Thread: Parent's Rights, where do you stand?

Originally Posted by Syme

Wha? Really? I don't really keep up with what's in vogue among ethical philosophers... could you back this claim up somehow? It seems to me that the fundamental premise of moral relativism is pretty ironclad. I'm very surprised to hear that it's become passé. There is no God or universal metaphysical law out there saying "murder is wrong", it's just something that societies decide to agree on. If you don't agree with moral relativism, where do you think that objective moral truth comes from? You must believe that there is some form of moral law that exists outside of, and independent from, humans. What is it? It is a god or spiritual entity? Is it some invisible truth woven into the fabric of the universe?

It's generally agreed upon (by me as well) that morality, well defined, is not up for interpretation. When you have a definition of "morality" as something like "the objective to serve the best interests of all beings with interests", which I think is a pretty good one, then all that is debatable is "what is best".

That means, in cases where something is best, there is no relativism to morality. Moral objectivism doesn't require something outside of humanity to "decide" or "dictate" what's right. That's the point; what is right isn't decided, it's discovered.

Moral relativism halts ethical debate entirely. It doesn't just stop it, it prevents it and cancels it out. If there is no Right, then there's just opinions, and everyone's opinions have equal weight, from you to your neighbour to the members of Al Qaeda. Moral relativism prevents me from meaningfully making a statement like "torturing babies is wrong", and hence I find it completely objectionable. No matter what any society says, torturing babies is wrong.

Originally Posted by Syme

It sounds to me like you're just saying that moral value judgments are clearly defined within any system of thought that assumes clearly defined moral value judgments. Sure, if you have a definition of "morality" such as that one, there's little room for debate within that definition. But why is that definition of morality any better or more valid than anyone elses' definition of morality? Where did it come from? Didn't someone just make it up because it sounded good to them (the very definition of subjectivity)?

Well, once the concept of morality is thought up, you've got to define it so that it makes sense. You can have a definition of morality as "that which fills the pockets of the rich with more money", which makes sense, but it doesn't make sense as a definition for morality, because nobody thinks of making the rich richer as moral. The concept of morality is about making the world a better place for the creatures capable of having interests -- or at least it is now that we've grown past (hopefully, philosophically speaking) religious ideals.

There are a few definitions of morality, but they all concern how we should behave at their most basic levels. (Except value ethics, which I don't really understand.) Come up with the should that makes the most sense, and it's something like we should behave according to the interests of all creatures capable of interests (I REALLY need a less clunky term there, so I'm going to go with "beings"; I don't know if that's correct but it's what I'm going with). Why? Because it's in all beings' interests! Why is that moral? Because what else could "moral" be? What else makes sense? If morality is about the best possible world, what possible world is better than a world that is good for every being's interests?

Morality is a concept made up by someone. But it's a concept that really only makes sense one way, and that way is not relative.

I keep coming up with almost-metaphors, but none is apt.

I'm arguing that only one definition of morality is coherent, and if we follow it, it leads to very certain, definite places. However, it's very subtle, and often convoluted, so those places are sometimes hard to find, and they'll sometimes go against conventional wisdom and/or our intuitions... much like science. You can call plenty of different things science, but only one conception of what science is really actually makes sense.

Originally Posted by Syme

This sounds like an appeal to consequences to me.

It was, because I got incredibly lazy, and you're much, much better at this than I am.

And I wanted to make my point to people like Mr Troy, but I can't, because he's repeating the same things at me.

Jesus, Mr Troy, I get that some cultures find certain things to be moral, but what I'm saying is that that conception of morality doesn't make sense; it is flawed, incoherent, or simply meaningless. No matter what orthodox Muslims/Jews/whoevers think about the way they treat their women, it is immoral.

Okay, gwahir, regarding your second-most-recent post ITT:

It seems to me that what you are doing is taking your own personal--and subjective--definition of morality, and trying to pass it off as objective because "it makes sense" (to you) while other definitions of morality "don't make sense" (to you). Do you not see that this is subjective reasoning? Maybe there ARE people who think that "that which fills the pockets of the rich" is a sensible definition of morality; just because that doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's objectively invalid. More to the point, even if there's no-one who really believes that enrichment of the rich is moral, there definitely ARE people who believe in definitions of morality that differ sharply from your own. There are people who believe that the concept of morality is not about making the world a better place for the creatures that have interests, but about doing whatever is pleasing to their god or gods. Or about anything else other than making the world a better place for creatures with interests. Maybe that doesn't make sense to you, but they might just as easily say that your morality doesn't make sense to them. Who is right? Why is what makes sense to you more valid to someone else? Why is what seems coherent to you more valid than what seems coherent to someone else? You are an intelligent person, you should be able to understand that you can't claim a concept to be objectively true just because it makes sense to you, because "making sense" is itself subjective and not absolute.

