| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/18/2008 03:19:51 PM · #1076 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
here is a better reference, much more reliable for the full picture, than wiki, for information on Moral Relativism. |
Oooh, great link. Thanks.
I'll tell you what. Read subsection #4 and that basically summarizes my position on moral relativism. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:20:19 PM · #1077 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Mousie:
That's why I included the masochist, who depends on the sadist to cause them suffering for sexual gratification, the doctor, who routinely causes others to suffer for a longer-term beneficial goal, and the soldier, who's duty often causes suffering to the enemy. |
A masochist doesn't suffer at the hands of another. By definition, he enjoys it.
The doctor must first do no harm.
I already explained soldiers.
A teacher or parent who inflicts suffering violates the law (and, no, "you can't have ice cream" isn't suffering). |
You are making what I feel is an arbitrary distinction between suffering and suffering that is being enjoyed or suffering that has beneficial results.
I would say that suffering CAN be enjoyed, and that no such distinction exists.
Emotions and feelings are not binary. Suffering can co-exist with pleasure and benefit.
Are you telling me I did not suffer when I had lung surgery? I thoroughly enjoyed my hospital visit, it was fascinating... and it kept me alive! Do you suggest that the masochist's pain isn't actually pain, or that being forced to sit through long, torturously boring classes for years isn't 'real' suffering?
You have a very different idea about the meaning of suffering than I do, it seems! |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:21:19 PM · #1078 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Evolutionarily, give me an example where "compassion" plays a role that couldn't simply be described under "cooperation". |
An animal rescuing or nursing another species. |
With no perceived benefit to themselves? I'd say that is categorically rare and plays so little a role in evolution as to be insignificant. If, OTOH, you argue some sort of symbiosis then I'd go back to "cooperation". |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:22:08 PM · #1079 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
You have a very different idea about the meaning of suffering than I do, it seems! |
Probably not. Just a different application of common sense. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:22:39 PM · #1080 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you were to tell me "discriminating against homosexuality" is wrong and I point out it is currently acceptable, then what? That's just a hypothetical, but I don't see the helpfulness of your position. |
It's not hypothetical. 20 years ago homosexuality was unacceptable, and 20 years from now it'll be acceptable. The same thing (in reverse) happened with slavery. |
According to you the Supreme Court was the dictator of that. So it seems at one point slavery was "right" and at another point it was "wrong". You are welcome to take back your bit about the Supreme Court above to strengthen your current position because frankly I thought it was rather silly. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:24:08 PM · #1081 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Society thought slavery was right. And discrimination. And imperialism. They were and always will be immoral. There is no relation between morality and what is acceptable by society. When we are lucky, they match. We can claim to be following Utilitarianism, or Christianity, or any one of a dozen other 'frameworks,' but that doesn't change the morality or immorality of an act. You can tell me that discrimination against a small group is best for the whole of society, but I will never believe you. You can justify discrimination by stating that your Christian God condones it, but I still won't believe you. |
But yet you fail to show me how we discovered even the simple truth that "Killing someone else is wrong". |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:26:13 PM · #1082 |
| Whew, man this is the way Rant threads are supposed to go! :) Actually the posts are flying so fast I'm sure things are being missed by myself and others in the interim. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:27:15 PM · #1083 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Society thought slavery was right. And discrimination. And imperialism. They were and always will be immoral. There is no relation between morality and what is acceptable by society. When we are lucky, they match. We can claim to be following Utilitarianism, or Christianity, or any one of a dozen other 'frameworks,' but that doesn't change the morality or immorality of an act. You can tell me that discrimination against a small group is best for the whole of society, but I will never believe you. You can justify discrimination by stating that your Christian God condones it, but I still won't believe you. |
This is all fine and well, but it doesn't help the argument/discussion. I actually agree with you (in my worldview these things are absolutely wrong), but I still can't see where your argument is helpful. Why? Because folks with other worldviews have a different sense of what is an "absolute morality", and how is one to win this argument? Wars are fought over stuff like this; "It's my way or the highway!"
R.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:31:00 PM · #1084 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Evolutionarily, give me an example where "compassion" plays a role that couldn't simply be described under "cooperation". |
An animal rescuing or nursing another species. |
With no perceived benefit to themselves? I'd say that is categorically rare and plays so little a role in evolution as to be insignificant. |
Rare or not, it's been amply documented among social animals. It's hardly insignificant, and even cooperation requires an innate sense of right and wrong. Animals don't learn that behavior in church. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:32:20 PM · #1085 |
Re: suffering. in all its forms —
I am reminded against the man who stood on the sidewalk banging his head as hard as he could against a masonry wall. Asked by a passer-by why he was doing it, he responded, "It feels SO good when I stop!"
