Moral Relativism, Part 1

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In the course of debate, I am often taken to task over what is referred to as my "moral relativism." It is true that I often take the side that answers "I don't know" when someone says, "Surely you think that's wrong!" For example, after hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, I opined that looting or other wrongs might be justifiable.

In addition, I often hold that humanity is improving in a moral sense, albeit slowly. There are many who absolutely disagree on this point, given that we no longer punish homosexuals, and people are having abortions, and nobody's going to church anymore, oh my!

I have been told I'm completely dogmatic about my relativism, and horribly irritating and certainly condemned because of it, so I've had to do some reflecting. Are there, in fact, actions which are "objectively and universally wrong?" And am I correct in believing that we humans have, indeed, made some moral progress, and can (with effort) continue to do so?

As a beginning, then, rather than stating that I do not believe in moral absolutes, it would be more accurate to say that I do not believe there are moral absolutes "established by an external agency." That would include, for example, God. As a humanist, I want to behave ethically. The problem for secular types arguing such things with people of faith is that we do not tend to accept "God-given" rules. This can often make agreeing upon what is ethical and moral more difficult.

I do believe that many moral issues have been resolved throughout much of the world. Slavery has been largely dealt with, and we accept women as fully human persons with all the rights and responsibilities that appertain to that estate. These are not yet universal around the planet, but I daresay it's progress. And to the extent that fewer people and nations accept slavery and the subjugation of women, we've gotten better. There are also things that I believe all right-thinking people would agree on. It is always wrong for adults to sexually interfere with children, because children are victims, incapable of giving informed consent to an act they don't understand with a person who - solely because of age- is in a perceived position of authority. This can never be acceptable, and that, I suppose, is a moral absolute. But it is a moral absolute not because "god says so," but because every right-thinking non-pedophile agrees that it is, and because it does harm to the child.

I think it is always wrong to kill a person who doesn't want to be killed. I'm a strong believer in the "Golden Rule" who wouldn't want to be killed, so it makes good sense not to kill. However, there are times when killing might be justified. These would include war, for example, or self-defence, when "it's either him or me!" Is it possible that something may be morally wrong and still justified? I think the answer is yes, and I include such actions as stealing medicine when in mortal peril.

On the other hand, what about capital punishment? Here, I believe, we are not justified. When we have a condemned person on death row for 20 years, or strapped to the table waiting for the lethal injection, that person is unable to prevent what we are about to do. I argue that therefore, the convict is not now a direct threat, so this cannot be self-defence. It is now revenge, and that is insufficient justification for taking a life, in my view. Many western countries have abolished capital punishment. That's moral progress. Unfortunately, the most powerful country on the planet has not, which is unfortunate. Still, we can continue to hope and work toward that end.

Some things, as it turns out, are no longer universally considered wrong, although they certainly were (and are still in many places and cultures). Homosexuality is no longer an offence in most western countries. This may well lead, as it has in 21 countries already, to sanctioning same-sex marriage. I think that is evidence of progress being made -- many others will not agree.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Part 2


Most strong disagreements are about issues we are perennially unable to resolve, like abortion or physician-assisted suicide. Those topics cause real conflict, even violence, and little progress is made. And it's over these topics that I am so often labeled a "moral relativist" by people with views different from mine.

I wonder whether sometimes the disagreement is not over morality itself, but over our several understandings of the underlying facts. For example, most people would agree that it is wrong to show triple-x hard-core porn to kids. So, there is general agreement that some kind of censorship is ethically necessary. The disagreement then focuses on where to draw the line, who draws it, and on what basis. Going further, we might ask if this should include banning Harry Potter from the school library because it deals with witch-craft. These are issues of the interpretation of fact, not morals. And I hold that they might one day be resolved as we come to understand and agree on "the facts."

Surely, one of the reasons we now tend to accept homosexuality is because science is increasingly corning to understand that it is a natural state of being. It has natural causes, is not "chosen," and therefore is not something that can later be rejected. And in relationships between consenting adults, it does no harm to anyone.

If we consider abortion, I think we will agree that the pro-life side sees a "fully human person" in the fetus, the embryo, the blastocyst, and even the newly-fertilized egg. (I think Catholics might go even further back - remember Monty Python and "Every sperm is sacred ... ") The pro-choice side, on the other hand, sees the right of a woman to have control over her own body, in which they include the fetus, which is completely dependent on her.

So the disagreement isn't over whether it is right or wrong to "kill the baby," but rather about when it is, in fact, a baby. I think both sides probably agree that from the point they recognize it as a baby rather than a thing, it is wrong to terminate it (although sometimes justified, perhaps). We agree on the morality, but not the facts that inform the morality.

For the record, I agree completely that a fetus which has the potential to survive outside the mother's womb is a human person, and therefore deserving of protection. Partial-birth abortions in the third trimester seem to me to be wrong, except in very, very rare circumstances where the mother's life is at imminent risk, and no other options are available. (This is still in a sense "wrong" but justifiable, like killing in war.) However, in the first trimester, or before the fetus has developed a central nervous system and the capacity, therefore, to experience pain, I wonder if it really can be described as a "fully human person." And this, I think, is how the issue might eventually be resolved. Not through denying all abortions or allowing all abortions, but by agreeing at what point we will define the developing entity as a fully human person.

[Note that far more pregnancies self-terminate naturally than is generally realized. As many as 50% of pregnancies miscarry before implantation in the womb occurs. Early after implantation, before pregnancy is clinically recognized, loss rate is about 30%. After the pregnancy can be clinically recognized, between days 35-50, about 25% will end in miscarriage.]

I know that it will not be possible to get everyone to agree about abortion, or about assisted suicide for the terminally ill, just as we do not get everybody to agree that it's okay to be gay. That, I think, we'll just have to live with.

But I maintain that moral progress continues to occur, and I believe this happens when we humans (not God) decide what we can agree are the "facts," and articulate the reasons for our agreement.

And on the "humanist" note, I also believe that nothing can be "ethical" which demands sacrifice from others for no general advantage. To ask a raped teenager to carry a baby to term asks a great deal of her. To ask a homosexual to forgo human love for a lifetime, simply because one doesn't like thinking about "what those people do in bed," or because your god or somebody else's god says it's sinful, is unjustified. We must think very carefully about our real reasons before we make those demands on people.