Sycld: I definitely agree that there are certain social behaviors that seem to be present in all human populations, and even in other species (certainly other primates). I'd also agree that the explanation for these common behaviors is almost certainly evolutionary, and that the morality systems developed by all human cultures reflect, to some degree and in varying ways, these common behaviors. But I would be hesitant to describe these behaviors as having any moral dimension, or to say that they call into question the subjectivity of morality. These behaviors are essentially survival instincts. Morality deals in abstract and metaphysical concepts (good and evil, right and wrong, etc.) and to me, the question of whether morality is subjective or objective is about whether these concepts exist or are defined in some absolute or universal sense, outside the minds of human beings. To me, the fact that we tend to construct our definitions of good/evil and right/wrong in a way that (sometimes, to some degree) reflects our survival instincts doesn't have anything to do with this question. It's a commonality, but, to my mind, biologically driven commonality isn't at all the same thing as objective, absolute, or universal moral truth.

Originally Posted by MrTroy

There you go again, with the italicized "It Is Immoral". Why are YOU the person who decides what IS and IS NOT moral? You can not seem to wrap your head around what subjective means. Just because you say that X cultures values and morals are meaningless and flawed, doesn't make it so. The only reason you believe so is because you were raised with what our cultures consider moral. You have tunnel vision.

If you were born and raised as a Muslim in the middle east, you would be quite certain that someone who holds the beliefs and moral standards of a MrTroy, Syme, Sycld, or Gwahir would be quite immoral, and you would be CERTAIN of it. You seem to have trouble separating your argument from your personal beliefs, much like religious zealots can't separate their religious beliefs when talking about what should be taught in school or the laws of the country. I can hold my own set of personal moral beliefs, which believe it or not align quite a bit with yours, but I still recognize that our version of morality is NO MORE SUPERIOR than any other standard. We feel ours is standard and superior because it is OUR code of morality, to us OUR views on morality subjects make the best sense, and they are crazy. Just as the Taliban members are just as certain that their code of morals should be the standard. Just because YOU say that your view of morality is the right one, and these others are flawed, doesn't make it so.

You are using flawed circular logic, "My moral views are right, Why? Because the others are flawed and meaningless, Why? Because my moral views are right, Why? Because they make more sense, Why? Because their moral code justifies bad treatment of women, which is immoral, Why? Because it is"

Now, I am not trying to put words in your mouth, it has quotation marks around it because it separates it as my example, but that is the jist of your argument.

I am with Gwahir on this one. Rape is always wrong. Murdering your daughter because she wants to spend time with someone you dissaprove of is wrong. Why can I say this? It is hit you in the face obvious. I do not see my morals as being superior just because they are mine. There are a lot of moral shades of gray, however there are some pretty obvious black and white zones. Rape isn't wrong because I was raised to think it, it is wrong because it is one of the most degrading things you can do to another human and something you wouldn't wish done to you.

And if you get raped, I imagine most people would like the support of their families, but depending on where you live, this can be impossible because some cultures are so damned sexist, it is a womans fault if she gets raped and women need to cover their entire bodies in black cloth so it doesn't tempt men, this is all backwards and wrong. MY moral belief that these are wrong IS superior, for these values induce, prelong and aggrevate human suffering and have been shown in the west to be a terrible way to treat women. They used to treat women like this in the west, then they started to say "hold on, this isn't right" and someone said "actually, you are right", because women are seen as human beings in the west (or at least alot more so than the middle east) their opinions carry much more weight, so when they say that being raped and then being told its your fault and abandoned by your family isn't a nice thing to happen, we don't say "shut up, woman", we are more inclined to listen. Our values have evolved and progressed.

That isn't to say our all of our values are better than theirs, but when it comes to rape and the treatment of women, ours are much better.