looked at various forms of ethical and morality constructions.. to say ethics and or morality is subjective means there are no standards for right and wrong...That quickly becomes a slipperly slope argument in which any action is justifiable... and perhaps there is a difference between what is moral and what is ethical...

I remember one test off the top of my head was that if you take the rule that you believe is "moral" or ethical and then you extend that rule so that it applies to everyone is it still valid or does it destroy itself... ie Murder is ok, then extended to everyone would mean that anyone could kill anyone and society disappears, thus the rule is internally inconsistent... If I can find that book, I think it is in a box somewhere I will elaborate...

We also had an interesting discussion on legal vs. moral... ie Adultery is not illegal in most states 9eventhough it may be on the books most states have passed laws that dont proescute it), but probably unethical... And some acts that are illegal such as assisted suicide might be ethical or slavery was once legal but unethical.

[Azen]

jhB: As much as I want to hit the dictionary again, I'll assume you are saying that despite the fact that there is no universal right, people still develop moral codes and these values can come into conflict and need a way to be resolved.

Now I did say I was 'closer' to a moral skeptic and if you want another term Pyrrhonian moral skepticism, if that helps you at all.

And in terms of conflict, the skeptic is NOT paralyzed, as you are confusing a code of conduct with an ability to react intelligently. I do not need a static moral code to decide things for me. And if the "code" by which I make my decisions is dynamic, then it is not a moral code because it is based on observable occurances specific to the reality of the moment (frame).

People would submit that killing is wrong without considering that life begets life and you must kill to live.
People would submit that people should be treated as they would wish to be treated, then submit that all people should believe this sentiment, despite what the other party thinks.

There is a redundant nature in trying to lock down the world from your 'window in the tower'.

I believe there is no universal right or wrong, but that by no means make me unable to react in to set events. If a man rapes my daughter I will kill him given the right set of circumstances. Do I "believe" killing is wrong? Only in certain day to day contexts like when my boss asks me why I didn't finish the report, I don't beat him down with the stapler. (though I might want to). Do I make it a "moral" no because I consider myself much more understanding of the actual nature of things.
If you have a moral stance, I don't say, "fine that's what you believe" and think it's ok. I believe you are closed to certain realities of things and might try to make you see the bigger picture, IF I thought there was a chance. Because my beliefs are right until I see them as wrong, NOT because they are ultimate truths.

And while your sophistry is impressive, it really doesn't help with universal clarity.

[JCFolsom]

Originally Posted by Brion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I remember one test off the top of my head was that if you take the rule that you believe is "moral" or ethical and then you extend that rule so that it applies to everyone is it still valid or does it destroy itself... ie Murder is ok, then extended to everyone would mean that anyone could kill anyone and society disappears, thus the rule is internally inconsistent... If I can find that book, I think it is in a box somewhere I will elaborate...

Well, but see that assumes that a coherent society is desirable, which itself requires justification. The point does help, though. What is moral is that which brings us closer to what we ought to value, perhaps, and thus those actions which move us or others away from what we ought to value are immoral. The question then becomes, what ought we value? Of course, this is a bit circular, since the "ought" implies that values themselves have moral content. My "P" side is showing again.

	Originally Posted by Brion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We also had an interesting discussion on legal vs. moral... ie Adultery is not illegal in most states 9eventhough it may be on the books most states have passed laws that dont proescute it), but probably unethical... And some acts that are illegal such as assisted suicide might be ethical or slavery was once legal but unethical.

I don't see any inherent connection between law and morality at all. Laws are just what guys with bigger guns say you must do or not do. It has little inherent connection to what you ought to do.

[jhbowden79]

"the skeptic is NOT paralyzed, as you are confusing a code of conduct with an ability to react intelligently."

I'm well aware the skeptic can react intelligently, but that's not the same thing as acting wisely. A passive reaction is not a purposeful action; blind signs of intelligence are not the same as conscious wisdom. Look at Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler -- reactive, yes, intelligent, yes. It was also in a manner unbecoming of a powerful, free democracy. A powerful, free democracy needs to act like a powerful, free democracy if it is going to stay that way. Virtue, yo! Here's where we need to break out what people in this neighborhood call the Ni -- the ability to see the big picture and situate yourself within it.

Here's a situation. Suppose a group of theocrats take control over nation during a revolution. They are openly developing nuclear weapons, boldly assert the infidels are too decadent to stop them, and promise to use the weapons to exterminate the Jews and infidels in order to bring about the Apocalypse.

