Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Absolute Morality...again.
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 256 of 300 (334784)
07-24-2006 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Ben!
07-24-2006 2:50 AM


I'd have to assume that when there are conflicting goals, one of the goals (or parts of different goals) are against the moral standard and thus "wrong".
You are presupposing a "moral standard" - I thought we were debating that.
Conflict lead to things that will be considered wrong.
Here's an example.
Goal 1: What's mine is mine, and nobody should be able to take it away from me.
Goal 2: We have an obligation to our children and our grandchildren, to leave them a decent world to live in.
I don't see anything morally wrong about either goal. But they are in conflict when it comes to economic policies. The economic conservatives emphasize Goal 1, and have successfully cut taxes on the rich. A lot of people, myself included, see the result as an immoral violation of Goal 2, in that the tax cuts run up the national debt and will have to eventually be paid for by our children and grand children.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Ben!, posted 07-24-2006 2:50 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Ben!, posted 07-24-2006 12:28 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 07-24-2006 5:58 PM nwr has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 257 of 300 (334786)
07-24-2006 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Faith
07-24-2006 2:58 AM


No, "best" is not relative to indivudal goals, best is relative to what's the fairest judgment of a situation, the best action or outcome of a particular situation for all concerned.
You are presupposing that there is such a thing as "the fairest judgment of a situation". But that is often what is in dispute.
And as Ben says -- or at least is asking -- all those goals you list can't all be right.
Sure they can. I gave an example in Message 256.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 07-24-2006 2:58 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 07-24-2006 5:49 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 258 of 300 (334828)
07-24-2006 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by nwr
07-24-2006 9:20 AM


You are presupposing a "moral standard" - I thought we were debating that.
Well, this is exactly what I should have been saying. I think your examples work ONLY if you presuppose NO moral standard. So I thought that it's not a valid argument against an absolute moral standard.
I couldn't come up with an example where there's an absolute moral standard and there's a conflict in goals that didn't depend on there being something "morally wrong" with one of those goals. And if we 't be a valid objection against an absoulte morality.
Goal 1: What's mine is mine, and nobody should be able to take it away from me.
Goal 2: We have an obligation to our children and our grandchildren, to leave them a decent world to live in.
This is a tough game to play (i.e. discussing actual situations and how a certain moral system applies to them), and I'm not going to do it for those who need to (a.k.a. Faith). So if it's all the same to you, I'll leave it up to others to see if this scenario has any problems within their moral framework. I just wanted to address what I thought was a weakness in the argument to try and further the discussion a bit.
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by nwr, posted 07-24-2006 9:20 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 259 of 300 (334968)
07-24-2006 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by nwr
07-24-2006 9:26 AM


not a presupposition but a conclusion
You are presupposing that there is such a thing as "the fairest judgment of a situation". But that is often what is in dispute.
Practically speaking it is often not possible to arrive at the fairest judgment, maybe even usually, but I doubt you would say, if you had the responsibility to resolve a moral dilemma, that you wouldn't try to arrive at the very fairest judgment possible.
And I'm concluding from this fact, not presupposing, but concluding from this fact that you would try to arrive at the fairest judgment, that there IS an ideal fairest judgment that could conceivably be found; and further, that if in one instance there is an ideal fairest judgment, then in all instances there is an ideal fairest judgment even if we can't arrive at it. And I think the only reason we can't is personal bias and lack of access to all the facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by nwr, posted 07-24-2006 9:26 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 260 of 300 (334970)
07-24-2006 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by nwr
07-24-2006 9:20 AM


Goal 1: What's mine is mine, and nobody should be able to take it away from me.
Goal 2: We have an obligation to our children and our grandchildren, to leave them a decent world to live in.
What is this supposed to be an example of?
There are ways these are not in conflict, if conflict is the point, since conservatives understand economics in terms of the generation of wealth by free enterprise, which leads to all around economic growth, which benefits everyone, which leads to a better future for children and grandchildren, while welfare type thinking is going to impoverish both individuals and the nation. Social security is soon to collapse, for instance, and leave our children and grandchildren with nothing.
I think these concepts are way too broad for purposes of this discussion anyway. I think we need some narrow examples, person to person disputes perhaps. What is the ideal resolution for instance of a dispute over a property line, where somebody's tree is overhanging someone else's yard. Something on that level anyway.
{edit: OK they were to be examples of goals that are both right yet in conflict. I'm showing how they are not necessarily in conflict, but I still think "goals" gets us away from the topic.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by nwr, posted 07-24-2006 9:20 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2006 8:27 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 262 by nwr, posted 07-24-2006 9:34 PM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 261 of 300 (334994)
07-24-2006 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
07-24-2006 5:58 PM