 

[Nous]

I often hold that humanity is improving in a moral sense, albeit slowly. [. . .]

And am I correct in believing that we humans have, indeed, made some moral progress, and can (with effort) continue to do so?

[. . .]

I want to behave ethically.

[. . .]

I do believe that many moral issues have been resolved throughout much of the world. Slavery has been largely dealt with, and we accept women as fully human persons with all the rights and responsibilities that appertain to that estate.

[. . .]

It is always wrong for adults to sexually interfere with children, because children are victims, incapable of giving informed consent to an act they don't understand with a person who - solely because of age- is in a perceived position of authority. This can never be acceptable, and that, I suppose, is a moral absolute. But it is a moral absolute not because "god says so," but because every right-thinking non-pedophile agrees that it is, and because it does harm to the child.

I think it is always wrong to kill a person who doesn't want to be killed. I'm a strong believer in the "Golden Rule" who wouldn't want to be killed, so it makes good sense not to kill. However, there are times when killing might be justified. These would include war, for example, or self-defence, when "it's either him or me!" Is it possible that something may be morally wrong and still justified? I think the answer is yes, and I include such actions as stealing medicine when in mortal peril.

These statements certainly do not express anything resembling metaethical moral relativism, but just the contrary:

Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.​

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

Moral realism is the thesis that there are objective moral facts. That's the proposition indicated by your statements that I've quoted above.

I think it must be extremely rare for the average person to consistently express any form of moral anti-realism. In the short time I've been a member of RF and in the few discussions here I'm contributed to on the topic, it isn't at all uncommon for someone to assert their moral anti-realist belief, then on another thread (say, on one of the Politics boards) assert in some way his/her moral disapproval of someone doing “X”.

On the matter of adults sexually assaulting children, you said that the immorality of such an act “ . . . is a moral absolute not because 'god says so,' but because every right-thinking non-pedophile agrees that it is, and because it does harm to the child.” To do harm to someone else (or any other creature) unnecessarily, without benefit to that person or creature, but merely for one's own pleasure is certainly adequate reason to assert that there exists an objective moral fact about the matter. The thesis of moral realism does not depend on God saying anything. The existence of objective moral facts is no more problematic than the existence of objective mathematical facts (e.g., all plane right triangles abide by the relation a2 + b2 = c2).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

These statements certainly do not express anything resembling metaethical moral relativism, but just the contrary:

Metaethical Moral Relativism (MMR). The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.​

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

Moral realism is the thesis that there are objective moral facts. That's the proposition indicated by your statements that I've quoted above.

I think you are setting up a false dichotomy. I don't think in terms of one or the other and nothing else. When you say MMR is "relative to the traditions, convictions or practices of a group of persons," I can't help but add "circumstances, interpretation of matters of fact and individual choice." To the last point, for example, I would suggest that the phrase "group of persons" could be as small as a group of one.

Just for example, in my world, circumstances vary from moment to moment and situation to situation. My example was breaking into a pharmacy in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina to get insulin for a child in need. In other situations, where such an emergency was not the case, one would presume that there were others means (social agencies, etc.) of acquiring what was needed. The need still remains, but there are alternatives to the more destructive means of satisfying the need, and I think that changes things.

I think it must be extremely rare for the average person to consistently express any form of moral anti-realism. In the short time I've been a member of RF and in the few discussions here I'm contributed to on the topic, it isn't at all uncommon for someone to assert their moral anti-realist belief, then on another thread (say, on one of the Politics boards) assert in some way his/her moral disapproval of someone doing “X”.

I agree with you. I might even go further -- from "extremely rare" to impossible over a lifetime. We are all, in the end, merely human, and driven by more than just reason. Our emotions certainly play a large role, and get the better of all of us, from time to time.

On the matter of adults sexually assaulting children, you said that the immorality of such an act “ . . . is a moral absolute not because 'god says so,' but because every right-thinking non-pedophile agrees that it is, and because it does harm to the child.” To do harm to someone else (or any other creature) unnecessarily, without benefit to that person or creature, but merely for one's own pleasure is certainly adequate reason to assert that there exists an objective moral fact about the matter. The thesis of moral realism does not depend on God saying anything. The existence of objective moral facts is no more problematic than the existence of objective mathematical facts (e.g., all plane right triangles abide by the relation a2 + b2 = c2).

All right, and what if I agree that there are possibly "objective moral facts?" That is certainly not ruled out by anything I've said. I wonder, though, whether such objective moral choices are the majority, the minority, or something else altogether. My own feeling is that there are many such choices to be made throughout our lives, where possibly we have to know several things:

• What are the "facts?"
• Who gains, and by how much?
• Who pays, and by how much?
• Who gets to have a say?

 

[Nous]

When you say MMR is "relative to the traditions, convictions or practices of a group of persons," I can't help but add "circumstances, interpretation of matters of fact and individual choice."

Yes, what you have done throughout your response here is to conflate MMR--which, as defined in the SEP article, is just a statement of what is often referred to as cultural/social relativism--with relativism of situations and circumstances.

Obviously moral realism does not entail that acts are moral or immoral regardless of circumstances or motives. Killing another human in self-defense is entirely different, both morally and legally, than killing that person because one wants to possess his car.

You noted the circumstance of breaking and entering and stealing from a pharmacy in an emergency situation after a natural disaster, with the motive being to save someone's life. The circumstance and motive in such an act is entirely different than someone who breaks into the same pharmacy, during an ordinary night, in order to steal all of the opioids for himself.

I assume you would not agree that it would be moral for some people to break into a pharmacy to steal a drug in order to save someone's life, but immoral for other people to do the same under the same circumstances, where the difference is merely the persons' cultures.

Social or cultural relativism, which is what is defined in the SEP as MMR, is a form of moral anti-realism, in which there is no objective fact as to whether, e.g., rape of a 4-year-old child is moral or immoral; rather such an act is moral or immoral depending on cultural tradition.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, what you have done throughout your response here is to conflate MMR--which, as defined in the SEP article, is just a statement of what is often referred to as cultural/social relativism--with relativism of situations and circumstances.