What can a moral relativist say? "The 12th Imam is true for you, but it isn't true for me. Who is to judge?" Don't get me wrong -- I completely agree that force has resolved more issues in history than any other factor. But for anyone to even apply force effectively, questions of ends need to be made clear. The paralysis of the moral relativist is very real; the Western democracies have all of the weapons, and yet risk getting nuked by medievalist nutjobs.

[JCFolsom]

Originally Posted by jhbowden79 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"the skeptic is NOT paralyzed, as you are confusing a code of conduct with an ability to react intelligently." I'm well aware the skeptic can react intelligently, but that's not the same thing as acting wisely. A passive reaction is not a purposeful action; blind signs of intelligence are not the same as conscious wisdom. Look at Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler -- reactive, yes, intelligent, yes. It was also in a manner unbecoming of a powerful, free democracy. A powerful, free democracy needs to act like a powerful, free democracy if it is going to stay that way. Virtue, yo! Here's where we need to break out what people in this neighborhood call the Ni -- the ability to see the big picture and situate yourself within it.

No one can say what would have been had Hitler not faced the intervention of Britain and the United States. Had our "ally", Stalin, and Hitler been allowed to fight it out, perhaps fewer murders would have been committed overall. After all, worldwide Communism, particularly back in those early days, has been responsible for over 100 million deaths. Had we let the German and Russian war machines expend themselves against each other, had we not delivered much of Eastern Europe into Soviet control, what would this world look like today? The "virtue" you espouse here is hubris, nothing more. I would think amongst such intellectuals that such simplistic, "patriotic" views of history might be avoided.

	Originally Posted by jhbowden79 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Here's a situation. Suppose a group of theocrats take control over nation during a revolution. They are openly developing nuclear weapons, boldly assert the infidels are too decadent to stop them, and promise to use the weapons to exterminate the Jews and infidels in order to bring about the Apocalypse.

In such a case, mere self-defense demands a response. No heroism need be involved Fortunately, there is no such nation today.

Originally Posted by jhbowden79 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What can a moral relativist say? "The 12th Imam is true for you, but it isn't true for me. Who is to judge?" Don't get me wrong -- I completely agree that force has resolved more issues in history than any other factor. But for anyone to even apply force effectively, questions of ends need to be made clear. The paralysis of the moral relativist is very real; the Western democracies have all of the weapons, and yet risk getting nuked by medievalist nutjobs.

I really wish you'd stop baiting a response to current issues. You distract from the main question of this thread. This isn't about your belligerent views on Iran, this is about objective versus subjective morality. Frankly, I'd prefer paralysis to your one-sided nationalistic jabs. If I wanted to debate the situation in the Middle East, I'd have made a thread on that.

[Azen]

Originally Posted by jhbowden79 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"the skeptic is NOT paralyzed, as you are confusing a code of conduct with an ability to react intelligently." I'm well aware the skeptic can react intelligently, but that's not the same thing as acting wisely. A passive reaction is not a purposeful action; blind signs of intelligence are not the same as conscious wisdom. Look at Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler -- reactive, yes, intelligent, yes. It was also in a manner unbecoming of a powerful, free democracy. A powerful, free democracy needs to act like a powerful, free democracy if it is going to stay that way. Virtue, yo! Here's where we need to break out what people in this neighborhood call the Ni -- the ability to see the big picture and situate yourself within it. Here's a situation. Suppose a group of theocrats take control over nation during a revolution. They are openly developing nuclear weapons, boldly assert the infidels are too decadent to stop them, and promise to use the weapons to exterminate the Jews and infidels in order to bring about the Apocalypse. What can a moral relativist say? "The 12th Imam is true for you, but it isn't true for me. Who is to judge?" Don't get me wrong -- I completely agree that force has resolved more issues in history than any other factor. But for anyone to even apply force effectively, questions of ends need to be made clear. The paralysis of the moral relativist is very real; the Western democracies have all of the weapons, and yet risk getting nuked by medievalist nutjobs.

It is very hard to honestly debate given the stereotypical image you portray in your 'arguement' without smiling to myself and saying "wow".

Now god forbid, I leave it at that lest my post get erased, so here is some thoughts on some key areas of interest I have with your post.

acting wisely: you differentiate intelligence and wisdom with the basis that they are inherently separate domains all together. I could argue that intelligence allows the ability to draw on past frames of reference to make the most viable and "wise" decision possible. But I'm not going to argue semantics, I simply want to clarify my words.

