NationStates Jolt Archive

You still dont understand what I am getting at. If things are reletive and there is no universal disticntion for right and wrong then universally speeking they are the same. Thus morality is just a function of human perspective.

Yes, all sound enough so far.

And if morality is just a function on human perspective, it is inherantly flawed. Here's why

It is not flawed if we treat it as a human perspective. There is your problem.

It doesn't say "all things are relative". It says "morals are relative". Since this is not a moral statement, it is not self refuting.

Stating that morals are reletive is obviously a moral statement as it has moral implications.

Because it is self refuting. It says "all things are relative" but that in itself is an absolute statement. Thus it is self refuting. Thus it is more logical to say that somethings are reletive, and others absolute.

Axiomatic systems (such as logic) do not fit into the category of either 'relative' or 'absolute', thus to try and apply that statement to them is not to lead to self-refutation, but to a category mistake.

Stating that morals are reletive is obviously a moral statement as it has moral implications.

So is the statement 'all men are mortal' a moral statement in your view?

Stating that morals are reletive is obviously a moral statement as it has moral implications.

It has no moral implications. It has implications about morals. Like that they are relative.

Stating that morals are reletive is obviously a moral statement as it has moral implications.
But the statement isn't a moral one. It's simply an observation, and as such isn't required to fit any preconceived notions, or even logic.

Our interpretations may well go off on a tangent, but the evidence is that there is no evidence that one particular moral opinion is superior to another. But because people obviously prefer some over others, they are relative.

You however seem to believe that relativism is a moral philosophy. It isn't. It can't justify actions, it can't help making decisions. It's simply a qualifier, a footnote to any individual's personal morality.

You still dont understand what I am getting at. If things are reletive and there is no universal disticntion for right and wrong then universally speeking they are the same. Thus morality is just a function of human perspective. And if morality is just a function on human perspective, it is inherantly flawed.
Are "left" and "right" also "the same"? They are relative and there is no universal distinction for them.

You still dont understand what I am getting at. If things are reletive and there is no universal disticntion for right and wrong then universally speeking they are the same. Thus morality is just a function of human perspective. And if morality is just a function on human perspective, it is inherantly flawed. Here's why

I don't see why you have such a problem with this... empirically speaking, 'right' and 'wrong' ARE the same.... they are just descriptors for things or concepts.

They ONLY gain any 'meaning' in our perspective.

Let me show you why:

Dodos are now extinct, yes?

From the point of view of the dodo... humanity is a bad thing. About the worst thing that can happen, really.

On the other hand, from the point of view of the human, humanity is a nice thing for the planet to have. Yay humans!

The SAME 'concept' viewed from different perspectives, can be a good OR a bad thing.

(You might want to go back and examine post #227... http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10584583&postcount=227)

Stating that morals are reletive is obviously a moral statement as it has moral implications.

So, saying someone is asleep is an 'unconscious' statement?

Saying that someone is being sarcastic, is a 'sarcastic' statement?

Matt: I don't believe that all points of view are equally valid.
Jan: Why not?
Matt: Because it doesn't make sense that everything is relative. That wouldn't be logical.
Relativity does not mean all points of view equally valid, it means each person's view is valid for them. There's a difference. The equality comes from each person having a view, not having a correct view.

Jan: Ah, you see? That is your problem. You are using logic to refute relativism and you cannot do that. Relativism isn't based upon logic. It isn't the same thing. So you can't use logic to refute relativism.
Nonsense, there is no reason why relativism cannot be defended by logic. Relativity makes sense: separate and distinct things will have unique perspectives.

Matt: If you say I cannot use logic to refute relativism, then you are using logic to say this since you give me the logical statement and conclusion that I cannot use logic to refute relativism because relativism isn't based on logic. I hope you can see that you made a logical case here for not using logic. If that is so, then your complaint is self contradictory and invalid. Would you want me to follow a system of thought that is self contradictory?
Huh?

Jan: I can see why they call you slick... But, the point is that relativism is true within itself and logic is not a necessary property of relativism. It can be used within relativism, but it is not superior to relativism.
Matt: To say that relativism is true within itself is an absolute statement. Don't you see that you can't do that if relativism is true? You would have to say something like, "Relativism is true some of the time."
Jan: You are playing word games here.
Something relative would not mean that it is "true some of the time", simply that this unique instance of it is true for one person or group. There is no requirement for it to be "false some of the time".

Neither Matt nor Jan have a very good grasp of what relativity is, although Jan is closer.

Matt: I do not see how. I am simply responding to what you said. I think what you are doing is simply making assertions without proof. You are saying that it is true because it is true. In essence, you are telling me an absolute truth that relativism is its own self-existing truth. This is an absolute statement which again refutes the notion that relativism is true. Furthermore, if relativism is true then relativism itself is relative. In other words, if relativism is true, then relativism may or may not be true in and of itself. If that is true, then relativism can be false. If relativism can be false, then relativism can't be true.
Jan: There you go using logic again. Logic is not the whole means by which truth is determined. Relativism goes beyond logic to truths that logic cannot prove.
Matt: Okay, then without using logic, can you tell why relativism is true?
Jan: It is true because it is true that people believe different things and that people have different perceptions of reality and what is right for them.
Matt: I agree that people believe different things, but does believing different things make them true because they are believed?
Jan: No, of course not. But you must understand that we perceive things differently, and that these different perceptions are true for different people.
Matt: I can agree with that, but I am not speaking about things that really are relative like which side of the bed you should get out of in the morning. I'm talking about things like lying, cheating, stealing, etc. If relativism is true and all points of view are equally valid, then someone's view that it is okay to steal, is valid.
Relativity does not mean all points of view equally valid, it means each person's view is valid for them. There's a difference. The equality comes from each person having a view, not having a correct view.
(Yes, I just copy/pasted.)

Jan: Technically, it would be, depending on the circumstances. For example, if it meant feeding your family or helping someone.
Matt: I see. Okay, give me your money right now. I want to steal it from you. If I had a gun, I'd point it at you and rob you. Is that okay?
Jan: Of course not.
Matt: Why not?
Because there is nothing about your view that makes your view valid for Jan. Relativity does not require one person's view to be valid for anyone else.