Obviously moral realism does not entail that acts are moral or immoral regardless of circumstances or motives. Killing another human in self-defense is entirely different, both morally and legally, than killing that person because one wants to possess his car.

You noted the circumstance of breaking and entering and stealing from a pharmacy in an emergency situation after a natural disaster, with the motive being to save someone's life. The circumstance and motive in such an act is entirely different than someone who breaks into the same pharmacy, during an ordinary night, in order to steal all of the opioids for himself.

I assume you would not agree that it would be moral for some people to break into a pharmacy to steal a drug in order to save someone's life, but immoral for other people to do the same under the same circumstances, where the difference is merely the persons' cultures.

Social or cultural relativism, which is what is defined in the SEP as MMR, is a form of moral anti-realism, in which there is no objective fact as to whether, e.g., rape of a 4-year-old child is moral or immoral; rather such an act is moral or immoral depending on cultural tradition.

Well, let me begin by saying that while I find philosophy interesting, I am not "doing philosophy" (at least in any formal way) in my posts -- I'm not smart enough, I'm afraid. Part of the problem with philosophy, per se, is that it's really not all that available to the vast majority of us. And yet, the vast majority of us are the ones who, in my opinion, need to find ways to get access to such questions as we're facing today.

So many people are conflicted over things like same-sex marriage, or abortion, or physician-assisted suicide for those suffering horribly through a terminal illness. And sometimes, our cultures -- and our religions and other beliefs -- really do get in the way. Few of us would deny the vet permission to compassionately put down a much-loved pet that is suffering horribly with no hope of recovery. Yet not many of us would grant the same right to a family member -- if if they actively request, nay beg, for it themselves. In this case, for example, something entirely non-factual gets in the way -- we assume that granny has an "immortal soul" while fido does not. And we base our decisions on such "facts."

No question there are going to be situations that are analytically intractable, and unfortunately we are just going to have to do our best and muddle through -- that's the human way a lot of the time, I'm afraid. But I really do think that there are ways we can make good choices -- even "moral" choices, if you will -- through just thinking about what we really do know. As I said above:

• What are the "facts?"
• Who gains, and by how much?
• Who pays, and by how much?
• Who gets to have a say?

In granny's case, for example, we can say that we know some "facts:" she's suffering, she's terminal, she wants the release of death because she told us so. Who gains? Granny does, by the immediate relief that she would otherwise have, but after having to wait through unbearable suffering for. Who pays? Well, Granny does, again, but a price she's willing to pay, and the family does, too, and possibly a price that they are loathe to pay. But wouldn't they eventually have to pay that same price anyway? What's the good of delaying it? How much does Granny's suffering not outweigh the family's desire to keep her around longer? (Of course, the family could also be worrying about that immortal soul thing, but if Granny is comfortable that God will be forgiving, why should the rest try to make out that God to be so much less?) And who gets to have a say? In this case -- IN MY OPINION -- Granny and her physician do. And their say must, of course, conform to the "rules." Right now, the illness must be terminal, the pain must be unendurable, and the patient and physician must both agree, and be seen to agree.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Post Script to the above: we could also look at the "Granny/assisted-suicide" question above from the family's side, of course, and ask the same questions about the family making a decision to deny Granny's wish. I have done this for myself, and conclude that as I would (and have) had a beloved pet put down out of what I deem to be compassion -- while I would not have Granny "put down," I would accede to her wish to be assisted to die peacefully and in dignity, if she so requested. Try the questions for yourself and see how you would react.

 

[Nous]

No question there are going to be situations that are analytically intractable, and unfortunately we are just going to have to do our best and muddle through -- that's the human way a lot of the time, I'm afraid. But I really do think that there are ways we can make good choices -- even "moral" choices, if you will -- through just thinking about what we really do know. As I said above:

• What are the "facts?"
• Who gains, and by how much?
• Who pays, and by how much?
• Who gets to have a say?

I certainly agree that moral principles or facts or guidance should be the product of reasoning. On a recent thread I found it highly interesting that a number of people, in the process of espousing some form of moral (social/cultural) relativism, ended up asserting the logical self-contradiction that “X is not objectively immoral, but I believe X is immoral.” The irrationality of moral relativism seems to unavoidably put the thinking person in just such an untenable position. Moral relativism entails the denial that there is any objective fact about the morality of, say, raping a 4-year-old child for one's own momentary pleasure, but few people seem willing to assert that it is a moral act, an act morally equivalent to teaching the child to tie her shoes. And certainly our society and every other culture in the world morally condemns raping a 4-year-old child (i.e., the moral condemnation of such an act isn't relative to any nation).

Part of the problem with philosophy, per se, is that it's really not all that available to the vast majority of us.

What do you mean by this? I've spent much time in the 100 section of the library and have read lots of philosophy books. With the internet, all manner of books and written works are more available today to the average person than they ever were.

And yet, the vast majority of us are the ones who, in my opinion, need to find ways to get access to such questions as we're facing today.

So many people are conflicted over things like same-sex marriage, or abortion, or physician-assisted suicide for those suffering horribly through a terminal illness. And sometimes, our cultures -- and our religions and other beliefs -- really do get in the way.

So, is your opinion that major social problems face us because the majority of people have not (correctly) reasoned on moral issues (or on the moral aspects of certain issues)?

The fact is that in the US, at least, the Court has spoken as to the legal and constitutional status of all three topics you mentioned here (same-sex marriage, abortion and physician-assisted suicide). Of course, the Court might change it's collective mind on any or all three topics at some point. Nevertheless, I'd say it's extremely rare for the Court to revert to some less moral position on the constitutionality of such issues that come before it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I certainly agree that moral principles or facts or guidance should be the product of reasoning. On a recent thread I found it highly interesting that a number of people, in the process of espousing some form of moral (social/cultural) relativism, ended up asserting the logical self-contradiction that “X is not objectively immoral, but I believe X is immoral.” The irrationality of moral relativism seems to unavoidably put the thinking person in just such an untenable position. Moral relativism entails the denial that there is any objective fact about the morality of, say, raping a 4-year-old child for one's own momentary pleasure, but few people seem willing to assert that it is a moral act, an act morally equivalent to teaching the child to tie her shoes. And certainly our society and every other culture in the world morally condemns raping a 4-year-old child (i.e., the moral condemnation of such an act isn't relative to any nation).