Social security is soon to collapse, for instance
Soon, huh? Maybe in geologic time. Even the extremely conservative estimates of the government - which assume worse-than-average economic growth and greater-than-projected social security demand - guarantee Social Security solvency through 2060 and beyond.
But, you know. Don't let facts get in the way of your little wingnut screed. Continue, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 07-24-2006 5:58 PM Faith has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 262 of 300 (335013)
07-24-2006 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
07-24-2006 5:58 PM


Social security is soon to collapse, for instance, and leave our children and grandchildren with nothing.
If Social Security collapses anytime soon, it will be because the conservatives raided the trust fund and used it to give themselves huge tax cuts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 07-24-2006 5:58 PM Faith has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 300 (336516)
07-29-2006 10:00 PM


Lets try this one more time
I just got the book, "Mere Christianity," by C.S. Lewis at the library today. To my surprise, the first chapter of the book discusses absolute and relative morality. It was refreshing to read how Lewis formulates his points in favor of absolute morality. In the opening portion of the chapter, he presents the dialogue of two people quarreling and attempts to go straight to the point of why people argue and what they are essentialy saying. He goes on thus:
"What interestsme about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies, 'to hell with your standards.' Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there are special circumstances... Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football... Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right or Wrong, you will see him going back on this a moment later."
Instead of holding the book in my lap and engaging in the laborious task of typing out the whole argument, I found a website that contains the synopsis his argument:
There is a Universal Moral Law
"The first step in Lewis's moral argument is to establish that there is a universal moral law. One reason to accept this premise is that without it, all moral disagreements would make no sense. Lewis points out that we appeal to a universal moral standard all the time. If someone cuts in line at an amusement park, we say, "that's not fair." When a psychotic murderer tortures, rapes, and brutally kills his victims, we say, "that's evil." Whenever we appeal to these standards, Lewis notes that we do not have to explain why these things are considered morally bad or evil. They are morally wrong, and everyone knows it. If a complete stranger walked into your house and picked up your television and started walking out, more than likely you will get up and say something like, "Hey, stop that! That is my tv." What you are doing in that scenario is appealing to a universal moral law. You assume it is an understood standard for all people to follow a principle of not taking things that are not theirs. If this person responded by saying, "So what?", you would probably think that person was very strange or perhaps crazy. When people do not understand certain moral values (for example, sociopaths who feel there is nothing morally wrong with any actions, including killing innocent people for no reason), we think there is something is seriously wrong with them. Lewis believes that this is best explained because we (correctly) assume there is a universal moral law.
Another reason Lewis explains for why there must be a universal moral law is that all moral judgments would be meaningless. For example, when we say, "The Nazis were wrong to murder the Jews," what do we mean? Does it mean it is just my personal opinion that the Nazis were wrong? If that is so, it does not seem to make much difference what the Nazis do. It would be on par with my difference of opinion regarding chocolate or vanilla ice cream. Or consider the claims against countries who repress women or mistreat women. If there is no universal moral law, on what grounds can we judge these countries to be committing a moral evil? Without a universal moral law, all of these claims amount to mere differences of opinion, but there cannot be a right or wrong view. In other words, without a universal moral law, the Nazis happen to prefer Nazi morality, and you happen to prefer anti-Nazi morality, but there is no real standard by which we can judge which of the two views is correct. Without a universal moral law, this judgment is a matter of opinion. However, it seems clear that the moral status of certain actions (e.g., the Nazis) is not a matter of subjective opinion, and this is because we presume there is a universal moral law.
So, C. S. Lewis, if he is right thus far, has established that there is a universal moral law. At this point he hasn't appealed to God or made claims that even most atheists would find contentious. In fact, Lewis believes that the moral law is something that all humans are bound to follow, no matter how hard they try to escape from it. So, Lewis believes that this first premise is well-founded.
If There is a Universal Moral Law, then There is a Universal Moral Law Giver:
"After establishing the existence of a universal moral law, Lewis wonders at the explanation of the existence of this universal moral law. Lewis arrives at the conclusion that a universal moral law implies a moral law Giver. Moral laws, unlike physical laws, are obligations or rules that one is responsible to follow. Without a person who makes these laws, it seems utterly inexplicable that they should exist. We can imagine a molecule by molecule physical duplication of our universe existing without any moral rules, so it seems that moral laws are not entailed by any physical, natural features of the universe. If the universal moral law is not entailed by the natural, physical aspects of the universe, how do we explain the universal moral law? Lewis believes that the best answer to this question maintains that the universal moral law implies that there is a universal moral law Giver. This law Giver could not be any arbitrary being. The kind of being to which the universal moral law points would be supremely powerful (in order to create the universal moral law), perfectly good (in order to be the objective standard for the moral law), and a being who is interested in our behavior (in order to explain why he makes us subject to the moral law). In other words, the moral law Giver would have to be like the personal God of the Christian tradition.