Matt: My view is that in order to win the argument, I must rob from you to demonstrate the absurdity of your position. Therefore, it is right for me. You should approve.
Jan: But I cannot, because it isn't right for me that you steal from me.
Matt: Oh, so relativism has boundaries? It is true only for the individual, no one else?
Edited: Relativism is true for everyone. The subject of the relativism is relative for the individual or the group. If it is true that it isn't right that you steal from Jan, it is true for her. "It" is not relativism, though. (Matt is confusing relativism for the subject that, in this case, is true.)

Jan: In that case yes.
Matt: Then relativism isn't a universal truth is it? If it is only true for individuals on an individual basis, it may or may not be true or false or right or wrong or whatever. It is just a kind of "whatever you want to do and feel" philosophy.
There is truth, and there is falsehood. Truth is absolute; things are either true or they are not. There is no "universal" truth that is different than other truths; truth is truth.

There are individuals (and groups). These can recognize truth or not, as they see fit. This recognition says nothing about the truth, itself. Human beings do not affect truth in any way. We certainly do not create it, we just use it.

*snip the utter nonsense* In other words, "by nature" it is true and "by nature" it is false. Both cannot be true. Therefore relativism doesn't work.
The "nature" of a thing is the characteristics and traits that make up the properties of a thing. Truth is not a property of anything, although, in truth, a characteristic or trait is.

Both he and Jan are wrong.

*snip more nonsense* Matt: I'm trying to ask questions. But, it seems that you want me to avoid thinking and just accept relativism as true. If I were to say that relativism is true, then it is absolutely true that relativism is true which would mean that the opposing view that relativism is false, could not be true...which would mean that relativism is not true since it states that all views are true. It seems to me that the only way relativism is true, is if you stop thinking logically and just accept it on blind faith that it is true.
Jan: This is the problem with the western, Aristotelian logic system. It teaches you that there are absolutes when there are not.
Matt: But to say there are not absolutes is an absolute statement, which is self refuting. Again, it seems that the only way to accept relativism is to not think logically. You have to believe it on faith.
Jan: The nature of relativism is that it is not subject to logic. No logical reasons are necessary to establish this. Relativism, by its nature, is not of logic, but beyond logic. The essence of relativism is that relativism itself, is true.
Jan is not skilled in logic; and this discussion is not helpful or supportive of a case against relativism.

Matt: Then you are simply stating that relativism is true without proving it. In other words, you can't prove it. You just say it is true and that's it.
Jan: We are getting no where.
Matt: I disagree. I think we are making great progress.
Jan: See? It is how you perceive it, isn't it?
Matt: Then, is it valid that we have made progress? After all, relativism says that all points of view are equally valid.
Jan: Its valid for you, not for me.
Matt: Here we go again...
Indeed. Matt's basic premise, that "all points of view are equally valid," is what is flawed.

i feel quite capable of deciding good and evil to my own satisfaction (even if not to grave n idle's satisfaction)

its just that my definitions may not match up with yours and have little chance of being exactly the same as those of someone born and raised in a hindu family in india.

the only way to claim an ultimate Good and Evil is to have it be directly from the mouth of the one true god spoken in your own language in great detail

when that happens, ill be happy to discuss it with you.

This doesn't refute my claim. I pointed out that the positive claim by relativists is that either there is no absolute moral truth, or that moral truth is purely perceptive in character. Your statement fits the second half of the disjunction, therefore the premise works for conditional logic. The problem, of course, is simply that the positive claim you are making doesn't follow from the evidence you have provided, namely that there is no certain proof that any moral absolute exists.

Moreover, I'm not entirely certain about your claim to the perceptive nature of morals. I think it's fairly definite that even independent of perception, something can be evil, and if so, then evil and good exists independently of the perception of the person, and has a definite fact of the matter about it.

To use an thought experiment, suppose I intend to rob you of your wallet at gunpoint. Suppose further that some malign genie has decided to erase all perception of the incident from all the witnesses, including my memory, once I have attempted (not even necessarily succeeded) to rob you for his own nefarious purposes. Now the question is: does the intent to rob you simply vanish once perception of the incident goes away as well? Clearly not. And what was my intent? Obviously, to cause you harm to your natural end of happiness in an attempt to aid my natural end of happiness. Two things clearly fall out of this: 1) all people in their moral codes prohibit harming their own natural end of happiness, and 2) that harming of a natural end still exists even if no one is around to perceive it. In other words, all people are going to define harming their natural end as evil, and whether or not that evil exists depends on other factors than perception. That sounds to me as if we've just stumbled across an absolute moral law: don't harm my natural end of happiness.

Now of course, you might argue that phrases like "natural end of happiness" are just begging the question; if you assume a natural end in human nature, or a human nature at all for that matter, then of course you already presuppose an absolute state of that nature. My response would be to ask you who doesn't pursue what they think will make them happy? Even a suicidal man ultimately pursues happiness, because a suicidal man, at the root of his decision to commit suicide deems that he will be happier dead than alive. As such, I think that it's not begging the question to claim that there is a natural end of happiness so much as stating a truism.

You might further argue that what makes people happy is all relative: what makes one person happy might be reading Tolstoy, while for the other it's banging Natalie Portman five times a night. My reply to this is two-fold. First, it's still always true that these people are seeking happiness as an end absolutely, so there is an absolute end. Secondly, I would say that there is an absolute means to that end as well, because for all people, happiness is best achieved by having both the material means necessary to sustain oneself, as well as moderation in what makes them happy. In other words, all men require to be happy first not to be starving or dying of thirst, and second not to engage too much or too little in what makes them happy; a person who lives only to read Tolstoy isn't going to be very happy because he's ultimately going to become sedate and ill for want of exercise and human contact; by contrast, a person who bangs Natalie Portman too much or too little is going to be unhappy because he's either going to be sexually frustrated or plain exhausted. So in effect, we have both an absolute end (happiness), and an absolute means to that end (material comfort followed by moderation).