A passive reaction is not a purposeful action/conscious wisdom: Your views seem prejudiced based on the next part...

powerful, free democracy...powerful, free democracy...powerful, free democracy: Are you suggesting that this is obviously the best form of human rule? I would hope not given that the only thing exertion of power does(democracy or theocratic "cult") is try to influence the things around it, and has no inherent 'rightness' in its nature. You insinuate that this is 'right' by the efforts to infer it should stay that way. Personally I'd prefer a benevolent dictator, but what do I know
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

Here's where we need to break out what people in this neighborhood call the Ni -- the ability to see the big picture and situate yourself within it.: Yah we really do need to break that out, and it's funny how the majority of stuff we write really is meant only for 'our self' to see...

[jhbowden79]

Azen: "given that the only thing exertion of power does... is try to influence the things around it, and has no inherent 'rightness' in its nature"

This is exactly what I'm saying. Basic survival demands that human beings actively exploit their environment in a purposeful way. If a society is vicious, the universe has a way of letting us know. This is why morality is not something made up. I'll take another example -- Europe right now is aborting itself out of existence. We can argue which "good" or "bad" label we'd like to assign to this sorry state of affairs, but if demographic trends continue, there will not be many Europeans left in Europe to have a say in the matter. This is why feminism, multiculturalism and so forth are vicious, and not virtuous, doctrines.

If you can show me how dictatorships outperform democracies using "past frames of reference," you'd have a point. But they never do -- Rule of Law, not arbitrary power, is the stability that unleashes individual initiative.

[Azen]

jhb:
Last point First :P on the point of democracy/benevolant dictator, it was less a point and more a fanciful side note. I really can't support it because it is not possible on a large scale, and is simply the premise of the all knowing tribe leader who not only leads with wisdom, but cares for the best interests of his people. Its the roots of ideal democracy so really I probably agree with you on the essentials.

First paragraph:
This makes a lot more sense to me, and allows me to see much more clearly. I would like to make another distinction here in order to keep clear at what levels we are each speaking.

First off, my most natural inclination, is to share the basic traits of an animal(please bear with the word choices, we all have our own personalities and these simply reflect mine
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
). To be territorial, protect whats mine, so on and so forth. This paragraph speaks to me greatly on that level, the practical worldly level. I am also a white male and despite my ability to understand a much greater picture, when it comes down to it, I am naturally threatened by feminism, radical extremists, etc. I take part day to day in all these events, and use the terms good and bad, right and wrong etc. to deal with these things.
Admitted.

Secondly, there is the level which I make my fundamental decisions. This can be thought of as 'above' this base level because it is not guided by personal inclusion. I understand my place in everything, feel secure in it. This allows me greater flexibility when understanding my baser instincts, because I am not looking for ultimate guiding truth here. I believe morals are a manifestation of higher purpose, but within the base level of understanding. They indeed can have merit and virtue, and feeling, almost to the point of being all encompassing, but are never quite there because they are based in the 'first level'; a realm of duality.

That being said, while I would never dispute the existence or purpose behind trying to attain moral codes that benefit a mass of people in order to live together, they are by no means absolute because they cannot be considered 'true' in all circumstances.

And while this breeds the notion that morals are indeed relative, on a personal level (the base level) this in itself is an antagonistic thing to swallow because our survival and safety depend on living together. If we do not see the world the same, we may come to conflict. Those with a greater want, and ability to control, will. Leaving the passive displaced (and quite possibly dead)

To summarize a concept that I know few people understand fully (just as I don't have all the terminology to throw around):

	While nothing is inherently good, true, or right within this world, there is everything to fight for in the name of these things.

[Antares]

There's only morality if there's a point of view, is it not? All in all, I'm a Relativist.

[Azen]

Well I'd be inclined to say that morality does indeed require a point of view, the reverse is not true; a perspective or point of view does not necessarily subscribe to the requirement of objective truth as moral definition is based on.

[JCFolsom]

	Originally Posted by Azen To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well I'd be inclined to say that morality does indeed require a point of view, the reverse is not true; a perspective or point of view does not necessarily subscribe to the requirement of objective truth as moral definition is based on.

Well, if there is only one point of view which actually reflects reality, then I suppose the moral system which derives logically from it would be close to an objective morality. Thus true morality would follow from true understanding. This is a conclusion I've been wanting to avoid, because I wanted to try to reason my way to a morality that could stand on its own. Alas, this appears not to be so.

What this means, though, is that for anyone to agree on moral principles, they must also agree on their underlying beliefs about reality. Which, of course, is a totally different endeavor. Blech.

[Solnath]

	Originally Posted by Brion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I had the opportunity once to teach an ethics course where we looked at various forms of ethical and morality constructions.. to say ethics and or morality is subjective means there are no standards for right and wrong...That quickly becomes a slipperly slope argument in which any action is justifiable... and perhaps there is a difference between what is moral and what is ethical...

