Moral Judgments

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)

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. 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. 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)

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. 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)

1) Were the original moral concepts behind headhunting and tsante-making valid or justifiable within the Jivaro's traditional culture?yes.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.no. It would be highly inconsistent with most European norms to trade in human goods. Let me put it this way, even if they felt the same as above with regard to protections, they would not have felt it okay to consistently rape or murder them themselves, correct? And if the main product of the culture had been human soup, they would not have been eating it... right?3) Was the escalated headhunting morally corrupt within either the Javoro or the European moral concepts?Yes, it was corrupt in both. The European one for the reasons stated in 2, for the Javoro because the principle of revenge and accumulation of spiritual power had been replaced by blatant commercialism. It might as well have been fishing or trapping. And using guns replaced the more honorable methods of killing another.4) If "yes" to #3, then who were the more corrupt?I don't see how this can be computed and why it is relevant.5) Did the government have "moral" grounds for outlawing tsantsa-making? Whose moral standards did the new laws serve?It did not need moral grounds. A government needs only practical reasons to end the commercial killing of people within its domain.

---

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

I meant human-made goods. There is a difference between a black slave dressmaker, and a dress made out of a black slave. The latter would have been deemed a bit off. Come on. We can find crime and deviance everywhere, that does not mean that everything is morally acceptable. While there were rapes and murders, they were not morally acceptable to those societies. Nice. So I'm right, but not because I am right. I think that was a very bizarre nitpicking.

---

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

I don't think the first case would have been problematic, even if the exchange was to acquire a firearm. The problem would come in as obviously the hunt comes for heads to exchange for guns... at least that is the scenario you have presented.You are right that there may be an additional issue of losing the spirit when the head is exchanged. I am unsure what pedophilia has to do with anything, but I believe that while they do allow for child labor (in diverse manners) they don't generally accept kidnapping and slavery per se. That would make the current wave of kidnappings immoral.

---

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

Uhmmmmm, the concern is about kidnapping for all sorts of reasons including people simply wanting to adopt without going through channels. In any case whether a person would trade in (or use) a child sex slave is not about pedophilia. Unless we'd say whether a person would trade in or use an adult female sex slave is about heterosexuality?I don't know if I'd be for summarily executing anyone (do we really need more death?) but they often shoot looters and I guess this would be a form of looting. I'm unaware of any nation which actually has slavery as an institution anymore. If there was it seems they could have moral justifications for it. What is it the naturally prevents slavery being a moral circumstance? Even the Bible allowed for it.

---

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

Yes, cultures can have morals separate from nations. I don't really know about it, so I am not in a position to explain it. From some of the description in the link it appears that it is a combination between their version of Islamic principles and their own regional (tribal) ideology.There was already one inconsistency in that they were said to have hobbled those that refused to convert. That is not a tenet of Islam, though I suppose it could be worked in with nonreligious tenets of what to do with those that are conquered. Its pretty obvious they have a moral justification for it. Whether it holds up to scrutiny is another question, but unless I know more I cannot say.A possible justification is that they are still using an ideology based on pre industrial era economic systems. During those times most cultures used, and almost required, some form of forced or secured labor in order to grow. It was easier for cultures to enslave those of other cultures/lands rather than their own people.Wars were pretty well a constant as well, usually for resources. Wars inherently raise the question of what to do with the vanquished. Slavery answers this as well as the previous question of where to get secured labor.It would be moral within that sort of framework.We can certainly ask if the world has not changed enough that such practices are no longer necessary. Perhaps they would agree and change their current practices if they were shown alternatives that were useful.

---

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

I agree that my analysis used a generalized assumption of morality. I am a subjectivist at heart and one to readily point out that within any culture there are many subcultures.I made the assumption in order to answer the question and as such was addressing what I would view as the prevailing norms on use of dead humans for artifacts.That said, I would point out that norms of colonists and US citizens differed somewhat from those of Europeans, including britons. It may have had to do with living a rougher life and under more imminent conditions of attack from native americans which could be quite brutal (which is not said to lay any guilt trip on them). I'm not sure why you have it in for me today, but it is getting pretty silly. Even within slave owning cultures, there were still norms regarding conduct. Do you really believe that murder and rape were wholly acceptable in society at large? Why not submit the evidence for this, besides small anecdotal accounts. The meds have to be around there somewhere, just keep looking or ask a nurse.

---

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

Assuming you are a fundamentalist Xian who has spent time in church and religious study of some kind, it does seem odd that you would never have heard of Thomas Aquinas.That said, perhaps you simply did not remember the guy's name but heard his statements spoken by others and assumed they were part of the Bible, or at the very least an official interpretation of Biblical positions.I am unsure if you had stated something by TA but assuming you did one does not actually have to know a specific person to use his words. I suspect you have been exposed to him in some fashion or another, same for St Augustine.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-07-2005 16:09 AM

---

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

I think you should have said "never heard that those ideals were his". How can you say you definitely have not heard anyone teach his philosophy if you also state that you do not know what it is? My guess is you have heard it and simply did not know it.

---

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

Pots calling kettle black! Pots calling kettle black! Extra extra, pots calling kettle black!Certainly if you can just "see" something wrong with adults romantically kissing a child, he can "see" two boys kissing each other as wrong.Of course I find this all ironic as he has no reason to find someone kissing a 7yo wrong anyway, it's definitely not in his bible.Looks like everyone just wants to make it up as they go along and pretend they know what the real morality is.

---

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

How does that make it wrong? A 7yo cannot consent to be taken to a soccer game, or whether to have a cookie before dinnner, yet it would not be "wrong"... right?You appear as backward and stretching to fulfill your own requirements for right and wrong as he is, as you certainly did not get your rule from anywhere. You are partly right and partly wrong with this. I would love to see him be consistent with regard to lev, but even in the New Testament there are passages (mainly from Paul) that could indicate homosexuality is wrong. Not sure if kissing is tantamount to homosexuality, but ya know...

---

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

I knew exactly what you meant. The problem is that only defines a difference between the two scenarios, not why one is wrong and the other is right.You don't just get to say it is different and so obviously wrong. Otherwise he can say what is obviously different about homosexuality and so it is wrong.

---

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

Before this gets dragged into the whole pedophilia thing, I want to make clear that I am not trying to debate if that is right or wrong. Indeed the only reason why that is the subject is that it is what Tal brought up and and you objected to. He could have chosen many other moral issues and we could still be here.The point I am getting at is he stated that something is wrong. Obviously it is wrong to him. People are coming out to say that his moral position regarding A is wrong. When he connected A to moral subject B, which people do agree with, then it is said that obviously B is wrong but A is not and he is therefore wrong to connect the two.Yet there are no reasons given for this judgement besides the physical differences, and suggested intellectual differences, between A and B. Those differences do not inherently make a moral difference at all and indeed he could easily avail himself to similar differences regarding heterosexuality and A.Thus I am saying all of you are right in your personal moral judgements, and it is wrong for one group to pick on the other as if one holds the objective moral truth.I get why he might do this, but it seems odd for you and Schraf to try.

---

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