Now, you might also ask what the hell was that deal with intent? My response would be that independent of whether or not I succeed in harming you, that intent itself is still evil. By contrast, if I intended not to harm you but did anyway, we would at worst call that a lesser evil of accidental harm. So it seems always true that intent matters even more than the act itself with respect to evil: if I have a bad intent towards myself or others, I seem to be committing an evil even if I accidentally do good, whereas if I have a good intent, that goodness still shines through if I accidentally commit a bad action. So not only do I have an absolute end and an absolute means; it also seems as if I have an absolute test to determine whether my goal really is to pursue my absolute end and absolute means: do I intend to be happy, and do I intend to pursue moderation for the sake of happiness.

If that's the case, then I see no advantage relativism affords you. It's certainly true that one person is going to view moderation, for instance, as banging Natalie Portman 3 times a night versus 5 times a night, but in each instance, that's merely a difference of opinion based on the obvious difference between human beings: some people naturally have more sexual desire and stamina than others. But in both cases, supposing those people are doing such an act with the intent of furthering their happiness through moderation, then in both cases you could call it a good act. The whole notion of relativism simply nets you nothing an absolute account couldn't, and the absolute account doesn't render you liable to the nihilism or difficulty in determining morality like a relative account does.

To use an thought experiment, suppose I intend to rob you of your wallet at gunpoint. Suppose further that some malign genie has decided to erase all perception of the incident from all the witnesses, including my memory, once I have attempted (not even necessarily succeeded) to rob you for his own nefarious purposes. Now the question is: does the intent to rob you simply vanish once perception of the incident goes away as well? Clearly not. And what was my intent? Obviously, to cause you harm to your natural end of happiness in an attempt to aid my natural end of happiness. Two things clearly fall out of this: 1) all people in their moral codes prohibit harming their own natural end of happiness, and 2) that harming of a natural end still exists even if no one is around to perceive it. In other words, all people are going to define harming their natural end as evil, and whether or not that evil exists depends on other factors than perception. That sounds to me as if we've just stumbled across an absolute moral law: don't harm my natural end of happiness.

If a starving man steals my lunch box, he is harming my "natural end of happiness". Still I would not think of him as "evil".

]Now of course, you might argue that phrases like "natural end of happiness" are just begging the question; if you assume a natural end in human nature, or a human nature at all for that matter, then of course you already presuppose an absolute state of that nature. My response would be to ask you who doesn't pursue what they think will make them happy? Even a suicidal man ultimately pursues happiness, because a suicidal man, at the root of his decision to commit suicide deems that he will be happier dead than alive. As such, I think that it's not begging the question to claim that there is a natural end of happiness so much as stating a truism.

All the people I've known who have committed suicide didn't think they would be happier if they were dead, mostly because all of them knew that dead people don't have feelings any more. They just couldn't endure life any longer.

If a starving man steals my lunch box, he is harming my "natural end of happiness". Still I would not think of him as "evil".

Keep in mind, though, that that is not what I said. I wouldn't think of him as evil, either, but I would think of his act as evil. People can do or intend bad things without necessarily being evil for a variety of reasons, such as duress (as in this case), not knowing what good and evil acts are, not knowing how to achieve their natural end, being indifferent toward good and evil, and actively trying to commit evil acts knowing full well that they are evil.

Of all those rationales for doing evil things, I would say that only the last truly qualifies a man as evil.



All the people I've known who have committed suicide didn't think they would be happier if they were dead, mostly because all of them knew that dead people don't have feelings any more. They just couldn't endure life any longer.

In other words, they felt that they would be happier by committing suicide than in their present circumstances, because being incapable of feeling misery is (or at least is perceived by the suicidal mind, not without reason, as) a happier circumstance than actively experiencing it. As such, they were still pursuing happiness in the sense that they were trying to avoid the inverse of happiness in misery.

Keep in mind, though, that that is not what I said. I wouldn't think of him as evil, either, but I would think of his act as evil. People can do or intend bad things without necessarily being evil for a variety of reasons, such as duress (as in this case), not knowing what good and evil acts are, not knowing how to achieve their natural end, being indifferent toward good and evil, and actively trying to commit evil acts knowing full well that they are evil.

Of all those rationales for doing evil things, I would say that only the last truly qualifies a man as evil.


I would not even think of this act of stealing as evil.

In other words, they felt that they would be happier by committing suicide than in their present circumstances, because being incapable of feeling misery is (or at least is perceived by the suicidal mind, not without reason, as) a happier circumstance than actively experiencing it. As such, they were still pursuing happiness in the sense that they were trying to avoid the inverse of happiness in misery.

If you define happiness as the absence of misery then even a stone would be "in a happier circumstance". If you define happiness as experiencing happiness (ok, that's not a very good definition, but I think you get my point), then it's clear that a person which is incapable of experiencing anything can hardly be called "happy" and even less "happier".

All the people I've known who have committed suicide didn't think they would be happier if they were dead, mostly because all of them knew that dead people don't have feelings any more. They just couldn't endure life any longer.
Aye; they are only happier dead while they are alive.

I would not even think of this act of stealing as evil.

I would, because it is acting with the intent to harm someone else's ability to be happy. The fact that it comes out of a desire to avoid starvation is both regrettable and understandable, but it's still an evil act and evil intent, however mitigated it might be by circumstance.


If you define happiness as the absence of misery then even a stone would be "in a happier circumstance". If you define happiness as experiencing happiness (ok, that's not a very good definition, but I think you get my point), then it's clear that a person which is incapable of experiencing anything can hardly be called "happy" and even less "happier".

I'm not defining it as the absence of misery. In point of fact, I'm not defining it at all. What I am saying is that the suicide is in fact pursuing his natural end of happiness, because he seeks to be in a happier state than the one he is presently in. Because of an error in judgment, suicides usually assume that happiness is impossible, and therefore assume the best way to maximize happiness is to minimize misery. A stone in this instance does not serve as a counterexample because a stone does not judge whether it is happy or not, and does not act with an intent to maximize happiness.

It will help you if you remember that the end is what we act for the sake of, and if you keep that in mind, I think you'll agree that we almost act for the sake of either being more happy than we are now or maintaining our current state of happiness; in either case, the end of our actions is happiness. Now it is entirely possible, even likely at times, that we choose actions that don't make us happy, but we always do so out of an assumption that such actions would have made us happy.

