Moral relativity

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
Here, a flavor of utilitarianism that should be right up your alley, pvn. Note that while other kinds of utilitarians don't specifically define the good in terms of preference fulfillment, they nonetheless tend to understand the very high value of freedom to follow one's own desires.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that desire/value utilitarianism is probably the closest to a cogent, objective morality that humanity will get to.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you realize this is already horribly circular?


[/ QUOTE ]

What was circular about it? You dont think people get other people to believe in false moral theories so that they can get good people to do bad things? Theres nothing circular about it, mabey I wasnt clear about it.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, morality systems can be separated by how well they fit the nature of reality. If we can judge the nature of reality then we too can judge morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like where you're going with this please can you expand.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, I wrote up a couple different responses, none that I liked tho. It's kinda a big topic. You and I should find some common ground, and some points of difference. Could you ask a slightly more specific part that you want me to expand on.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, morality systems can be separated by how well they fit the nature of reality. If we can judge the nature of reality then we too can judge morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

But obviously you cant judge the nature of reality objectively. You cannot be objective about reality without stepping outside of it and comparing it to the alternatives.

While their are some of a political bent that would choose to ignore reality, that isnt the same as judging its nature.

[/ QUOTE ]No you can only get a subjective view of reality, looking thru your own filters, doing the best you can to minimize your own bias. I'm OK with assuming that an objective reality does exist, and that one can have a close aproximation of it.

I would say that a political bent that chooses to ignore reality, is either very likely to be wrong. Or it's just a made up story to rationalize, ex poste facto, beliefs that they have about moral issues that are part of ones "moral grammar". The made up story I think is most likely, the cause for ignoring reality. I don't think that a system entirely composed of "It's wrong because I feel that way." is really all that far off of the truth. And I'd venture that most times when people are explaining their own political bent or their moral reasoning, is often just a made up story designed to rationalize ones subconscious moral reason imparted by ones functioning moral grammar.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you realize this is already horribly circular?


[/ QUOTE ]

What was circular about it? You dont think people get other people to believe in false moral theories so that they can get good people to do bad things? Theres nothing circular about it, mabey I wasnt clear about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes the people good? What makes what they do bad?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, morality systems can be separated by how well they fit the nature of reality. If we can judge the nature of reality then we too can judge morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

But obviously you cant judge the nature of reality objectively. You cannot be objective about reality without stepping outside of it and comparing it to the alternatives.

While their are some of a political bent that would choose to ignore reality, that isnt the same as judging its nature.

[/ QUOTE ]No you can only get a subjective view of reality, looking thru your own filters, doing the best you can to minimize your own bias. I'm OK with assuming that an objective reality does exist, and that one can have a close aproximation of it.

I would say that a political bent that chooses to ignore reality, is either very likely to be wrong. Or it's just a made up story to rationalize, ex poste facto, beliefs that they have about moral issues that are part of ones "moral grammar". The made up story I think is most likely, the cause for ignoring reality. I don't think that a system entirely composed of "It's wrong because I feel that way." is really all that far off of the truth. And I'd venture that most times when people are explaining their own political bent or their moral reasoning, is often just a made up story designed to rationalize ones subconscious moral reason imparted by ones functioning moral grammar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think we disagree, despite your leading your reponse with a "no". I think we both agree that you can't objectively judge reality from within it. However, there can be practical decisions whether one accepts or denies that there is an objective reality.

Its similar to the free will debate. It really doesn't matter whether there we have free will or not. We have to act as if there we do and make "concious choices", even if having a choice to make is an illusion.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
There seems to be some confusion. Utilitarianism is not a political system to be implemented. It is a moral theory that only addresses political actions in the sense that moral theories apply to all facets of life. It's proper application to politics is a matter of judgement and, while obviously there is much disagreement, utilitarian political theory has tended to stress minimally intrusive government.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're talking about it this way then there's really no point in mentioning it at all. If there is a "minimally intrusive government" (or none at all) I don't care what the individual people there beleive. If they're minding their own business, why *should* I care?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
What makes the people good? What makes what they do bad?


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah ok, I see where the confusion came from and why you might think its circular. I had started off in a more rigourous way and ended with a less rigorous definition. When I said that bad people get good people to do bad things with morality I wasnt really pointing to anything specific.

What I meant to say is that false morality gets people to think things are moral then they otherwise would in their personal life. So mudering someone is wrong, but if you get that person to believe that they are defending their country then they will accept that murdering is morally acceptable. If the premises with which you based you arguement on are false (ie Iraq) then you have gotten a good person to do bad things through false beliefs. I hope that clears it up a bit.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes the people good? What makes what they do bad?


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah ok, I see where the confusion came from and why you might think its circular. I had started off in a more rigourous way and ended with a less rigorous definition. When I said that bad people get good people to do bad things with morality I wasnt really pointing to anything specific.

What I meant to say is that false morality gets people to think things are moral then they otherwise would in their personal life. So mudering someone is wrong, but if you get that person to believe that they are defending their country then they will accept that murdering is morally acceptable. If the premises with which you based you arguement on are false (ie Iraq) then you have gotten a good person to do bad things through false beliefs. I hope that clears it up a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you on a general level, but I do feel that there are cases of justified killing (even "murder" so to speak, cases which fall outside the scope of self-defense). Clearly we don't want people doing it for the wrong reasons, but who is to say what those reasons are?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, morality systems can be separated by how well they fit the nature of reality. If we can judge the nature of reality then we too can judge morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

But obviously you cant judge the nature of reality objectively. You cannot be objective about reality without stepping outside of it and comparing it to the alternatives.

While their are some of a political bent that would choose to ignore reality, that isnt the same as judging its nature.

[/ QUOTE ]No you can only get a subjective view of reality, looking thru your own filters, doing the best you can to minimize your own bias. I'm OK with assuming that an objective reality does exist, and that one can have a close aproximation of it.

I would say that a political bent that chooses to ignore reality, is either very likely to be wrong. Or it's just a made up story to rationalize, ex poste facto, beliefs that they have about moral issues that are part of ones "moral grammar". The made up story I think is most likely, the cause for ignoring reality. I don't think that a system entirely composed of "It's wrong because I feel that way." is really all that far off of the truth. And I'd venture that most times when people are explaining their own political bent or their moral reasoning, is often just a made up story designed to rationalize ones subconscious moral reason imparted by ones functioning moral grammar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think we disagree, despite your leading your reponse with a "no". I think we both agree that you can't objectively judge reality from within it. However, there can be practical decisions whether one accepts or denies that there is an objective reality.

Its similar to the free will debate. It really doesn't matter whether there we have free will or not. We have to act as if there we do and make "concious choices", even if having a choice to make is an illusion.

[/ QUOTE ]I do hope that this isn't another free will type debate.

Lets take taxes as an example. There are many on this board that I think feel truly injured by having to pay taxes. I can understand that. There are some others that just want more money for themselves. Not really a bad thing to want, but it doesn't really make the collection of taxes immoral. The problem with the "taxes are theft" morality argument is that most people consider intent to an important factor when deciding if an action is moral or not. For instance you want to kill someone, so you line him up in the cross hair and shoot with the intent to kill, but the gun's sites is off just enough that you kill some danger behind him instead, thus saving his life. Not often do I hear people saying that the shooter with intent to kill is moral, behaving ethically. Intent, for a large number of people separates some actions from very similar actions. In may be the case for taxes. But just like the free will debate, which i don't really want to get into again, I think there is room for conscious decisions, and we need not be tied down to biology, or the nature of moral systems is that it's not a tied down type of thing, there is a breadth and depth to it.