Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Moral Judgments
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 259 (173231)
01-03-2005 1:07 AM


This idea was suggested by a conversation I was having on another thread ("Emotions and Consciousness separate from the Brain?") which drifted off-topic.
The issue is as follows: If we believe that all morality is subjective, or relative, or culture-specific, is it reasonable for us to judge other subjective, relative, or culture-specific moralities?
The example used initially is my own view that a certain type of Islamic conservatism looks to me like gender apartheid, which I deplore.
So I have judged this other morality, knowing full well (presumably) that my own views are merely derived from my own culture and are certainly not absolute.
Am I justified in making this negative judgment?
I say no, logically I am not, since any reasons I can come up with will beg the question of my providing a ground for that reason, which I do not have.
Nonetheless I will continue to make such judgments.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-03-2005 01:08 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tal, posted 01-03-2005 2:33 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 3 by Zhimbo, posted 01-03-2005 2:50 AM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 4 by Silent H, posted 01-03-2005 5:23 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 5 by Shaz, posted 01-03-2005 5:26 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5676 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 2 of 259 (173256)
01-03-2005 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
01-03-2005 1:07 AM


I say no, logically I am not, since any reasons I can come up with will beg the question of my providing a ground for that reason, which I do not have.
You have no grounds for believing that cutting a 13 year old girl's clitoris off is wrong?
Or executing a female because she was raped by an uncle?
Can you define grounds for me?

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2005 1:07 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2005 7:48 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 8 by coffee_addict, posted 01-03-2005 1:33 PM Tal has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 3 of 259 (173261)
01-03-2005 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
01-03-2005 1:07 AM


The choices are not either One Morality Fits All Absolutism vs. Anything Goes Relativism.
It's not only a choice between Absolute Certainty vs. Who the Heck Knows If Raping Nuns to Death Is Moral?
One can both respect other people's moral choices AND fight for what one thinks is right. In fact, the second part is often more successful in conjunction with the first part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2005 1:07 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Phat, posted 01-12-2005 8:47 AM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 4 of 259 (173313)
01-03-2005 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
01-03-2005 1:07 AM


Obviously this is in reference to our debate so I should make an appearance.
You are making a mistake in saying that because a morality has its basis in internal reasoning that one does not have any ability to criticize another's moral position or actions.
I think you will first need to detail what goes into a morality. It is not simply a wall of rules... not even for the theist. It takes some amount of conceptions about the world and feelings about what has meaning. From there rules are derived.
It is always possible to try and reason with a person from another moral system in order to add to their experiences and help them realize there are other ways to perceive an act. This is partly an emotional appeal. One can also point ot inconsistencies between rules or beliefs about rules and actions.
Tal mentioned clitorectomies and we could use this as an example. Clearly this was not called on by any religious texts at all. So why can one not critize the practice as UNNECESSARY and IMPRACTICAL? We don't even need to get into IMMORAL, though we may point out there are no moral imperatives to continue the practice just habits/rituals.
If someone continues to practice it, can I say they are being immoral? Well I can't because my moral system does not involve such labels, but pretending I did I could say such a thing and I would not be wrong. If they could actually show why it is moral for themselves then we have simply removed its morality from point of discussion. We are both right.
I am still waiting for how you propose to delineate who is right even if we agree there is such a thing as moral absolutes.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2005 1:07 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2005 1:26 PM Silent H has replied

  
Shaz
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 259 (173315)
01-03-2005 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by robinrohan
01-03-2005 1:07 AM


Rrhain:
You make some interesting points here, and I don't think there could ever be an easy answer on questions of morality. Imposing our sense of morality, on another culture I think is wrong, but I also think that it is wrong to sit by and watch people be subjected to horrific acts. Really I suppose for me it boils down to; if someone asks for help give it. On the other hand if all indications are that someone needs help but is unable to ask, then also give it. (hence why social science streams include assessing non verbal indicators)
I also think taking a stand against something, or to assist someone is not an automatic implication that one can offer them a better alternative. So in all moral dilemmas again I come back to my already touted concept elsewhere, 'minimise harm' in all we do.
Shaz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2005 1:07 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Lizard Breath, posted 01-11-2005 10:04 AM Shaz has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 259 (173331)
01-03-2005 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tal
01-03-2005 2:33 AM


The ground would have to be an absolute ground; otherwise we have not advanced the argument. Holmes suggested that we could argue that the Islamic conservative is not being consistent within his own moral system in his mistreatment of women.
So Holmes is advancing the following rule:
Thou shalt not be inconsistent within one's own moral system.
If this is an absolute, Holmes has a good reason for judging the Islamic conservative negatively (assuming he's right about the inconsistency). But if it is not an absolute rule, if it just a subjective idea or something out of his own culture, then he has not advanced his argument.
The Islamic conservative can reply,"Why should I be consistent? One of your own writers said, 'consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.' Islam is a dynamic and vital religion. We must change with the spiritual and social conditions of our time. We must protect the virtue of our women against the vulgarity of Western influence."
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-03-2005 07:52 AM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-03-2005 07:54 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tal, posted 01-03-2005 2:33 AM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 01-03-2005 1:36 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 13 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-04-2005 2:39 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 259 (173448)
01-03-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Silent H
01-03-2005 5:23 AM