This doesn't refute my claim. I pointed out that the positive claim by relativists is that either there is no absolute moral truth, or that moral truth is purely perceptive in character. Your statement fits the second half of the disjunction, therefore the premise works for conditional logic. The problem, of course, is simply that the positive claim you are making doesn't follow from the evidence you have provided, namely that there is no certain proof that any moral absolute exists.

Moreover, I'm not entirely certain about your claim to the perceptive nature of morals. I think it's fairly definite that even independent of perception, something can be evil, and if so, then evil and good exists independently of the perception of the person, and has a definite fact of the matter about it.

To use an thought experiment, suppose I intend to rob you of your wallet at gunpoint. Suppose further that some malign genie has decided to erase all perception of the incident from all the witnesses, including my memory, once I have attempted (not even necessarily succeeded) to rob you for his own nefarious purposes. Now the question is: does the intent to rob you simply vanish once perception of the incident goes away as well? Clearly not. And what was my intent? Obviously, to cause you harm to your natural end of happiness in an attempt to aid my natural end of happiness. Two things clearly fall out of this: 1) all people in their moral codes prohibit harming their own natural end of happiness, and 2) that harming of a natural end still exists even if no one is around to perceive it. In other words, all people are going to define harming their natural end as evil, and whether or not that evil exists depends on other factors than perception. That sounds to me as if we've just stumbled across an absolute moral law: don't harm my natural end of happiness.

Now of course, you might argue that phrases like "natural end of happiness" are just begging the question; if you assume a natural end in human nature, or a human nature at all for that matter, then of course you already presuppose an absolute state of that nature. My response would be to ask you who doesn't pursue what they think will make them happy? Even a suicidal man ultimately pursues happiness, because a suicidal man, at the root of his decision to commit suicide deems that he will be happier dead than alive. As such, I think that it's not begging the question to claim that there is a natural end of happiness so much as stating a truism.

You might further argue that what makes people happy is all relative: what makes one person happy might be reading Tolstoy, while for the other it's banging Natalie Portman five times a night. My reply to this is two-fold. First, it's still always true that these people are seeking happiness as an end absolutely, so there is an absolute end. Secondly, I would say that there is an absolute means to that end as well, because for all people, happiness is best achieved by having both the material means necessary to sustain oneself, as well as moderation in what makes them happy. In other words, all men require to be happy first not to be starving or dying of thirst, and second not to engage too much or too little in what makes them happy; a person who lives only to read Tolstoy isn't going to be very happy because he's ultimately going to become sedate and ill for want of exercise and human contact; by contrast, a person who bangs Natalie Portman too much or too little is going to be unhappy because he's either going to be sexually frustrated or plain exhausted. So in effect, we have both an absolute end (happiness), and an absolute means to that end (material comfort followed by moderation).

Now, you might also ask what the hell was that deal with intent? My response would be that independent of whether or not I succeed in harming you, that intent itself is still evil. By contrast, if I intended not to harm you but did anyway, we would at worst call that a lesser evil of accidental harm. So it seems always true that intent matters even more than the act itself with respect to evil: if I have a bad intent towards myself or others, I seem to be committing an evil even if I accidentally do good, whereas if I have a good intent, that goodness still shines through if I accidentally commit a bad action. So not only do I have an absolute end and an absolute means; it also seems as if I have an absolute test to determine whether my goal really is to pursue my absolute end and absolute means: do I intend to be happy, and do I intend to pursue moderation for the sake of happiness.

If that's the case, then I see no advantage relativism affords you. It's certainly true that one person is going to view moderation, for instance, as banging Natalie Portman 3 times a night versus 5 times a night, but in each instance, that's merely a difference of opinion based on the obvious difference between human beings: some people naturally have more sexual desire and stamina than others. But in both cases, supposing those people are doing such an act with the intent of furthering their happiness through moderation, then in both cases you could call it a good act. The whole notion of relativism simply nets you nothing an absolute account couldn't, and the absolute account doesn't render you liable to the nihilism or difficulty in determining morality like a relative account does.
well now, first of all, i dont think that we should include the personal in the definition of evil. when bad things happen to me, i tend to think of the "doer" as bad no matter WHAT his intentions were. as you said, "whats bad for me is bad". that moral code would be the most immature possible. it doesnt allow for the interests of other people to ever be taken into consideration. i dont really have to give you examples of this kind of thinking gone wrong, do i?

even the person who is knowingly doing "evil" should not be subject to their own definitions by broader society. yes, the guy going out to kill people at random (when he knows it is evil) will probably always get judged as wrong by greater society but what about the person who has a strange moral code and is "evil" in her judgement because she has gay friends and doesnt spend her time trying to divert them from their sinful ways? (or any other stupid moral code i could invent) no one with mature moral judgement would find her evil.

so im saying that morality has to come from an objective judgement. one without my own interests involved. the trouble is that i cant leave out my own familial, cultural, religious biases no matter how objective i try to be.

to give a personal example, because of my family history, i judge people who habitually lie very harshly. i can never think of such a person as being "good" even if they are very moral and outstandingly generous in the rest of their lives. another person meeting such an habitual liar might overlook the lack of common honesty and judge them by the way they take good care of their family and contribute to many church and local charity events.

so stealing is wrong. we all know that. i assume that theft is wrong in all cultures. the theif is doing what he knows is wrong even if he feels he has some overriding reason to do so (barring psychological defect). its wrong if YOU get robbed just as much as if *I* got robbed. it doesnt need to hurt ME in order to be wrong.

