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

Originally Posted by Nick2.1

Not unwillingness, if you are unwilling to discipline your kids in anyway, then in my opinion you aren't strong enough to be a parent. Social acceptability is what I'm looking for. Some people don't think it's ok, but I don't think it is any of their business. I don't condone abuse at all, there is a fine line you can cross when trying to raise you kids with that method. If you want to raise your child with verbal rather than physical discipline, that is up to you, but I believe that it should be acceptable either way.

Ah, okay. Sorry then. I thought you were saying that kids' bad behavior nowadays is specifically a result of parents who won't spank or hit their kids. I do agree that discipline in general obviously has a lot to do with it; there is certainly no shortage of evidence that kids' behavioral problems only get worse when their parents are unwilling to discipline them at all.

Originally Posted by gwahir

Moral relativism is its name, and it's garbage. Almost no contemporary ethical philosophers still subscribe to it.

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 for obvious reasons. 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 truth that exists outside of, and independent from, humans. What is it? It is a god or spiritual entity? Is it some invisible law woven into the fabric of the universe?

Originally Posted by gwahir

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.

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)?

In this system you describe, objective moral certitudes may be "discovered", but they are only being "discovered" within the context of a system of thought that defines what morality is in the first place. You aren't discovering moral truth in an absolute or universal sense, only discovering what is morally true under Jem's Personal Conception of Morality. That's fine as far as it goes--a given moral idea may indeed be objectively correct within your moral framework--but this doesn't mean it's objectively true in any larger sense. It's really just descriptive of your moral thought. "Apples are better than oranges" is objectively true within the framework of a system of thought that defines apples as being better than oranges, because it correctly and objectively describes what that system of thought says about apples and oranges; but it isn't objectively true outside that system of thought. Likewise, "torturing babies is wrong" may be objectively true within your own framework of moral thought, because that statement is objectively consistent with your definition of morality, but it's still not objectively true in any larger sense, because your framework of moral thought, or your definition of morality, is itself subjective. To claim otherwise, you must assert belief in some larger moral truth that exists outside us--again, whether it's God, or some universal metaphysical moral law, or whatever. Otherwise all moral definitions and all systems of moral thought are all just things that people dreamed up.

Originally Posted by gwahir

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.

This sounds like an appeal to consequences to me. I want you to explain WHY torturing babies is objectively wrong. Not by arbitrarily constructing a system of moral thought that says torturing babies is wrong and then saying that "torturing babies is wrong" is an objectively correct moral statement with that system of moral thought, but by actually explaining why any system of moral thought that condemns baby-torture is objectively more valid than a system of moral thought that doesn't. With all due respect, I suspect that at the bottom of it all, your aversion to baby-torture is based entirely on an instinctive or emotional or visceral revulsion towards the idea of torturing babies, which is fine and dandy (I feel the same revulsion towards the idea; it means we aren't sociopaths), but also definitely subjective.

Yes, this ties in with gwahir's "Rights Theory" thread in which I took on Syme's stance of morality is subjective to the culture and framework of which you were raised. There is no such thing as

Originally Posted by gwahir

It's generally agreed upon (by me as well) that morality, well defined, is not up for interpretation.

that is not up for interpretation. Yes, to us in Canada, the US, the UK or Australia who have vaguely similar cultures and laws think something like raping of a woman is non-negotiable immoral, but in some cultures that is completely moral.

Like I said in the other thread, we would view stoning a woman to death for having premarital sex to be terribly out of our moral range, but at one time the majority of people agreed that it was the perfectly right thing to do. All morality is completely subjective. I would bet in 3000 years, they may view some of the things we do now as outrageously immoral by their standards, depending if it is a ultra-conservative fascist but blissful utopia or a completely liberal society. Think about abortions, think about the death penalty, think about putting criminals in prison... or the fact that we even have criminals, who's to say that 10,000 years from now future humans (if we still exist) won't view our views on morality horrifically savage?

So pretty much they have taken the average parental role model and turned it into an amendment? I see this as a good thing general, but some conflicting issues. For example, a few years back a huge story (at least locally) was of a vegan family not giving their children enough nutrition and they were hospitalized. Now the parent has a right to raise the kid as they see fit, but now the kid is in apparent danger.

Who would this amendment give the most leverage too? The parents or the state?

Originally Posted by MrShrike

Syme, are you an obectivist, or a libertarian?