Holmes writes:
I think you will first need to detail what goes into a morality. It is not simply a wall of rules... not even for the theist. It takes some amount of conceptions about the world and feelings about what has meaning. From there rules are derived.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "conceptions about the world," but if you are suggesting that there is a difference between a moral idea and an idea about the nature of reality, I agree. An example I read somewhere would be this: People used to punish witches, but we no longer do. Is that a moral advancement? One might say, no, because we know longer believe in witches. It's an advancement in knowledge about the world. If we still believed in witches, and believed they did horrible things, no doubt we would punish them.
So if you are saying that a moral system is based on some viewpoint we have about the nature of the world, and that this viewpoint may involve something that can be corrected objectively, which has nothing to do with morality per se, I think I agree with that.
Holmes writes:
I am still waiting for how you propose to delineate who is right even if we agree there is such a thing as moral absolutes.
I don't at the moment think there are moral absolutes (but am eager to be proven wrong), so I will just take a stab at this.
1. Suppose we came up with a rule that we thought absolute.
2. We would have to think up all sorts of scenarios in which the moral rule would be applicable. This rule has to be applicable in all situations, anywhere, anytime.
3. Through these scenarios, hypothetical or real, we should be able to intuit morally that yes, the rule should apply.
4. We have to assume that moral intuition is as valid as logical intuition.
5. This moral rule would be as objective as a mathematical theorem, and we would have to be able to intuit this. It would have to be obvious that yes, the rule applies.
6. If you could do all these things, you could convince a reasonable person of the truth of the absolute moral rule.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-03-2005 13:28 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Silent H, posted 01-03-2005 5:23 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2005 5:49 AM robinrohan has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 8 of 259 (173451)
01-03-2005 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tal
01-03-2005 2:33 AM


Tal writes:
You have no grounds for believing that cutting a 13 year old girl's clitoris off is wrong?
Sure, if you believe that female humans will never be worth anything and that family honor is more important than your own daughters.
Or executing a female because she was raped by an uncle?
[sarcasm]Well, she obviously seduced her uncle.[/sarcasm]
I am not trying to justify what they do. In fact, nothing would make me more happy than to see these practices stopped. I'm just trying to point out that these "traditions" have deep roots. You have to attack the roots to kill the weeds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tal, posted 01-03-2005 2:33 AM Tal has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 9 of 259 (173452)
01-03-2005 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by robinrohan
01-03-2005 7:48 AM


robinrohan writes:
Thou shalt not be inconsistent within one's own moral system.
Ahem... christians are also guilty of violating this commandment given to us by the almighty holmes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2005 7:48 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by macaroniandcheese, posted 01-03-2005 1:50 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 10 of 259 (173461)
01-03-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by coffee_addict
01-03-2005 1:36 PM


hypocrisy makes the world go round.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by coffee_addict, posted 01-03-2005 1:36 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 11 of 259 (173674)
01-04-2005 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by robinrohan
01-03-2005 1:26 PM


First, about consistency, I want to make sure you understand I am not talking about a moral rule "thou shalt not". Consistency is a logical or practical rule. Indeed one is allowed to have conflicting moral rules within a moral system as long as there is a logical or practical rule on how to sort them out (choose between the rules in conflict).
It is always possible to have a patchwork quilt moral system with no consistency or rules to work things out, but then you are talking about someone who is simply making things up as he goes along. That is not really a system at all.
So if you are saying that a moral system is based on some viewpoint we have about the nature of the world, and that this viewpoint may involve something that can be corrected objectively, which has nothing to do with morality per se, I think I agree with that.
Yes, you got it.
So at this point you see two possible options of correcting any practice coming from a moral system. Point out inconsistencies if they exist within the system, and mistaken concepts about the world which will change how their morality would proscribe actions within it.
Then there is the third, which is appealing to emotions (personal reasons) which perhaps will get them to change their mind. For example having a person watch or carry out an action and hope that their sqeamishness and resultant desire not to have to do that duty will make them change their minds. Another example would be to appeal to material or personal interests, such as showing how much they have to gain or lose by following their current moral system.
6. If you could do all these things, you could convince a reasonable person of the truth of the absolute moral rule.
I agree with your list. Though one has to be careful not to confuse squeamishness with thinking something is wrong.
It certainly would be convenient if there was a nice set of absolute morals. Too bad there are none.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2005 1:26 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by robinrohan, posted 01-04-2005 1:40 PM Silent H has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 259 (173774)
01-04-2005 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Silent H
01-04-2005 5:49 AM