BUT

the definition of what is theft differs from country to country, culture to culture, family to family.

there probably arent many places where you taking my wallet at gunpoint isnt considered wrong. but if i went to the police and reported that my husband took money out of my purse, they arent going to even fill out a form. they are going to look at me like im nutz and send me on my way. (considering that im happily married and living with my husband) there are families where if your grown son takes something valuable from your house you would call the cops and some where the thought would never enter your head. there are cultures who have so little in the way of personal possessions that there is no real concept of theft within the group. ( or so it seems from the movie "the gods must be crazy")

relativism isnt moral wavering. its not saying that its OK for me to steal your wallet "just this one time" because i am in very bad financial circumstances. its acknowleging that there are different standards for different socieities. and that another society isnt WRONG because it has a different standard for what , forexample, constitutes murder and what the penalty for it should be.

you should follow your own moral code to the best of your abilities. you should think about morality and how you should behave in the world. its good for you to figure out what you think right and wrong IS and to compare it to what others believe in order to reach what you think is the best moral code.

its just that other people will come to different conclusions about right and wrong than you do.

well now, first of all, i dont think that we should include the personal in the definition of evil. when bad things happen to me, i tend to think of the "doer" as bad no matter WHAT his intentions were. as you said, "whats bad for me is bad". that moral code would be the most immature possible. it doesnt allow for the interests of other people to ever be taken into consideration. i dont really have to give you examples of this kind of thinking gone wrong, do i?

Really? I have precisely the reverse view of good and evil: I would, for instance, view a person who attempted and failed to take my wallet out of desire for mean self-interest at my expense far more harshly than a person who actually took my wallet with an intent of turning it in to the lost and found. The reason is clear: one intends to do me harm, while the other intends to help me.

Furthermore, I wouldn't necessarily say that the end all and be all of moral philosophy is "Don't screw with my happiness." I would say that it's the start of all moral philosophy, because it's something that all people would naturally have in their respective moral philosophies anyway. It's therefore the starting block that, when applied with other principles like the Principle of Charity, lead you to construct much better moral principles like The Golden Rule.


even the person who is knowingly doing "evil" should not be subject to their own definitions by broader society. yes, the guy going out to kill people at random (when he knows it is evil) will probably always get judged as wrong by greater society but what about the person who has a strange moral code and is "evil" in her judgement because she has gay friends and doesnt spend her time trying to divert them from their sinful ways? (or any other stupid moral code i could invent) no one with mature moral judgement would find her evil.

so im saying that morality has to come from an objective judgement. one without my own interests involved. the trouble is that i cant leave out my own familial, cultural, religious biases no matter how objective i try to be.

I'm not so sure that this is correct. You can certainly say "Gee, I wonder what line of thinking might lead a person to act like this", and on that basis infer their likely intent. You could also, for instance, suppose that you were going to be reincarnated tomorrow, but also suppose that you have no idea who you are going to be reincarnated as, and on that basis propose likely rules that you would want yourself and others to abide by. Both do a good job of weeding out the bias any particular view of self-interest you might have, as well as biases.

More importantly, however, you are engaging in a non-sequitur. It is absolutely true that to have a moral judgment you must have a correct view of the objective facts of the matter, such as their intent and what rationale they were acting for the sake of. It's also absolutely true that people can and often do make mistaken judgments in moral matters; even the most rigorous human is sometimes going to err in judgment. But it does not follow from the fact that we are sometimes deceived about the nature of reality that there is no nature other than what I construct, which is really what relativism claims. After all, the only possible rationale for your later claim that all cultures make equally valid claims about moral matters is to claim that all cultures in effect construct their own reality, and so in the Sudanese reality it is perfectly acceptable to cut off little girls' vulvas and massacre people in Darfur, while in our reality it is the opposite. If, however, it is true that there is some fact of the matter about little girls' vulvas, namely that cutting them off is always harmful to little girls' happiness, then it is impossible to see genital mutilation by Sudanese as anything other than wrong.


to give a personal example, because of my family history, i judge people who habitually lie very harshly. i can never think of such a person as being "good" even if they are very moral and outstandingly generous in the rest of their lives. another person meeting such an habitual liar might overlook the lack of common honesty and judge them by the way they take good care of their family and contribute to many church and local charity events.

so stealing is wrong. we all know that. i assume that theft is wrong in all cultures. the theif is doing what he knows is wrong even if he feels he has some overriding reason to do so (barring psychological defect). its wrong if YOU get robbed just as much as if *I* got robbed. it doesnt need to hurt ME in order to be wrong.

BUT

the definition of what is theft differs from country to country, culture to culture, family to family.

there probably arent many places where you taking my wallet at gunpoint isnt considered wrong. but if i went to the police and reported that my husband took money out of my purse, they arent going to even fill out a form. they are going to look at me like im nutz and send me on my way. (considering that im happily married and living with my husband) there are families where if your grown son takes something valuable from your house you would call the cops and some where the thought would never enter your head. there are cultures who have so little in the way of personal possessions that there is no real concept of theft within the group. ( or so it seems from the movie "the gods must be crazy")

relativism isnt moral wavering. its not saying that its OK for me to steal your wallet "just this one time" because i am in very bad financial circumstances. its acknowleging that there are different standards for different socieities. and that another society isnt WRONG because it has a different standard for what , forexample, constitutes murder and what the penalty for it should be.

you should follow your own moral code to the best of your abilities. you should think about morality and how you should behave in the world. its good for you to figure out what you think right and wrong IS and to compare it to what others believe in order to reach what you think is the best moral code.

its just that other people will come to different conclusions about right and wrong than you do.

If you are simply making a descriptive claim that people have different views about morality, then you are simply speaking a truism. But that's not in fact what you are saying: you are claiming that not only are there a multiplicity of moral codes around the world, but that all such moral codes are equally moral. This is an absurdity: if true, then you have to accept the idea that if you crossed the border between Hong Kong and China in 1998, for instance, then it suddenly became okay to drown your infant daughter in a bucket shortly after birth because of China's one-child policy, but ten feet away on the Hong Kong side of the border it was morally despicable and legally actionable. You are also saying, in effect, that no part of the social code can ever be truly deemed "wrong", only changed over time, which if true, makes it difficult to argue exactly why matters have improved in the US since the time when it was okay to beat your wife or own a slave. Are you really willing to say that the US hasn't gotten better, only different?

Now, a lot of what you are saying is something I would agree with. I value different virtuous qualities somewhat differently than you; an indisputable assertion. But the thing is, this is still okay within a moral absolutist system, because any absolutist will agree that at certain times people need different things. I value moderation, but I don't have a problem with a man eating two dozen White Castle burgers if he's starving; he's simply returning his body to natural state of moderate satiation, whereas I would think differently about a man who ate that much simply as a manner of course. Moreover, I recognize that some people will have problems with excesses or impoverishment of charity, while others will have problems with excesses or impoverishment of temperate consumption of food. As such, if I value the person with that problem, I will naturally value different behavioral changes within them, but always I do so out of a desire to see them happy through moderation; in other words, through my moral absolutist system.