Morality being subjective does not, by any means, imply that there are "no standards for right and wrong," but rather that those standards are personal and, hmm, subjective? Which quickly doesn't become a slippery-slope argument.

Originally Posted by Brion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I remember one test off the top of my head was that if you take the rule that you believe is "moral" or ethical and then you extend that rule so that it applies to everyone is it still valid or does it destroy itself... ie Murder is ok, then extended to everyone would mean that anyone could kill anyone and society disappears, thus the rule is internally inconsistent... If I can find that book, I think it is in a box somewhere I will elaborate...

If murder is OK (n.b. acceptable as in neither right or wrong; morally neutral) and that applies to everyone, then what do we get? A society where the "dangerous" elements, those who kill for killing's sake, have been removed out of the equation and everyone is cooperating because if they don't, their lives are forfeit. No one tries to harm others out of fear of punishment from their fellow man. Sounds workable, though motivated by the wrong factors.

If murder is a-OK (n.b. morally right), then we have a situation like today, where we don't kill people who benefit us but if someone we don't know so much as looks at us funny... This is a natural impulse for a lot of people, as seen when alcohol is introduced to a scenario.

	Originally Posted by Brion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We also had an interesting discussion on legal vs. moral... ie Adultery is not illegal in most states 9eventhough it may be on the books most states have passed laws that dont proescute it), but probably unethical... And some acts that are illegal such as assisted suicide might be ethical or slavery was once legal but unethical.

It is an interesting discussion, but largely irrelevant. Sometimes mainstream ethics are codified into legislation, sometimes not. However, I'd like to point out that slavery was ethical at the time. Europeans started the idea by thinking that they were the master race and that other races were their property. At the time it made sense and seemed like the good thing to do. Nowadays it doesn't because people have realised that there is no distinction like that.

Originally Posted by jhbowden79 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here's a situation. Suppose a group of theocrats take control over nation during a revolution. They are openly developing nuclear weapons, boldly assert the infidels are too decadent to stop them, and promise to use the weapons to exterminate the Jews and infidels in order to bring about the Apocalypse. What can a moral relativist say? "The Easter Bunny is true for you, but it isn't true for me. Who is to judge?" Don't get me wrong -- I completely agree that force has resolved more issues in history than any other factor. But for anyone to even apply force effectively, questions of ends need to be made clear. The paralysis of the moral relativist is very real; the Western democracies have all of the weapons, and yet risk getting nuked by medievalist nutjobs.

What can a moral relativist say? "You may think that the Easter Bunny is true, but I've yet to see evidence to prove that therefore any actions you try to justify with him/her are questionable at best and you should chill and think this through. Or else."

However, luckily such a situation is completely hypothetical.

	Originally Posted by jhbowden79 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you can show me how dictatorships outperform democracies using "past frames of reference," you'd have a point. But they never do -- Rule of Law, not arbitrary power, is the stability that unleashes individual initiative.

The Roman Empire and the Greek city-states.

---

As far as I subscribe to morality, it's on the relativist side. I think that even if there was a universal code of morality that defined Good and Evil (TM), we would still have our personal moral compasses that defined good and evil as they apply to us.

[Brion]

Originally Posted by JCFolsom To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, but see that assumes that a coherent society is desirable, which itself requires justification. The point does help, though. What is moral is that which brings us closer to what we ought to value, perhaps, and thus those actions which move us or others away from what we ought to value are immoral. The question then becomes, what ought we value? Of course, this is a bit circular, since the "ought" implies that values themselves have moral content. My "P" side is showing again. I don't see any inherent connection between law and morality at all. Laws are just what guys with bigger guns say you must do or not do. It has little inherent connection to what you ought to do.

Hmm... As a criminal Defense Attorney... I think Ive heard my clients say that...

[Solnath]

	Originally Posted by Brion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hmm... As a criminal Defense Attorney... I think Ive heard my clients say that...

Your clients were right, then.

[Azen]

	Originally Posted by Solnath To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Your clients were right, then.

Yup, I'd have to agree as well. Laws (through lawyers) have ruined much of the sense of real justice (moral law?) to the point of travesty. This is common knowledge in my circles...but then again I don't associate with many lawyers.

[Storm]

Note: I try to make my posts short, and this one is already longer than I would like, so I apologize for the lack of detail.