Let's simplify -- in the end, morality is about distinguishing between right and wrong, or good and bad behaviour. In my own view, there is sometimes a calculus involved (that, of course, is what my questions are about). Inevitably, of course, every calculus requires some (hopefully few) axioms -- some things that you must just accept as being true. I can, for example, imagine religious beliefs that might include the necessity of raping and murdering a 4-year old, as the only propitiation acceptable by that religion's deity. And in fact, such cults have existed. In the presence of that sort of axiom, NOT raping and murdering that child would be immoral, since the belief is that harm will come to the entire community.

(Now, I maintain I hold no religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean I don't have any beliefs -- no human can live without some beliefs, as certain knowledge about everything is outside of our capacity. But I do try to limit the number of things I believe that lack as little substantial evidence as the idea that my local deity wants the occasional child rape/sacrifice. But hey, I'm not everybody.)

What do you mean by this? I've spent much time in the 100 section of the library and have read lots of philosophy books. With the internet, all manner of books and written works are more available today to the average person than they ever were.

I was speaking more practically, and to some extent about "formal" philosophy. And I think you might agree that not all that many people have the time, the inclination, and the educational background to engage in an amateur pursuit of the philosophical literature. This is just a practical reality. It's the same thing with religion, really. The Catholic priest is a superbly educated person (the equivalent of a master's degree), but the flock must basically be content with some simple creeds and a few rules and proverbs. The priest, by the way, usually knows full-well that much of the Bible is NOT in fact historical fact -- and virtually never mentions anything of the kind to the congregation.

So, is your opinion that major social problems face us because the majority of people have not (correctly) reasoned on moral issues (or on the moral aspects of certain issues)?

Yes, in fact, I do think there is a great deal of truth in that. And very often, in my personal view, it goes back to the "axioms" that we are given for our moral calculus -- and very, very often, when these are cultural or historical or religious artifacts, they are often very poor bases on which to arrive at a good answer.

And again, I return to my 4 questions. Notice that not one of those questions is: "what does the Bible say," or "what did you mother tell you?" They ask merely what you can (hopefully) really know about the situation at hand, and how can that knowledge help you shape an answer.

And by the way, I would 100% of the time arrive at the conclusion that raping a 4-year old child would be dead wrong. Is that a belief, or is it the result of a kind of reasoning (a calculus)?

The fact is that in the US, at least, the Court has spoken as to the legal and constitutional status of all three topics you mentioned here (same-sex marriage, abortion and physician-assisted suicide). Of course, the Court might change it's collective mind on any or all three topics at some point. Nevertheless, I'd say it's extremely rare for the Court to revert to some less moral position on the constitutionality of such issues that come before it.

Of course, and it is most interesting that these sorts of changes are usually the direct result of the kind of calculus that I'm talking about -- and especially when some of the "axioms" are replaced with knowledge. If you get rid of Leviticus 18 and Paul's "arsenokoites," and replace them with scientifically derived psychological and neurological fact, you wind up making decisions that liberate people, at (as we can now see) no cost whatever to anybody else (except, of course, hurt feelings).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sorry, I didn't really directly address your comment about "the logical self-contradiction that “X is not objectively immoral, but I believe X is immoral.”

Again, let's return to that 4-year old child. I posit that the child is, in itself "objective." I posit that our knowledge of both physical (sexual) and psychological development of human children is sufficient to tell us that the child is incapable of informed consent, incapable of reaping any gain from the act, certainly capable of sustaining a great deal of harm (physical and psychological), and that the only possible gain is the rapists momentary pleasure. And the consent (at least "informed consent") by the child, non-existent. My calculus tells me we might at least consider removing his ability to experience that pleasure in future -- if you take my meaning.

In other words, I do think that there are some objective facts that lead to understanding of what may be moral, or not. And yet, I also hold that in the grand scheme, there is a lot of grey area, and we need to tread at least somewhat carefully.

 

[Nous]

Let's simplify -- in the end, morality is about distinguishing between right and wrong, or good and bad behaviour.

As a sort of aside, I must say that's an interesting assertion summarizing what “morality is about” “in the end,”, as it obviates any metaethical question as to whether there is any such distinction between “right and wrong, or good and bad behaviour.” (Apparently I am most interested in the metaethical questions.)

I would point out the irony that it isn't unusual for people who deny that there are objective moral facts to nevertheless reassure others that they do not generally go around committing acts that are commonly morally condemned. I don't really know why a dedicated moral anti-realist regulates his/her behavior in such a way, as surely it is oftentimes expedient to an individual's interests to act in ways that are immoral (and illegal).

In my own view, there is sometimes a calculus involved (that, of course, is what my questions are about). Inevitably, of course, every calculus requires some (hopefully few) axioms -- some things that you must just accept as being true. I can, for example, imagine religious beliefs that might include the necessity of raping and murdering a 4-year old, as the only propitiation acceptable by that religion's deity. And in fact, such cults have existed. In the presence of that sort of axiom, NOT raping and murdering that child would be immoral, since the belief is that harm will come to the entire community.

I know of no society or religion that does promote or has promoted the belief that it is moral to rape 4-year-old children. Currently no nation on earth condones such an act. It seems that there is a universal consensus that such an act is immoral. What “cult” are you referring to?

In your subsequent post you noted a few facts relating to the issue of the morality of the act of raping a 4-year-old child. From the facts that you mentioned I'm not sure that one can deduce any unequivocal proposition about the immorality of such an act. Indeed it seems that in the end you may have vaguely suggested that such an act might be argued to be a moral act. (Did you suggest that?)

Is there any more fundamental or universally applicable moral rule (or “axiom”) than the Golden Rule?

What do you mean by this? I've spent much time in the 100 section of the library and have read lots of philosophy books. With the internet, all manner of books and written works are more available today to the average person than they ever were.

I was speaking more practically, and to some extent about "formal" philosophy. And I think you might agree that not all that many people have the time, the inclination, and the educational background to engage in an amateur pursuit of the philosophical literature. This is just a practical reality. It's the same thing with religion, really. The Catholic priest is a superbly educated person (the equivalent of a master's degree), but the flock must basically be content with some simple creeds and a few rules and proverbs.