To put it fairly simply, you are confusing different instantiations of the moral absolute, which will necessarily be different depending on circumstance, with many different and conflicting moral absolutes. This is an error in thinking, because it's always true that people seek happiness, and it's always true that people best find true happiness through a life of material comfort combined with moderation. The fact that moderation may mean different things for different people does not change this fact.

To me this is fairly simple:


A lion eating a zebra is not evil. A bird killing the eggs of another to replace them with her own isn't evil. A supernova destorying a star system is not evil. Things only become evil when a person looks at it and decides that they are.
Thus, there can be no evil if no one is around to judge it. I therefore feel quite confident to say that what is evil is in the eye of the beholder.
That means that there is no absolute good or evil. That does not mean that people can't feel that something is good or evil. That doesn't even mean that they aren't correct in feeling that way. It just means that one needs to keep in mind that one's judgements only hold true for one's own perception.
Even disregarding all that, and assuming that there is an absolute morality, then it is impossible for us to know what it is. I have yet to see an outline of that morality that does not depend on certain assumptions and beliefs that are of course subjective. And if no one knows what it is, it is meaningless for our existence.

To me this is fairly simple:


A lion eating a zebra is not evil. A bird killing the eggs of another to replace them with her own isn't evil. A supernova destorying a star system is not evil. Things only become evil when a person looks at it and decides that they are.
Thus, there can be no evil if no one is around to judge it. I therefore feel quite confident to say that what is evil is in the eye of the beholder.
That means that there is no absolute good or evil. That does not mean that people can't feel that something is good or evil. That doesn't even mean that they aren't correct in feeling that way. It just means that one needs to keep in mind that one's judgements only hold true for one's own perception.
Even disregarding all that, and assuming that there is an absolute morality, then it is impossible for us to know what it is. I have yet to see an outline of that morality that does not depend on certain assumptions and beliefs that are of course subjective. And if no one knows what it is, it is meaningless for our existence.



Premises 2 and 3 are based on a faulty first premise: a supernova isn't evil because there is no intent in a celestial body's actions, not because no one sees it and decides that it is or isn't evil. It is true that only a rational being can make evil actions, but certain conditions will always be true about whether or not their actions are evil; hence, a moral absolute about the actions of rational beings.

The fourth point is possibly true; I think I've articulated a fairly definite end, means to that action, and test of that means for human action, but I could be wrong. I cannot rule out sceptical considerations. But even supposing we lived in a solipsist state, morals would still have meaning, because we could suppose that we lived in a state with other minds and hypothesize about what would be the best way to live in such a state.

It is true that only a rational being can make evil actions, but certain conditions will always be true about whether or not their actions are evil; hence, a moral absolute about the actions of rational beings.
Why? In fact, how do we know whether we have a free will in the first place?

All it needs for something to be evil is someone pointing a finger and calling it so. I have seen plenty of cases in which completely normal things were called evil - hell, I've seen entire countries being called evil by a certain someone.

But even supposing we lived in a solipsist state, morals would still have meaning, because we could suppose that we lived in a state with other minds and hypothesize about what would be the best way to live in such a state.
Sure they can, we can all sit down together and find a compromise and live by it. I'd like to think that most laws are a rough representation of that. But that doesn't make them absolute. That's still relative, because other people in another society can find a completely different compromise.

More importantly, however, you are engaging in a non-sequitur. It is absolutely true that to have a moral judgment you must have a correct view of the objective facts of the matter, such as their intent and what rationale they were acting for the sake of.

when i said objective i meant without my interests taken into consideration. so that it would be right or wrong if it all happened to someone else. THEN i can say it was wrong that it happened to me, regardless of how i feel about the loss i suffered. wihtout a dispassionate standard my morality is little better than that of a 2 year old.


But it does not follow from the fact that we are sometimes deceived about the nature of reality that there is no nature other than what I construct, which is really what relativism claims.
all morality is a construct of the human mind.


After all, the only possible rationale for your later claim that all cultures make equally valid claims about moral matters is to claim that all cultures in effect construct their own reality, and so in the Sudanese reality it is perfectly acceptable to cut off little girls' vulvas and massacre people in Darfur, while in our reality it is the opposite. If, however, it is true that there is some fact of the matter about little girls' vulvas, namely that cutting them off is always harmful to little girls' happiness, then it is impossible to see genital mutilation by Sudanese as anything other than wrong.

if you dont understand that the horrors that go on in a place like the sudan happen within someones moral frame work you arent going to make any headway in changing it. to go in calling people who "circumcize" their girls monsters is not going to get the practice changed. you have to convince them to change their moral bearings on the subject, THEN they will be able to stand against tradition to do what is "right". until such time they will continue to do "the right thing" no matter what names you might call them.


If you are simply making a descriptive claim that people have different views about morality, then you are simply speaking a truism. But that's not in fact what you are saying: you are claiming that not only are there a multiplicity of moral codes around the world, but that all such moral codes are equally moral. This is an absurdity: if true, then you have to accept the idea that if you crossed the border between Hong Kong and China in 1998, for instance, then it suddenly became okay to drown your infant daughter in a bucket shortly after birth because of China's one-child policy, but ten feet away on the Hong Kong side of the border it was morally despicable and legally actionable. You are also saying, in effect, that no part of the social code can ever be truly deemed "wrong", only changed over time, which if true, makes it difficult to argue exactly why matters have improved in the US since the time when it was okay to beat your wife or own a slave. Are you really willing to say that the US hasn't gotten better, only different?

that chinese people sometimes kill their infant daughters doesnt mean that they think its RIGHT, just that there is an overriding good to not burden themselves with a worthless child.

but, in china corruption is a death penalty offense. a party member who is revealed to have taken money for something he shouldnt can be found guilty of corruption and be executed in a matter of days. is this immoral? it doesnt fit in MY moral code but i dont think that it makes them morally wrong to have this kind of law. its a cultural difference.