Even though this second premise is much more controversial than the first one, Lewis has put forward a plausible explanation for the moral law. Moreover, since better explanations do not seem forthcoming, it seems that Lewis has given a substantial defense of the second premise."
Therefore, God Must Exist
"If one accepts the first two premises, then the conclusion follows logically. So, to resist Lewis's argument, one must show that one of the two premises is false. Below I will consider some of the most often cited ways to deny one of the two premises."
Is the Moral Law "Herd Instinct?"
"One way to deny the second premise of Lewis's argument suggests that the universal moral law can be explained by herd instinct. By "herd instinct," I mean something developed by our physical nature like evolution or survival of the fittest. This means that we find ourselves obligated to follow our strongest impulse, which can be explained by naturalistic processes. The problem with this rejoinder is that our our strongest impulse is not always the right thing to do. For example, there are times when self-sacrifice is the right thing to do, yet it is not something that could be explained by herd instinct. Furthermore, this tries to get something more from something less. We would expect to be able to explain features of our physical features by appealing to physical processes, but we've seen that the universal moral law is not the sort of thing that would be entailed by any combination of physical material and laws.
Is the Moral Law Just a Social Convention?
"Another way to resist Lewis's argument suggests that the moral law is merely a learned social convention. (This could be seen as a way to challenge the first premise by denying that the moral law is universal, or it might be a way to deny the second premise by offering an alternative explanation for the universal moral law.) Even though we often learn morality through social conventions, that does not prove that morality is reducible to social conventions. We also learn things like mathematics and logic through social institutions, but we know that math and logic are not reducible to society. This objection confuses how we learn moral laws with the nature of moral laws.
It is also worth noting that, on this view, we can accept groups of people as the source of morality but not individuals. But it is not clear why this distinction should be made. Of course, if we acknowledged that morality is completely subjective (i.e., up to each individual to decide for himself) this would also lead to obvious problems. So, the alleged solution is to hold that morality is determined by societies or other social conventions. But this suggestion also leads to obvious problems. For example, how could we ever say a society has morally improved, if the moral standard is set by that society? This would also lead to the absurd conclusion that advocates of social change, like Martin Luther King Jr., are morally evil, since they oppose what is established according to their societies conventions. Moreover, this would make any social convention that establishes moral laws infallible, but we know that these societies can be judged as to whether they are meeting objective moral standards (e.g., the Nazis; any society that violates human rights). Clearly, morality cannot come from social convention.
"
Is the Moral Law My Will Itself?
"Some suppose that the moral law is something we must impose upon ourself. Many believe Immanuel Kant proposed morality in this function. Yet, this too cannot fully account for the nature of morality. This would make the one being held responsible to the rules as the same person giving the rules. It seems rather pointless to have morality on one's own terms. Why even bother with morality at all? Even if one puts tough restrictions on oneself, one can change them as it becomes convenient. It is like a jailor who locks himself in a cell, but keeps the key. The appearance of being confined to his jail cell is illusive. He is not really bound to his cell because at any time he can unlock it and leave. Therefore, our own will cannot account for the moral law."
Could There Be No Moral Law?
Another way to reject Lewis's argument is to deny the first premise. If there is no universal moral law, then there is nothing that needs to be explained. Perhaps, the critic might claim, we have these moral intuitions, but they are all false illusions of a law that doesn't really exist. In other words, there is no moral law. The problem with this view is that the moral law is not a mere description of human behavior but a prescription for human behavior. If the moral law were something we could cast off and live without, this could be a plausible solution, but living without the moral law is simply impossible. Since we did not create it, we cannot cast it off. We cannot escape the moral law because it is impressed upon us. We cannot escape the moral law any more than we can escape the laws of logic or mathematics. Denying the universal moral law would ultimately lapse into moral relativism leaving all moral statements and actions meaningless, thus making Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa equally good and evil. Such a view of morality is not only impossible to live in practice, but obviously wrong when comparing saints and villains (like Hitler and Mother Theresa)."
http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/morality.html