First, it is necessary to define what is the purpose of morality. The purpose of having a code of conduct is to create a society in which people get to live the best lives possible. (Yes, I know that's subjective). Now, under moral relativism, that means a person does what is best for him personally at the time. This works in the short term, but in the long term it does not because everyone else is doing what is best for them at the time too. There is also no way to judge others actions on a society wide scale. There is also no ideal that one head towards since everyone's views are just as legitimate as everyone else's. Hence, in the long term, moral absolutism seems to be better.

But then, we must admit that there are time, place, and cultural specific circumstances which come into play. To take a mundane example, it might be immoral to spit on another in a society which views the act as a sign of contempt, but in another society, it might be a sign of respect. (I made this up, I don't know of a society which actually views spitting as respectful). So, in some areas, moral relativism would be true.

How to differentiate between when a moral absolutist and a moral relativist perspective is correct, we would have to look at what the influencing factors are.

	Originally Posted by JCFolsom To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't see any inherent connection between law and morality at all. Laws are just what guys with bigger guns say you must do or not do. It has little inherent connection to what you ought to do.

Most laws, especially ones against murder, theft, etc., are based in morality. While there are things which are legal and immoral (adultery, lying), that does not mean that laws, therefore, are not based in morality. Laws are those acts which societey as a whole deems to be immoral enough that we must have a society wide level of punishment for them.

Originally Posted by Solnath To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If murder is OK (n.b. acceptable as in neither right or wrong; morally neutral) and that applies to everyone, then what do we get? A society where the "dangerous" elements, those who kill for killing's sake, have been removed out of the equation and everyone is cooperating because if they don't, their lives are forfeit. No one tries to harm others out of fear of punishment from their fellow man. Sounds workable, though motivated by the wrong factors.

In a society in which murder is not punished, we would still have murder, perhaps at an even higher rate. There is no guarantee that you will be killed (punished) if you kill in a vigilante society. You could kill that person that everyone hates, or perhaps you are stronger and can do what you like. Thus, the perhaps of laws, to make sure that all who commit haneus crimes, and not just the weak, are punished for their actions.

	Originally Posted by Azen To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yup, I'd have to agree as well. Laws (through lawyers) have ruined much of the sense of real justice (moral law?) to the point of travesty. This is common knowledge in my circles...but then again I don't associate with many lawyers.

Elaborate on what you mean by this.

[Autoptic]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Note: I try to make my posts short, and this one is already longer than I would like, so I apologize for the lack of detail. First, it is necessary to define what is the purpose of morality. The purpose of having a code of conduct is to create a society in which people get to live the best lives possible.

That's utilitarianism, a particular moral system itself.

(Yes, I know that's subjective). Now, under moral relativism, that means a person does what is best for him personally at the time. This works in the short term, but in the long term it does not because everyone else is doing what is best for them at the time too. There is also no way to judge others actions on a society wide scale. There is also no ideal that one head towards since everyone's views are just as legitimate as everyone else's. Hence, in the long term, moral absolutism seems to be better.

You're assuming relativists to be shortsighted for no apparent reason, and mob rule will somehow do better. Who defines better? Whose better?

But then, we must admit that there are time, place, and cultural specific circumstances which come into play. To take a mundane example, it might be immoral to spit on another in a society which views the act as a sign of contempt, but in another society, it might be a sign of respect. (I made this up, I don't know of a society which actually views spitting as respectful). So, in some areas, moral relativism would be true.

Why are you assuming group nonsense is fine but individuals aren't? Other than groupthink, what you're describing is politics and fashion. Everyone's still in it for their own values. Hell, some skilled politicians/socialites/foo manage to define some of that on purpose. Much is actually just accident that caught on. Look at holidays and their origins and changes for instance.

	How to differentiate between when a moral absolutist and a moral relativist perspective is correct, we would have to look at what the influencing factors are.

Which is the morally correct morality?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Most laws, especially ones against murder, theft, etc., are based in morality. While there are things which are legal and immoral (adultery, lying), that does not mean that laws, therefore, are not based in morality. Laws are those acts which societey as a whole deems to be immoral enough that we must have a society wide level of punishment for them. In a society in which murder is not punished, we would still have murder, perhaps at an even higher rate. There is no guarantee that you will be killed (punished) if you kill in a vigilante society. You could kill that person that everyone hates, or perhaps you are stronger and can do what you like. Thus, the perhaps of laws, to make sure that all who commit haneus crimes, and not just the weak, are punished for their actions.

There is no society as a whole. It's an convenient, anthropomorphic abstract not a reality. That's not how legal systems actually "work". Any different judge, jury, senate, day, mood, etc. you will get different laws, interpretations, and verdicts. Murder ceases to be murder when the right people want it so. It's still individuals and their personal politics with instinct and mental glitches throwing some nonsense into it occasionally.