Now, a lot of what you are saying is something I would agree with. I value different virtuous qualities somewhat differently than you; an indisputable assertion. But the thing is, this is still okay within a moral absolutist system, because any absolutist will agree that at certain times people need different things. I value moderation, but I don't have a problem with a man eating two dozen White Castle burgers if he's starving; he's simply returning his body to natural state of moderate satiation, whereas I would think differently about a man who ate that much simply as a manner of course. Moreover, I recognize that some people will have problems with excesses or impoverishment of charity, while others will have problems with excesses or impoverishment of temperate consumption of food. As such, if I value the person with that problem, I will naturally value different behavioral changes within them, but always I do so out of a desire to see them happy through moderation; in other words, through my moral absolutist system.

To put it fairly simply, you are confusing different instantiations of the moral absolute, which will necessarily be different depending on circumstance, with many different and conflicting moral absolutes.
what kind of moral absolutes? i seems to me that you can only have moral absolutes in the "big rule" kind of way... as in "thou shalt not kill" and that the implementation of these big rules vary society by society. murder is wrong everywhere, what constitutes murder varies.

This is an error in thinking, because it's always true that people seek happiness, and it's always true that people best find true happiness through a life of material comfort combined with moderation. The fact that moderation may mean different things for different people does not change this fact.
happiness varies, what people THINK will make them happy varies, the ways you can be happy varies from place to place, and sometimes doing the right thing makes you miserable.

so what makes you think that your morality is somehow more absolutely correct? is that what youre saying? you seem to suggest that you (or anyone) can get an objectively utterly correct moral code from somewhere and that, if you follow it, you will always be indisputably right.

This doesn't refute my claim. I pointed out that the positive claim by relativists is that either there is no absolute moral truth, or that moral truth is purely perceptive in character.
Whoever tells you that is mistaken, or doesn't know what they are talking about. 1) Truth is absolute, and 2) moral truth is a redundancy, and 3) neither disputes moral relativity.

when i said objective i meant without my interests taken into consideration. so that it would be right or wrong if it all happened to someone else. THEN i can say it was wrong that it happened to me, regardless of how i feel about the loss i suffered. wihtout a dispassionate standard my morality is little better than that of a 2 year old.

Hence the focus on intent; by measuring whether the intent was good or not, you can best focus on the action purely from the perspective of right action rather than mean advantage. Moreover, your post suggests an inherent absolutist stance, because you are suggesting that the morality of a two-year old is inherently inferior to that of an older person.

Just to be clear, let me restate and rephrase: the only purely good thing in existence is a good intent. All actions have consequences, and most have a mix of good and bad consequences, albeit usually in disproportion. A good intent, however, is still good even if it results in bad consequences, whereas by contrast a bad intent is bad irrespective of whether it accidentally yields good results or no. This is true irrespective of whether someone names the intent as good or bad, or even if they know of the intent at all. This seems true, and it serves as an absolute test for the goodness or badness of actions: were they motivated by a good intent or no. This test is necessarily independent of whether the action was good or bad for me.


all morality is a construct of the human mind.


If you're going to state categoricals, could you at least be so kind as to give me the rational argument behind such statements?

As far as the statement itself goes, I would say it depends on what you mean. It is true that only rational beings (humans being one such creature) can have moral or immoral intents or perceive them as such, so you could say only rational beings infer morality in their action. If that's what you mean, then of course it's true. But I think what you mean is that morality is purely and on an ad-hoc basis applied to action by humans and only humans, which is not the case. Even were there no humans around, a malign genie's cruel amusement of boiling puppies would still be evil, because he is a rational being with a malicious intent.


if you dont understand that the horrors that go on in a place like the sudan happen within someones moral frame work you arent going to make any headway in changing it. to go in calling people who "circumcize" their girls monsters is not going to get the practice changed. you have to convince them to change their moral bearings on the subject, THEN they will be able to stand against tradition to do what is "right". until such time they will continue to do "the right thing" no matter what names you might call them.


You are either missing the point or engaging in sleight-of-hand. I wasn't talking about how best to change Sudanese culture and I never referred to them as monsters. I was simply pointing out that certain practices in Sudanese culture are categorically misinformed or evil, depending on their intent. It is never right to cut off a girl's clitoris. Either the Sudanese don't know this because they have mistaken judgments, or they don't care. In the first instance, they are categorically misinformed, in the latter categorically evil. Your entire response seems to suggest that you agree with this reasoning so far as it goes.

The problem, of course, is that if you truly subcribe to exactly what you said earlier, namely that each culture has their own culture, and because of inherent biases in our reasoning are unable to distinguish which culture is right and which is wrong, then you have absolutely no grounds to call cutting a girl's clitoris off wrong at all, because if it works for their culture, then it must be right for them. It is only by saying "No matter what cultural practices a society has, it is always wrong to do x." that we can apply that to say "No matter what cultural practices a society has, it is always wrong to cut off a girl's clitoris." To do so, however, requires that we can reason such absolutes even in spite of our biases.


that chinese people sometimes kill their infant daughters doesnt mean that they think its RIGHT, just that there is an overriding good to not burden themselves with a worthless child.

Some people clearly think it's right, because otherwise they wouldn't have the law mandating it. Now, they may justify it in different ways, but it's incontestable that in order for a law to even exist, at least a fraction of society must think, for whatever reason, that the law is "right". If true, however, then we have to suppose that our definition of "right" for society can change from one end of the spectrum to the other by a five-foot step to the left or right of a border. To me, it seems not a little absurd to suggest that such a geographical move is really what defines the difference between right and wrong.


but, in china corruption is a death penalty offense. a party member who is revealed to have taken money for something he shouldnt can be found guilty of corruption and be executed in a matter of days. is this immoral? it doesnt fit in MY moral code but i dont think that it makes them morally wrong to have this kind of law. its a cultural difference.