I certainly bristle at the idea that the masses are somehow prevented from informing themselves on issues of ethics or philosophy. People these days have more leisure time and greater access to information and educational opportunities than ever before. The fact that the average person spends 5 hours per day watching mindless TV is no excuse for anything.

Yes, in fact, I do think there is a great deal of truth in that. And very often, in my personal view, it goes back to the "axioms" that we are given for our moral calculus -- and very, very often, when these are cultural or historical or religious artifacts, they are often very poor bases on which to arrive at a good answer.

And again, I return to my 4 questions. Notice that not one of those questions is: "what does the Bible say," or "what did you mother tell you?" They ask merely what you can (hopefully) really know about the situation at hand, and how can that knowledge help you shape an answer.

And by the way, I would 100% of the time arrive at the conclusion that raping a 4-year old child would be dead wrong. Is that a belief, or is it the result of a kind of reasoning (a calculus)?

My impression is that when people grapple with a moral issue, they probably tend to resolve it by a rather simple method, and I think it usually involves putting oneself in the place of the other person or creature. In other words, they apply the Golden Rule in some way.

If you get rid of Leviticus 18 and Paul's "arsenokoites," and replace them with scientifically derived psychological and neurological fact, you wind up making decisions that liberate people, at (as we can now see) no cost whatever to anybody else (except, of course, hurt feelings).

What “scientifically derived psychological and neurological fact” are you referring to? (Obviously we can forgive Paul and the writers of Leviticus for not having any such fact.)

How do you account for the fact that among the societies today that are most homophobic, most oppressive toward gay people and same-sex couples (e.g., China, Japan, India), are ones that were not historically influenced by the Bible or (as far as I know) any religion that explicitly condemned same-sex relationships? And, further, societies that, at least in their laws, are least oppressive toward gay people and same-sex couples are generally ones that have been influenced by modern Christian interpretations of certain Biblical passages alleged to morally condemn same-sex sexuality?

Indeed, with the Obergefell decision last year, the laws in the US, including adoption of children by gay people and same-sex couples, are among the most egalitarian of all Western countries in matters pertaining to same-sex couples and gay people. This is despite the fact that among Western countries, the US is more "religious" at least in certain ways.



(BTW, I must say I'm enjoying this conversation.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As a sort of aside, I must say that's an interesting assertion summarizing what “morality is about” “in the end,”, as it obviates any metaethical question as to whether there is any such distinction between “right and wrong, or good and bad behaviour.” (Apparently I am most interested in the metaethical questions.)

And I am not particularly interested in metaethics, nor in metaphysics, much, either. It always seems to me that these meta questions are looking for some sort of "why," while science restricts itself to observing (and trying to understand) "what." This question of "why" has a very deep implication that I simply don't accept -- that there is "something" that has a purpose. I happen to think that nature is and is so without any purpose. It happens. Assuming a purpose always leads me to conclude that -- based on the results I see so far -- the Purposer is kind of inept.

In any case, down here on the ground where we live, (rather than in the meta or before we live), my definition of morality is the one found in Webster.

I would point out the irony that it isn't unusual for people who deny that there are objective moral facts to nevertheless reassure others that they do not generally go around committing acts that are commonly morally condemned. I don't really know why a dedicated moral anti-realist regulates his/her behavior in such a way, as surely it is oftentimes expedient to an individual's interests to act in ways that are immoral (and illegal).

See the problem? "Objective moral fact" must apply, in every situation, in every time, in every place, to every person. Isn't that what would make it both "objective" and "fact?" And yet, each and every one of us is an individual -- and then we are members of families, and then of communities (often several different communities) and of larger and more complex groups. That we are a social species and thus intimately dependent on one another for our very existence. And we each have needs, beliefs and so on that inform our perceptions and our actions.

Yet, it is certainly true that we all share much in common: we are all homo sapiens, for example, members of the same species. We all share the same world, with (at least so far) no way to move out and go somewhere else.

I know of no society or religion that does promote or has promoted the belief that it is moral to rape 4-year-old children. Currently no nation on earth condones such an act. It seems that there is a universal consensus that such an act is immoral. What “cult” are you referring to?

You are right -- that was hyperbole. But do you likewise know of no society that or religion that condoned -- and even mandated -- cutting the hearts out of living victims? Or throwing virgins into deep wells or volcanos? Or other forms of child sacrifice? Or ritual prostitution (including of the very young, both male and female)? I assure you, they have all existed in human history. So if you would like to hold forth that raping a 4 year-old is objectively immoral, but cutting the heart out of a young man is not, please be my guest. I don't differentiate quite so finely.

In your subsequent post you noted a few facts relating to the issue of the morality of the act of raping a 4-year-old child. From the facts that you mentioned I'm not sure that one can deduce any unequivocal proposition about the immorality of such an act. Indeed it seems that in the end you may have vaguely suggested that such an act might be argued to be a moral act. (Did you suggest that?)

Does the proposition really have to be "unequivocal" for us to decide what is right or wrong? If science can offer no "definitive proof" that 4-year-old-rape is immoral, do we then have to conclude that it is (innocent until proven guilty)? I won't go there.

And no, I did not suggest that, specifically, but I do indeed suggest (and assert) that many cultures, many religions have argued that some things that you would now consider deeply immoral (virgin-tossing, heart-extraction, slavery, 911) were not only moral, but necessary? Will you deny that?

Is there any more fundamental or universally applicable moral rule (or “axiom”) than the Golden Rule?

I do not know of one, and it is the one I (try to) adhere to most. It is also the most prevalent in nearly every religion and philosophy, and I assume that is for very good reason I gave above -- our social and interdependent nature.

I certainly bristle at the idea that the masses are somehow prevented from informing themselves on issues of ethics or philosophy. People these days have more leisure time and greater access to information and educational opportunities than ever before. The fact that the average person spends 5 hours per day watching mindless TV is no excuse for anything.