And there's an interesting kernel of perception in that; the world is FULL of people who have one sort of vested interest or another in perpetuating their own suffering; it's called self-destructive behavior.
R.
(gawd I love having this laptop!)
|
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:33:35 PM · #1086 |
[quote=scalvertRare or not, it's been amply documented among social animals. It's hardly insignificant, and even cooperation requires an innate sense of right and wrong. Animals don't learn that behavior in church. [/quote]
You are saying this activity is not insignificant in evolution? I'm not talking about it's frequency but in it's pressure on gene frequency. Can you explain how such compassion would lead to a better survival of the species outside of a species having compassion for its own and mistakingly helping another species out of the same genetic urge? |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:33:52 PM · #1087 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
20 years ago homosexuality was unacceptable, and 20 years from now it'll be acceptable. The same thing (in reverse) happened with slavery. |
According to you the Supreme Court was the dictator of that. So it seems at one point slavery was "right" and at another point it was "wrong." |
As dahkota has been trying to explain, it was ALWAYS wrong, but the court didn't always recognize that. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:35:03 PM · #1088 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Rare or not, it's been amply documented among social animals. It's hardly insignificant, and even cooperation requires an innate sense of right and wrong. |
No it doesn't. MINERALS cooperate, for Pete's sake... Even if you put that in a different category, CORALS cooperate. It has nothing to do with morality.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:36:06 PM · #1089 |
Man, I gotta leave for an hour. I'm bound to be 50-70 posts behind when I get back.
Shannon, I don't disagree with you that the Supreme Court can get things wrong. I just think your statements above about "sending it to the Supreme Court" was the equivalent of conversational noise. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:37:13 PM · #1090 |
Corals and algae cooperate! Together!
Message edited by author 2008-11-18 15:37:38. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:38:17 PM · #1091 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can you explain how such compassion would lead to a better survival of the species... |
It's a survival advantage as basic as caring for the sick or feeding those less fortunate, and once you've developed that compassion for others, the urge to help doesn't necessarily end with your own species. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:57:21 PM · #1092 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't disagree with you that the Supreme Court can get things wrong. I just think your statements above about "sending it to the Supreme Court" was the equivalent of conversational noise. |
Not at all–
Originally posted by scalvert:
...we send it to the Supreme Court and hope they do their jobs. |
Our constitution is based upon the principles of freedom and equality, and that's the best hope for ultimately "declaring" what's right. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is made up of people who carry some of the same societal prejudices as the rest of us, so sometimes it takes a while to get to a decision that actually agrees with our constitution. They will get there... eventually. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 03:58:25 PM · #1093 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
This is all fine and well, but it doesn't help the argument/discussion. I actually agree with you (in my worldview these things are absolutely wrong), but I still can't see where your argument is helpful. Why? Because folks with other worldviews have a different sense of what is an "absolute morality", and how is one to win this argument? Wars are fought over stuff like this; "It's my way or the highway!"
R. |
I was responding to this:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"So, again, who cares if something is "wrong" if society considers it acceptable. If you were to tell me "discriminating against homosexuality" is wrong and I point out it is currently acceptable, then what? That's just a hypothetical, but I don't see the helpfulness of your position." |
My only point was that, previously, society has held things as acceptable while, at the same time, they were morally wrong. Societies' views don't control the morality of a given act.
All societies have held, as far as my research shows, that killing a member of their own society was immoral. Societies differed, however, in their treatment of those outside their society. They justified their different treatment of those not of their society by proclaiming that either they were different enough that they did not fall under the same 'quidelines'(or moral rules) or they were less valuable than their own society's citizens. Once their world view evolved, their thoughts with regard to those outside their society changed. The morality question involved never changed, only their perception of it. This is the danger of accepting moral relativism.
For years I accepted moral relativism. I believed that I cannot judge another's belief system. I still feel that way. However, I understand that acceptance of their different beliefs does not require acceptance of the validity of their moral claims. Just because I can understand they think differently does not mean I have to accept what they think, nor do I have to believe that morals change depending on time and space.