Again, I don't think that taking a morally absolute stance requires me to say that this is good or evil absolutely, because that's not what I'm measuring by being morally absolute. If they are employing this rule out of a genuine intent to help the people of China, then I'd call the rule simply misinformed, as they have a good intent but bad execution. If they have a purely wicked intent to squash political foes and maintain power, then they are evil. In either case, what distinguishes them as good or evil is the absolute status of the intent, not the act itself.


happiness varies, what people THINK will make them happy varies, the ways you can be happy varies from place to place, and sometimes doing the right thing makes you miserable.

so what makes you think that your morality is somehow more absolutely correct? is that what youre saying? you seem to suggest that you (or anyone) can get an objectively utterly correct moral code from somewhere and that, if you follow it, you will always be indisputably right.

Yes, you are right about happiness to a point. Happiness is always best achieved through moderation coupled with at least a minimum of material provision. What constitutes moderation, however, depends upon the individual and circumstance. Let me use yet another example, since you are repeating arguments I beat down in my initial post on the subject of happiness:

Suppose I like ice cream, and not only that, but having it is part of what makes me happy, and deprivation of it makes me unhappy. So that being the case, I eat ice cream. But if I eat too much, I will be unhappy, because I'll get fat and unhealthy. If I eat too little, I will also be unhappy, because I will not be getting enough to satiate my love of ice cream. So the solution, of course, is to be moderate in my pursuit of ice cream: I eat enough to satiate my desire for it, without at the same time eating so much as to become gluttonous. Now, it may be true that you require ice cream for your happiness too, and it may be true that moderate for you is slightly more or less than moderate for me. In both cases, however, we pursue an absolute end of what makes us happy, and we pursue it through a common means of moderation. The distinction, of course, is the fact that since we are different from each other, then what qualifies for us as the right means will also be different.

As for the last part, yes, I do think my moral absolute is correct (although I admit that I could be wrong, and were an argument presented to me that demonstrated it, I would revise my thinking), and I think my moral absolute is correct because my reason tells me it is. I also think that not just me, but anyone could use it to get an utterly correct moral reasoning, provided that they have and use their natural faculties of practical reasoning to determine what is moderate, and theoretical reasoning to determine why moderation leads to happiness and what the nature of happiness is.

Whoever tells you that is mistaken, or doesn't know what they are talking about. 1) Truth is absolute, and 2) moral truth is a redundancy, and 3) neither disputes moral relativity.

You'll have to be more clear then, because I was under the impression what I said and what you say here are in fact two different ways of talking about the same thing. Perhaps if you want to elaborate on what moral relativism is, I can do a better job of determining how my synopsis of it is incorrect.

You'll have to be more clear then, because I was under the impression what I said and what you say here are in fact two different ways of talking about the same thing. Perhaps if you want to elaborate on what moral relativism is, I can do a better job of determining how my synopsis of it is incorrect.
...the positive claim by relativists is that either there is no absolute moral truth, or that moral truth is purely perceptive in character.
There is truth, and truth is absolute, so there is absolute truth (although to state that is a redundancy) whether regarding morals or any other topic. Relational morality is not about perception so much as perspective: it is another perspective on the same thing, the subjective perspective.

The positive claim by relativists regarding morality should be, "there is truth in morality and we all view it differently."

Hence the focus on intent; by measuring whether the intent was good or not, you can best focus on the action purely from the perspective of right action rather than mean advantage. Moreover, your post suggests an inherent absolutist stance, because you are suggesting that the morality of a two-year old is inherently inferior to that of an older person.
to say that some morality is better than others is not to be an absolutist. a 2 year old, an habitual criminal, a meth addict, if they think what they are doing is RIGHT, all have inferior morality to someone who has thought it out objectively and has tested their moral theory against it affects in reality and in comparison to the codes of others.

to say that morality is relative is NOT to say that all morals are equal, just that there is no one objective standard in the universe that all must follow in exactly the same way in order to be correct.


If you're going to state categoricals, could you at least be so kind as to give me the rational argument behind such statements?

morality is a human construct. you need a rational argument beyond "my dog has no concept of right and wrong?"


You are either missing the point or engaging in sleight-of-hand. I wasn't talking about how best to change Sudanese culture and I never referred to them as monsters. I was simply pointing out that certain practices in Sudanese culture are categorically misinformed or evil, depending on their intent. It is never right to cut off a girl's clitoris. Either the Sudanese don't know this because they have mistaken judgments, or they don't care. In the first instance, they are categorically misinformed, in the latter categorically evil. Your entire response seems to suggest that you agree with this reasoning so far as it goes.

having a societal standard that puts women as virtual slaves to their husbands and fathers is "wrong". its a process toward liberation that takes time. fine.

female "circumcision" is "wrong". we can both agree on that. but, take the beam out of your own eye, so is MALE circumcision. are you up in arms about that? sure its not as drastic as what is practiced in africa but its in your own backyard and easier for you to work on.

but my real point is in countries where female circumcision is practiced, its WRONG to not circumsize your daughter. not because her sexuality is dirty and must be contained, but because if you dont you doom her to never get married, never have her own children, never be treated as a respectable member of society. she will either have to flee her home to go to a country where natural women are acceptable and try to make her way there or live in misery in the rest of her life. until you change the society she is born into you cant expect her parents to make any other decision. they arent evil, they are bound to the morality of the culture they live in.



Some people clearly think it's right, because otherwise they wouldn't have the law mandating it. Now, they may justify it in different ways, but it's incontestable that in order for a law to even exist, at least a fraction of society must think, for whatever reason, that the law is "right". If true, however, then we have to suppose that our definition of "right" for society can change from one end of the spectrum to the other by a five-foot step to the left or right of a border. To me, it seems not a little absurd to suggest that such a geographical move is really what defines the difference between right and wrong.

its never OK to kill a baby in china. its never mandated and its never legal. it sometimes gets overlooked.

gee, if you cross the border from the US to canada, you will find that it goes from being a good thing to execute certain criminals to being a bad thing. funny how a geographical move makes such a big difference.



As for the last part, yes, I do think my moral absolute is correct (although I admit that I could be wrong, and were an argument presented to me that demonstrated it, I would revise my thinking), and I think my moral absolute is correct because my reason tells me it is. I also think that not just me, but anyone could use it to get an utterly correct moral reasoning, provided that they have and use their natural faculties of practical reasoning to determine what is moderate, and theoretical reasoning to determine why moderation leads to happiness and what the nature of happiness is.
good luck with that