You mistake my meaning, and therefore I suggest there's no real cause to bristle. I have time to write and explore here. I have a friend, trying to run a delicatessen (he's owner/manager) to provide for his family, with 2 young kids, one with medical issues, who watches no TV at all, and still can find little time to read. He ekes out 1 hour a week to have a single beer and talk philosophy with me (and learn to do cryptic crosswords). But he does find time to read assiduously to his 4 year old son, to get him to swimming lessons and music lessons and play dates. He finds time to get his new daughter to the doctor, and to provide social interaction for his wife's Down's Syndrome brother. He wants to read Doctorow's Ragtime and To Kill a Mockingbird, but is challenged to find time.

And in any case, I don't like judging people's choices. If they watch 5 hours of TV a day because that is the cultural norm in which they grew up and live, who am I to sit in judgment on them?

And I think, too, that you must admit that reading (informing oneself) on issues of ethics or philosophy also requires a certain educational underpinning which many (far too many) have not had access to. That's disappointing for society, but not particularly blame-worthy to those folks.

My impression is that when people grapple with a moral issue, they probably tend to resolve it by a rather simple method, and I think it usually involves putting oneself in the place of the other person or creature. In other words, they apply the Golden Rule in some way.

A good place to start -- can't argue with it.

What “scientifically derived psychological and neurological fact” are you referring to? (Obviously we can forgive Paul and the writers of Leviticus for not having any such fact.)

I'm not going to do a bibliography here, but if you're interested, Olive Skene Johnson (a Canadian Scientist) has an excellent bibliography at the back of her book "The Sexual Spectrum: Why We are All Different." There is real work being done all over the world (good stuff on brain response to pheromones in Sweden, for example) that are making very clear that in many ways, we ARE what our brains say we are. And that our brains tell us, rather than the other way about.

How do you account for the fact that among the societies today that are most homophobic, most oppressive toward gay people and same-sex couples (e.g., China, Japan, India), are ones that were not historically influenced by the Bible or (as far as I know) any religion that explicitly condemned same-sex relationships? And, further, societies that, at least in their laws, are least oppressive toward gay people and same-sex couples are generally ones that have been influenced by modern Christian interpretations of certain Biblical passages alleged to morally condemn same-sex sexuality?

Um, I'm not sure you are correct about some of that. I was just at a museum exhibit (Royal Ontario Museum) called "A Third Gender: Beautiful Youths in the Japanese Edo Period." For most of the 20th century, homosexual sex was banned in the China until it was legalized in 1997. In 2001, homosexuality was removed from the official list of mental illnesses in China. It's in the areas governed by the Abrahamic religions of the Middle East and Africa where homosexuals are most at risk.

Indeed, with the Obergefell decision last year, the laws in the US, including adoption of children by gay people and same-sex couples, are among the most egalitarian of all Western countries in matters pertaining to same-sex couples and gay people. This is despite the fact that among Western countries, the US is more "religious" at least in certain ways.

Do I need to remind you of where the most vociferous objections to Oberfefell came from? (Hint: it wasn't from the atheists, humanists, Buddhists or Hindus.) Try the Christian right.

(BTW, I must say I'm enjoying this conversation.)

As am I. Why else expend so much energy?

 

[Nous]

And I am not particularly interested in metaethics,

Your thread title refers to a specific metaethical thesis--even though, come to find out, by it you didn't mean what philosophers or ethicists refer to as moral relativism, and, in fact, again and again in your posts here you indicate your agreement with the metaethical thesis of moral realism. E.g., you indicate your belief that humans are progressing toward more moral behavior (an anti-realist cannot logically harbor any such idea as moral progress); you indicate your moral disapproval of certain acts (e.g., human sacrifice; rape; all killing of humans; restrictions on abortion and physician-assisted suicide). In contrast, the moral relativist would say that whether or not, e.g., the rape of a 4-year-old child is moral depends upon the society in which it occurs, and apparently the nihilist would assert that there is no fact that makes rape and murder wrong beyond being illegal (though my experience is that most people who overtly espouse nihilism have difficulty uttering such assertions).

It seems the message of your posts on this thread is that you have merely drawn different conclusions about what is moral or immoral than some religions or religious persons have.

I would point out the irony that it isn't unusual for people who deny that there are objective moral facts to nevertheless reassure others that they do not generally go around committing acts that are commonly morally condemned. I don't really know why a dedicated moral anti-realist regulates his/her behavior in such a way, as surely it is oftentimes expedient to an individual's interests to act in ways that are immoral (and illegal).

See the problem? "Objective moral fact" must apply, in every situation, in every time, in every place, to every person. Isn't that what would make it both "objective" and "fact?"

Yes. I don't see any problem with objective moral facts applying to every person and to every situation.

Objective moral facts and rules can be as general or specific or multitudinous as the objective facts and laws of physics or the objective facts and rules by which to distinguish whether a person is guilty of a crime or not. There could be a multitude of factors needed to account for why the bullet fired from one gun hits a target and a bullet from the same box fired from the same type of gun does not hit the same target.

In the OP, you said that you “think it is always wrong to kill a person who doesn't want to be killed.” But certainly the law does not include every such killing as a criminal act. E.g., killing another person in self-defense or in defense of someone else is not a crime. Killing another person as a result of an unforeseeable and unavoidable accident is not a crime. I'm certain you would not want to be prosecuted for such acts. There are numerous facts that are pertinent to determining whether someone has committed crime, and there is no reason that there cannot be numerous facts pertinent to determining whether an act is moral or immoral.

So if you would like to hold forth that raping a 4 year-old is objectively immoral, but cutting the heart out of a young man is not, please be my guest.

Why on earth would I hold forth that? Nothing I've said implied any such thing.

Does the proposition really have to be "unequivocal" for us to decide what is right or wrong?

If one uses logic in order to decide what acts are morally right or wrong, and one's premises do not lead to the conclusion that an act is morally right or wrong, then how does one go about deciding?

If one cannot use logic in order to determine that an act is morally right or wrong, then perhaps one should not decide that the act is morally right or wrong.

And no, I did not suggest that, specifically, but I do indeed suggest (and assert) that many cultures, many religions have argued that some things that you would now consider deeply immoral (virgin-tossing, heart-extraction, slavery, 911) were not only moral, but necessary? Will you deny that?

I definitely do not deny that. Our moral sense--our ability to distinguish right from wrong--evolves.