Everyone can pretty much put a quick list together of what is good. At least 5 or 6 items on the list will occur across cultures and across time. It is not too hard to imagine that the same can be said for what is bad. The difference lies in justification. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 04:01:39 PM · #1094 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Everyone can pretty much put a quick list together of what is good. At least 5 or 6 items on the list will occur across cultures and across time. It is not too hard to imagine that the same can be said for what is bad. The difference lies in justification. |
Exactly. The underlying morality is inherent to our species (and maybe a few others). It transcends borders, race, culture and religious belief. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 04:19:35 PM · #1095 |
Regardless of this morality diversion, I still think the two sides of this discussion are arguing different points. Until we can agree on the main issue, we will never agree on a solution.
For those against gay marriage, I'm getting the feeling that this is an issue of sexual morals in society. For those for gay marriage, I'm getting the feeling that it is a discrimination issue. Am I anywhere near correct in this? |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 04:24:48 PM · #1096 |
| Isn't it somewhere in between... a sexual discrimination issue? |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 04:42:25 PM · #1097 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
All societies have held, as far as my research shows, that killing a member of their own society was immoral. |
Check out this Google Book Anthropological Contributions to Conflict Resolution (great title eh?) Anyway, find page 69 and read about the Waorani tribe in Ecuador.
EDIT: I think the link may take you straight there.
Message edited by author 2008-11-18 16:42:49. |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 04:46:01 PM · #1098 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can you explain how such compassion would lead to a better survival of the species... |
It's a survival advantage as basic as caring for the sick or feeding those less fortunate, and once you've developed that compassion for others, the urge to help doesn't necessarily end with your own species. |
Don't hate me for another Lewis quote. ;) Just read it and evaluate it on your own.
For example, some people wrote to me saying, "Isn't what you call the
Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn't it been developed just like
all our other instincts?" Now I do not deny that we may have a herd
instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it
feels like to be prompted by instinct-by mother love, or sexual instinct, or
the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act
in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of
desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd
instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that
you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for
help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires-one a desire
to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of
danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside
you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that
you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run
away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which
should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say
that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note
on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard.
The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely
the keys.
Another way of seeing that the Moral Law is not simply one of our
instincts is this. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in
a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the
two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral
Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two
impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the
man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same.
And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than
it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd
instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so
as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not
acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it
is. The thing that says to you, "Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,"
cannot itself be the herd instinct. The thing that tells you which note on
the piano needs to be played louder cannot itself be that note.
Here is a third way of seeing it If the Moral Law was one of our
instincts, we ought to be able to point to some one impulse inside us which
was always what we call "good," always in agreement with the rule of right
behaviour. But you cannot. There is none of our impulses which the Moral Law
may not sometimes tell us to suppress, and none which it may not sometimes
tell us to encourage. It is a mistake to think that some of our impulses-
say mother love or patriotism-are good, and others, like sex or the fighting
instinct, are bad. All we mean is that the occasions on which the fighting
instinct or the sexual desire need to be restrained are rather more frequent
than those for restraining mother love or patriotism. But there are
situations in which it is the duty of a married man to encourage his sexual
impulse and of a soldier to encourage the fighting instinct. There are also
occasions on which a mother's love for her own children or a man's love for
his own country have to be suppressed or they will lead to unfairness
towards other people's children or countries. Strictly speaking, there are
no such things as good and bad impulses. Think once again of a piano. It has
not got two kinds of notes on it, the "right" notes and the "wrong" ones.
Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another. The Moral Law
is not any one instinct or any set of instincts: it is something which makes
a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the
instincts.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2008 05:03:24 PM · #1099 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Don't hate me for another Lewis quote. ;) Just read it and evaluate it on your own. |
I don't see the point of your post. Numerous examples of animals risking their own lives to help another species or social outsider pretty much trashes the basis of his argument (or at best puts those animals on par with humans). |
|
|
|
11/18/2008 05:11:34 PM · #1100 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Don't hate me for another Lewis quote. ;) Just read it and evaluate it on your own. |
I don't see the point of your post. Numerous examples of animals risking their own lives to help another species or social outsider pretty much trashes the basis of his argument (or at best puts those animals on par with humans). |
I don't think it trashes it. We have no idea what impulses are going on there. 1) Could be mistaken identity. 2) Could be us anthropomorphasizing (sp?) the animal behavior. The point is a moral framework is not the actions themselves but rather the method of deciding how to choose between two competing impulses. While we may see actions in animals which appear to be compassionate, we have no idea (not being them) how the decision was reached to make that action or even if any decision was made in the first place (ie. the animal was a robot to its impulses to help).
Again, don't lose site of the fact I'm not arguing that morality is meaningless outside a supreme being. I am arguing that it is difficult, if not impossible, to comparatively evaluate one moral framework as superior to another without involving a supreme authority.
Message edited by author 2008-11-18 17:16:06. |
|