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Omnivorous, posted 07-29-2006 11:06 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 265 by nwr, posted 07-29-2006 11:14 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 269 by Trump won, posted 07-29-2006 11:36 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 264 of 300 (336529)
07-29-2006 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Hyroglyphx
07-29-2006 10:00 PM


Re: Lets try this one more time
So, C. S. Lewis, if he is right thus far, has established that there is a universal moral law. At this point he hasn't appealed to God or made claims that even most atheists would find contentious. In fact, Lewis believes that the moral law is something that all humans are bound to follow, no matter how hard they try to escape from it. So, Lewis believes that this first premise is well-founded.
Stop right there.
All Lewis has shown is that there are generally accepted moral standards.
That is a far cry from demonstrating universality.
His claim of universality does contain an implicit appeal to the divine, since there are Nazis and others who reject the supposedly universal standards.
If moralities differ, and they clearly do, the only way to justify a claim to moral universality is via the divine. To suggest that Lewis can proceed here without anticipating the divine is whistling past the churchyard.
This may be persuasive to some in a chatty kind of way, but it lacks rigor. He knows where he is going, and he can't get there otherwise.
P.S. Nice avatar image. Very ur-delic.

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ”Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’
--Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-29-2006 10:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by jar, posted 07-29-2006 11:15 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 07-29-2006 11:40 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 273 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-30-2006 11:10 AM Omnivorous has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 265 of 300 (336530)
07-29-2006 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Hyroglyphx
07-29-2006 10:00 PM


Re: Lets try this one more time
"What interestsme about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. ...
That's evidence that morality is relative to the culture, rather than to the individual. It does not make the case for an absolute morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-29-2006 10:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-30-2006 11:14 AM nwr has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 266 of 300 (336531)
07-29-2006 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Omnivorous
07-29-2006 11:06 PM


on Mere Christianity
Lots of folk forget the purpose of Mere Christianity was propaganda and moral. They were originally a series of BBC lectures broadcast during the War in 1943. They were meant to improve moral and confidence at a time when things really didn't look all that good. It was only later that they were gathered together into one book and published.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Omnivorous, posted 07-29-2006 11:06 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Trump won, posted 07-29-2006 11:23 PM jar has replied

Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 267 of 300 (336532)
07-29-2006 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by jar
07-29-2006 11:15 PM


Re: on Mere Christianity
Sorry about that Jar, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that one lol. May be in the wrong hands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by jar, posted 07-29-2006 11:15 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by jar, posted 07-29-2006 11:30 PM Trump won has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 268 of 300 (336534)
07-29-2006 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Trump won
07-29-2006 11:23 PM


Re: on Mere Christianity
Not at all sir. They were great lectures and I wish I could have heard them. The book is also a great read, one we had to both support and refute back when I was in high school and the subject matter in it was the source of many wonderful hours of debate. CS Lewis though was a complicated person and one quotemines him only at great personal peril. He is not a person that fits well in small boxes.
'Course we can thank JRR for directing Lewis to the CoE even though JRR still pulled for the Pope. LOL

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Trump won, posted 07-29-2006 11:23 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Trump won, posted 07-29-2006 11:43 PM jar has replied

Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 269 of 300 (336535)
07-29-2006 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Hyroglyphx
07-29-2006 10:00 PM


Re: Lets try this one more time
quote:
Instead of holding the book in my lap and engaging in the laborious task of typing out the whole argument, I found a website that contains the synopsis his argument:
Reading the book would require one to think which is a laborious task for some, yes. It would be better form if you read the work and expressed your views on it.
Having a general sense of right and wrong is very different from an absolute morality.
I respect Mere Christianity greatly because of Lewis's description of how "the next evolution" has already happened for christians and that that is selflessness, that is altruism, that is Jesus Christ.
I find this concept groundbreaking.
*It also lead me to realize the inherently dualistic reality we are in. Which is extremely important.
Edited by -messenjah of one, : that which is starred *

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-29-2006 10:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-30-2006 11:21 AM Trump won has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 270 of 300 (336537)
07-29-2006 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Omnivorous
07-29-2006 11:06 PM


Re: Lets try this one more time
His claim of universality does contain an implicit appeal to the divine, since there are Nazis and others who reject the supposedly universal standards.
Don't quite understand what you are saying about the implicit appeal to the divine, but I'm sure you are wrong that "Nazis and others" reject the univeral standards. Just as Lewis says, they no doubt believe themselves to be in the right and would defend themselves just as Lewis says people do:
C.S. Lewis quoted by NM writes:
He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies, 'to hell with your standards.' Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there are special circumstances ... Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are;
My bolding.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Omnivorous, posted 07-29-2006 11:06 PM Omnivorous 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