You mistake my meaning, and therefore I suggest there's no real cause to bristle. I have time to write and explore here. I have a friend, trying to run a delicatessen (he's owner/manager) to provide for his family, with 2 young kids, one with medical issues, who watches no TV at all, and still can find little time to read. He ekes out 1 hour a week to have a single beer and talk philosophy with me (and learn to do cryptic crosswords). But he does find time to read assiduously to his 4 year old son, to get him to swimming lessons and music lessons and play dates. He finds time to get his new daughter to the doctor, and to provide social interaction for his wife's Down's Syndrome brother. He wants to read Doctorow's Ragtime and To Kill a Mockingbird, but is challenged to find time.

And in any case, I don't like judging people's choices. If they watch 5 hours of TV a day because that is the cultural norm in which they grew up and live, who am I to sit in judgment on them?

And I think, too, that you must admit that reading (informing oneself) on issues of ethics or philosophy also requires a certain educational underpinning which many (far too many) have not had access to. That's disappointing for society, but not particularly blame-worthy to those folks.

This topic seems to have arisen in response to my quoting the definition of metaethical moral relativism from the SEP. You said that you are not "doing philosophy" here. But you are. And obviously it can only lead to confusion to speak of metaethical theses in ways that are contrary to how these theses are normally defined.

I'm not going to do a bibliography here

I didn't ask for a bibliography; I only asked for the “scientifically derived psychological and neurological fact” that you said should be substituted for a couple of passages in the Bible.

There is real work being done all over the world (good stuff on brain response to pheromones in Sweden, for example) that are making very clear that in many ways, we ARE what our brains say we are. And that our brains tell us, rather than the other way about.

Are you suggesting that humans lack the ability to choose between available options? If so, it is certainly confounding that any human brain would ever bother itself with the problem of deciding what are moral or immoral acts.

As your statements here occur in the context of the topic of sexuality, I would just point out that there are no findings of any replicated study by which to conclude that sexual orientation in humans is genetically or biologically determined. A country-wide survey of adult mono- and dizygotic twins in Sweden, totaling more than 7,600 persons, found that shared genetics could at most account for only a very small portion of the variance in people's sexual activity or self-proclaimed sexual attraction. In men, heritability estimates for same-sex activity or attraction was 34-39%, and 18-19% for women: http://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/sex/samesex 2010.pdf

There is no evidence whatsoever that sexual orientation in humans is binary, i.e., comes in two discrete monosexual flavors: gay or straight. Indeed, all of the evidence contradicts the idea of binary monosexual orientation in humans. Unfortunately, the methodologies of all biological studies on sexual orientation (that I am aware of) are premised on the assumption that sexual orientation is binary. All biological/genetic studies (to my knowledge) employ a disease model of homosexuality, in which heterosexuality is assumed to be the norm, and biological or genetic differences are sought in anyone deviating from this norm.

I suspect that all categories of sexual orientation--except bisexuality or pansexuality--are social constructs. My husband disagrees.

Um, I'm not sure you are correct about some of that. I was just at a museum exhibit (Royal Ontario Museum) called "A Third Gender: Beautiful Youths in the Japanese Edo Period." For most of the 20th century, homosexual sex was banned in the China until it was legalized in 1997. In 2001, homosexuality was removed from the official list of mental illnesses in China. It's in the areas governed by the Abrahamic religions of the Middle East and Africa where homosexuals are most at risk.

The American Psychiatric Association removed "Homosexuality" as a mental disorder in 1973. (And the fact that "Homosexuality" was ever included as a mental disorder, and was eliminated by vote, illustrates the social construct of mental disorders.)

In any case, in none of the countries I noted (China, Japan, India) is there equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. That fact needs to be accounted for by anyone suggesting that singling out Biblical passages as the reason for people's homophobic attitudes and laws.

It is true that in the past of most all known cultures, same-sex sexual activity was not morally condemned, and in several societies was exalted. I do not believe that a couple of passages in the New and Old Testaments can account for the subsequent change in attitudes and laws.

Do I need to remind you of where the most vociferous objections to Oberfefell came from? (Hint: it wasn't from the atheists, humanists, Buddhists or Hindus.) Try the Christian right.

One can easily imagine that there might be more than mere "vociferous objections" among the Hindus in India or the Buddhists in Sri Lanka if the high courts in those countries issued a decision like Obergefell. But the high courts in those countries are nowhere near any such decision.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes. I don't see any problem with objective moral facts applying to every person and to every situation.

Objective moral facts and rules can be as general or specific or multitudinous as the objective facts and laws of physics or the objective facts and rules by which to distinguish whether a person is guilty of a crime or not. There could be a multitude of factors needed to account for why the bullet fired from one gun hits a target and a bullet from the same box fired from the same type of gun does not hit the same target.

In the OP, you said that you “think it is always wrong to kill a person who doesn't want to be killed.” But certainly the law does not include every such killing as a criminal act. E.g., killing another person in self-defense or in defense of someone else is not a crime. Killing another person as a result of an unforeseeable and unavoidable accident is not a crime. I'm certain you would not want to be prosecuted for such acts. There are numerous facts that are pertinent to determining whether someone has committed crime, and there is no reason that there cannot be numerous facts pertinent to determining whether an act is moral or immoral.

If I may be forgiven, I'm going to restrict myself to this one part of you post for now (I will address the rest later, as time allows, and as your effort merits).

I have a very real problem with this notion of "objective moral fact." Since we humans -- each and every one of us, without exception -- are all very much subjective creatures. Everything we know, everything we think, everything we plan, do, like, resent, fear, love -- all of it -- is filtered through an immense complex of preconditioned beliefs, present moods, and whatever else you'd like to throw in.

As you pointed out, I did indeed say that I "think it is always wrong..." Notice that "think?" It says "this is me talking." I am not citing objective moral fact. In truth, I myself asked the question about how it could possibly be moral for an Inca to object to a human sacrifice if that sacrifice was deemed by everyone in the whole society (including herself) to be absolutely required by the gods to ensure the well-being of everybody else.

I know of no law of physics at present that depends upon the particular belief system, or mood, of the physicist doing the measurements. (Except for sloppy work due to a really bad hangover, of course.)