Holmes writes:
First, about consistency, I want to make sure you understand I am not talking about a moral rule "thou shalt not". Consistency is a logical or practical rule . . .
If it's a deductive logical rule, then it can be an absolute. That's fine with me, but I think that's what you are introducing.
By itself, of course, it's rather limited. Some moral system might be consistently vicious in which case it would not be violating the principle of consistency.
Also, I'm not sure that facts about the world are going to be very relevant in the contrast between moralities. If someone says that family honor is more important than women's rights, this surely falls into the category of a moral statement. I don't see how any facts about the world are going to change that.
Need to figure out how a moral statement differs from another kind of statement.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-04-2005 13:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2005 5:49 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 13 of 259 (173792)
01-04-2005 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by robinrohan
01-03-2005 7:48 AM


Thou shalt not be inconsistent within one's own moral system.
In the Surah a few verses clearly advocate killing anyone who does not submit to Allah and Islamists cite Mohammed's example of enforcing this command by killing hundreds of Jews and non-believers during his life.
So 9-11 and that soldier who fragged his buddies' tent were apparently acting consistently within their moral system. Are we to conclude that murder, as long as it is committed by a true believer of Allah, is fine?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by robinrohan, posted 01-03-2005 7:48 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 01-04-2005 4:59 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 20 by contracycle, posted 01-05-2005 6:59 AM Hangdawg13 has replied
 Message 36 by nator, posted 01-07-2005 6:30 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 259 (173815)
01-04-2005 4:33 PM


Moral Headcheese
Jivaro Indians felt an obligation to their ancestral lineage to take blood revenge for a murder or a killing during warfare. This moral obligation required the taking and shrinking of heads.
If a dead relative were not properly avenged, the dead relative might feel neglected and cause harm or misfortune to fall on the warrior (or his family, crops, etc.) who did not exact proper revenge.
When the warrior killed his enemy, he not only avenged his dead relative, but took on the slain opponent's personal power. In order to bring the "arutam" (power) to the victorious warrior, he must properly ensure that the slain opponent's soul or spirit was prevented from entering the afterlife. To do this, the victor decapitated the victim and sewed up and shrank the head thereby sealing in the soul or spirit inside the "tsantsa."
All this blood feuding and consequent headhunting was justified within the Jivaro's moral structure. It was simply traditional.
The Jivaro moral structure was corrupted in the 19th century by Europeans who encouraged headhunting and head shrinking to provide curios for the tourists and collectors. The market price for a shrunken head was one firearm, a price that made shrunken heads more readily available for the curio trade, thereby stimulating more warfare via blood feuds.
Eventually the Peruvian and Ecuadorian governments had to outlaw the trafficking of human heads to prevent total anihilation of tribes in the Jivaro's neighborhood.
Forbidden
1) Were the original moral concepts behind headhunting and tsante-making valid or justifiable within the Jivaro's traditional culture?
2) Were the European tourist and curio merchants morally justified in stimulating shrunken head trade? After all, they were operating within their set of morals that apparently did not consider naked savages morally worthy of civil protection.
3) Was the escalated headhunting morally corrupt within either the Javoro or the European moral concepts?
4) If "yes" to #3, then who were the more corrupt?
5) Did the government have "moral" grounds for outlawing tsantsa-making? Whose moral standards did the new laws serve?

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by robinrohan, posted 01-04-2005 5:00 PM Abshalom has not replied
 Message 17 by Quetzal, posted 01-04-2005 5:25 PM Abshalom has not replied
 Message 19 by Silent H, posted 01-05-2005 6:17 AM Abshalom has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 15 of 259 (173820)
01-04-2005 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Hangdawg13
01-04-2005 2:39 PM


Islamists cite Mohammed's example of enforcing this command by killing hundreds of Jews and non-believers during his life.
Some do some don't. You shouldn't say Islamists, but rather militant Islamic extremists or fundies. You know, like the militant Xian fundies who kill jews, moslems, buddhists, other Xians, and atheists because they say certain passages of the Bible support their actions.
Are we to conclude that murder, as long as it is committed by a true believer of Allah, is fine?
According to their brand of Islam these are not murders, just as many other kinds of killings are not murders according to Xians. So yes these would be moral acts.
Now you can criticize them and many within Islam have, citing inconsistencies with their version of the faith and misunderstandings of passages.
You can also say they do not share your moral system and according to your moral system they were wrong. You can also explain why they were wrong for many practical reasons.
I am uncertain why one would need to have moral absolutes in order to criticize the above actions.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Hangdawg13, posted 01-04-2005 2:39 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024