Objectivist--hell no (assuming, because this is the internet, that you mean Ayn Rand's objectivism; if you mean the other, earlier, philosophical objectivism, I'm not so sure). Libertarian--not really. I have a "libertarian", i.e. ultra-permissive or "classically liberal", outlook on some issues (abortion and reproductive rights, sexual issues, gun rights, drug legalization, freedom of speech and religion, etc.), but I wouldn't describe myself as a libertarian in general, because there are many other issues on which I have views that favor a strong role for the state, and would make "real" libertarians cringe. If you wanted to place me on a two-axis political spectrum like the Political Compass, I'd be pretty far towards the libertarian end of the social axis, but pretty near the middle of the left-right economic axis.

FWIW, I see the issue at hand (whether morality is objective or subjective) as unrelated to politics. Not that moral views don't inform political views (obviously they do), but I don't think that whether a person views morality as objective or subjective necessarily has anything to do with how they are going to view various political issues.

Originally Posted by gwahir

Syme, I'm curious.

If you think morality is relative, why do you have moral discussion? What do you hope to achieve, and how can you be outraged at any moral offense of someone else?

Just because I think morality is relative doesn't mean I don't have moral views of my own; I definitely do. It just means that I recognize that I have those views because I was socialized to have them and/or because I cultivated them myself, not because I have discovered some universal moral truth or law that the people who disagree with me haven't discovered. I recognize that the moral views of everyone else in the world were arrived at in the same way. All it means is that in a moral discussion, I have to try to actually convince someone that my view of morality makes more sense or works better than theirs (and hopefully thereby convert them!); I can't fall back on the crutch of claiming that my moral views are necessarily more correct because they more closely align with some universal moral truth, while my opponent's views are less correct, or more immoral, because they don't align with that truth. I can't say, "Morality means X, that's beyond debate, and my views are moral within that definition while yours aren't." Making that argument is usually not going to get you anywhere in a moral discussion anyhow. The actual reason that I have moral discussion is simply that I find it engaging and interesting to do so.

As for how I can become enraged or offended at behavior that doesn't square with my own moral views, it's simple: Because I'm human. Even though I recognize, on an intellectual level, that my moral views aren't objectively more valid than anyone else's, they are still deeply-held beliefs, and on an emotional level I can't help but be angry or upset when I see something that clashes with them. I'd be an emotionless robot otherwise. Socialization is a powerful thing.

I'll try to respond to your other post, the longer one, later in the day when I have a bit more free time (posting from work, don't tell my boss).

Well, since this thread has completely gone off topic and is now discussing a much broader and hazier issue (as internet threads are wont to do... err, that might be ascribing a "will" to a thread, but whatever...)

...I'm not going to try to get it back on topic and will go along with the current discussion.

I don't see how anyone can argue that morality is purely subjective. I would think it should be quite clear that there are some propensities to certain types of social behaviors that could be called moral behaviors, though just as anything else their expression is regulated by culture.

I think strong evidence for this can be seen in our mammalian cousins, especially those that function in social groups. Their is obviously some social code that governs their behavior which may be considered sort of proto-morality. If their expressions of social norms and of principles that govern their social interactions are not cultural (at least not purely), then humans should probably be no different.

Going along with this, a somewhat old model of the evolution of human social behavior is gaining popularity again amongst evolutionary anthropologists. I can't quite remember the name it goes by, but it's thought that groups of humans were competing with each other for resources, and those groups with individuals were disposed to cooperative social behavior won out against those groups which were not. In addition, these cooperative groups tended to reject and kick out individuals that did not have a disposition to cooperation, which caused the favoring of genes that encouraged cooperative behavior to be passed on.

Thus, this model could explain why humans seem to be predisposed to certain basic of moral behaviors, such as simply not killing every person they lay eyes on for fun. Again, however, there is merely an average tendency for this behavior over an entire population, and culture can greatly alter behavior. Just as with most other human behavioral characteristics, there is a complex interaction between genes, culture and environment that ultimately determines expression; it is not simply "nature" or "nurture."

Originally Posted by gwahir

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.

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.

Originally Posted by gismo

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.

Just because it's "hit-you-in-the-face obvious" to you doesn't make it an objective moral truth. The reason it seems so obvious to you is that you have thoroughly socialized to believe it. The black and white zones that seem obvious to you seem that way because they are what your culture has programmed you, since birth, to perceive as obvious black and white zones.

Honestly, it's amazing to me how people can claim that certain moral ideas aren't subjective, and then without even blinking, support their claim with a justification like as "it's obvious", which any reasonable person should be able to see is flagrantly subjective.

Originally Posted by gismo

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.

So how does that make it objectively wrong? What universal moral law says it's wrong? Where is the universal moral law saying that if something is degrading or if you wouldn't want something done to you, that thing is therefore wrong? You basically said "Rape isn't wrong because I was raised to think it's wrong, it's wrong because it's degrading and I've been raised to think that degrading things are wrong". It still comes back to how you've been socialized.