And again, I've been trying to separate some of the things I think you are conflating. I've said that killing someone, or stealing drugs in an emergency, may both be "wrong" but also "justifiable" in some circumstances. If I had ever been forced into killing someone due to circumstances beyond my control, certainly I would not like to be prosecuted -- and I would think it very unfair if I were. And yet, as I value the lives of others, I would still always regret it as "not a good thing." And hence, in one sense, wrong.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

In the course of debate, I am often taken to task over what is referred to as my "moral relativism." It is true that I often take the side that answers "I don't know" when someone says, "Surely you think that's wrong!" For example, after hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, I opined that looting or other wrongs might be justifiable.

In addition, I often hold that humanity is improving in a moral sense, albeit slowly. There are many who absolutely disagree on this point, given that we no longer punish homosexuals, and people are having abortions, and nobody's going to church anymore, oh my!

I have been told I'm completely dogmatic about my relativism, and horribly irritating and certainly condemned because of it, so I've had to do some reflecting. Are there, in fact, actions which are "objectively and universally wrong?" And am I correct in believing that we humans have, indeed, made some moral progress, and can (with effort) continue to do so?

As a beginning, then, rather than stating that I do not believe in moral absolutes, it would be more accurate to say that I do not believe there are moral absolutes "established by an external agency." That would include, for example, God. As a humanist, I want to behave ethically. The problem for secular types arguing such things with people of faith is that we do not tend to accept "God-given" rules. This can often make agreeing upon what is ethical and moral more difficult.

I do believe that many moral issues have been resolved throughout much of the world. Slavery has been largely dealt with, and we accept women as fully human persons with all the rights and responsibilities that appertain to that estate. These are not yet universal around the planet, but I daresay it's progress. And to the extent that fewer people and nations accept slavery and the subjugation of women, we've gotten better. There are also things that I believe all right-thinking people would agree on. It is always wrong for adults to sexually interfere with children, because children are victims, incapable of giving informed consent to an act they don't understand with a person who - solely because of age- is in a perceived position of authority. This can never be acceptable, and that, I suppose, is a moral absolute. But it is a moral absolute not because "god says so," but because every right-thinking non-pedophile agrees that it is, and because it does harm to the child.

I think it is always wrong to kill a person who doesn't want to be killed. I'm a strong believer in the "Golden Rule" who wouldn't want to be killed, so it makes good sense not to kill. However, there are times when killing might be justified. These would include war, for example, or self-defence, when "it's either him or me!" Is it possible that something may be morally wrong and still justified? I think the answer is yes, and I include such actions as stealing medicine when in mortal peril.

On the other hand, what about capital punishment? Here, I believe, we are not justified. When we have a condemned person on death row for 20 years, or strapped to the table waiting for the lethal injection, that person is unable to prevent what we are about to do. I argue that therefore, the convict is not now a direct threat, so this cannot be self-defence. It is now revenge, and that is insufficient justification for taking a life, in my view. Many western countries have abolished capital punishment. That's moral progress. Unfortunately, the most powerful country on the planet has not, which is unfortunate. Still, we can continue to hope and work toward that end.

Some things, as it turns out, are no longer universally considered wrong, although they certainly were (and are still in many places and cultures). Homosexuality is no longer an offence in most western countries. This may well lead, as it has in 21 countries already, to sanctioning same-sex marriage. I think that is evidence of progress being made -- many others will not agree.

I'm against evolution. I'm also not allowed to believe in God especially as in Jesus Christ, because I gave the knowledge of good and evil, it was my fault.
so moral relativity? uh? tear drops on my pillowcase.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm against evolution. I'm also not allowed to believe in God especially as in Jesus Christ, because I gave the knowledge of good and evil, it was my fault.
so moral relativity? uh? tear drops on my pillowcase.

You're "against evolution?" So, does that stop it? Would gravity give up its hold on you if you were against that, too?

Silly.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

You're "against evolution?" So, does that stop it? Would gravity give up its hold on you if you were against that, too?

Silly.

Yes!

 

[Aštra’el]

You are right -- that was hyperbole. But do you likewise know of no society that or religion that condoned -- and even mandated -- cutting the hearts out of living victims? Or throwing virgins into deep wells or volcanos? Or other forms of child sacrifice? Or ritual prostitution (including of the very young, both male and female)? I assure you, they have all existed in human history. So if you would like to hold forth that raping a 4 year-old is objectively immoral, but cutting the heart out of a young man is not, please be my guest. I don't differentiate quite so finely.

I have never claimed or suggested that any of those things are objectively immoral.

And no, I did not suggest that, specifically, but I do indeed suggest (and assert) that many cultures, many religions have argued that some things that you would now consider deeply immoral (virgin-tossing, heart-extraction, slavery, 911) were not only moral, but necessary? Will you deny that?

None of those things are objectively moral, either, but some religions of course might subjectively perceive those things to be moral, or at the very least acceptable in their culture and Weltanschauung.

I personally have nothing against sacred prostitution, throwing virgins into volcanoes, or ripping out people's hearts in ritualized acts of human sacrifice to the gods... as they are all incredible ways to generate mana for the gods. Mana, as in spiritual energy... something that is measured by how much a spiritual-religious act inspires, motivates, and influences an individual or a people, and/or how much these acts contribute to the growth and power of a religion and its god(s).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes!

Okay, whatever. I doubt we'll ever find anything to say to one another.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have never claimed or suggested that any of those things are objectively immoral.

None of those things are objectively moral, either, but some religions of course might subjectively perceive those things to be moral, or at the very least acceptable in their culture and Weltanschauung.

I personally have nothing against sacred prostitution, throwing virgins into volcanoes, or ripping out people's hearts in ritualized acts of human sacrifice to the gods... as they are all incredible ways to generate mana for the gods. Mana, as in spiritual energy... something that is measured by how much a spiritual-religious act inspires, motivates, and influences an individual or a people, and/or how much these acts contribute to the growth and power of a religion and its god(s).

Well now I am fascinated. You are actually stating -- in your own words and without coercion -- that sacred prostitution and human sacrifices may well be good things -- and not because they're good for us, but because they're good for generating "mana for the gods."

Do you know what? I rather suspect you don't actually believe very much of what you say at all. Fret not, there's a lot of that going around. It's the angst of our present age, when nobody can remember how to think for themselves and cope in a world that's grown too complex.