Originally Posted by gismo

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.

So where are you getting this objectively true moral law saying that things which induce/prolong/aggravate human suffering are wrong? Do you not see that this criteria for immorality is not objectively more correct than anyone else's criteria? You're saying that such-and-such is objectively wrong because it causes human suffering, but the very idea that immorality inheres in causing human suffering is subjective. Just because you dreamed it up and it "sounds right to you" does NOT make it objectively correct. Some people would disagree that the causing of human suffering is that criteria by which morality should be judged; what makes your opinion on this matter more valid than theirs? What is the universal moral law that your views align with and theirs don't?

Syme the question I asked you about your personal political philosophy was basically keyed into to trying to identify if you have a personal moral system that supports your political views.

I read your argument about this point, but I have to strongly disagree that politics is fundamentally disconnected from morality. This can only be true if you also assume that your (and everyones) personal moral system is completely arbitrary, which I find difficult to believe you do (although of course you may surpirise me ). Which would mean that all your personal views on Rights are actually based purely on your personal prejudices and education and have no real logical foundation.

My point being, that if you have a moral system, then either it is a) completely arbitrary (and thus, worthless), OR b) you must have (or believe you have) some reason for thinking that your moral system is founded somewhere in reality and the real world.

If the answer is b), then your views on the validity of moral relativism and your actual personal moral system are logically inconsistent.

Originally Posted by MrShrike

Syme the question I asked you about your personal political philosophy was basically keyed into to trying to identify if you have a personal moral system that supports your political views.

I read your argument about this point, but I have to strongly disagree that politics is fundamentally disconnected from morality.

Whoa there. I definitely never said that politics is "fundamentally disconnected" from morality. You are putting words into my mouth. In fact, if you read back over the thread you will find that I said this: "Not that moral views don't inform political views (obviously they do)". Of course morality is connected to politics. People form political ideas on the basis of their moral ideas, that's pretty much beyond debate. What I was saying is that I don't think that an objective view of morality is necessarily associated with one sort of political orientation while a subjective view of morality is associated with another; I'm saying that one's opinions on the objectivity/subjectivity of morality aren't necessarily connected to political orientation. That's very different from saying that morality and politics are "fundamentally disconnected".

Originally Posted by MrShrike

This can only be true if you also assume that your (and everyones) personal moral system is completely arbitrary, which I find difficult to believe you do (although of course you may surpirise me ). Which would mean that all your personal views on Rights are actually based purely on your personal prejudices and education and have no real logical foundation.

Yes, I believe that all moral beliefs are arbitrary insofar as there is no universal or absolute moral truth that they can be checked against. And yes, this includes my own moral beliefs, and the political beliefs that spring from them. My moral and political views are arbitrary, and no more or less objectively valid than anyone else's, in that there is no universal moral yardstick that we can hold those views up to and say "Syme's views match the universal moral yardstick more closely than MrShrike's views, therefore Syme's views are more correct". Yes, all my personal views on politics, morality, and everything else are based purely on my prejudices, experiences, education, upbringing, and so forth. And so are yours, and everyone else's. This is exactly what I meant when I talked about socialization earlier in the thread. In fact, again, if you read back in the thread, you will find that I have already admitted what you are trying to get me to say here.

Originally Posted by MrShrike

My point being, that if you have a moral system, then either it is a) completely arbitrary (and thus, worthless), OR b) you must have (or believe you have) some reason for thinking that your moral system is founded somewhere in reality and the real world.

"Worthless"? What is "worth" in this context? What makes a moral view (or political view) worthy or worthless? Why do you think that moral or political views are "worthless" if they don't reflect an objective moral truth? If moral views must reflect objective moral truth in order to have worth, then what are your moral views, and what objective moral truth do they reflect? How are they founded in reality? Please conclusively demonstrate the existence of this objective moral truth and this foundation in reality, if you believe in them.

I agree with Mr. E, arbitrary does not necessarily mean worthless. I agree that my moral system is arbitrary; everyone else's moral system is arbitrary too. Your moral system is arbitrary, no matter how reluctant you are to admit it. Gwahir's moral system is arbitrary, no matter how reluctant he is to admit it. That doesn't make any of our moral systems necessarily worthless, or necessarily worthy for that matter. I think that my moral system is exactly as worthwhile, or worthless, as anyone else's moral system--your system, Gwahir's system, anybody's. Morality systems are ideas, they are socially constructed, they don't have concrete worth. A morality system is as worthy or worthless as any other human idea, any other socially constructed concept. Worth itself is a socially constructed concept.

Originally Posted by MrShrike

If the answer is b), then your views on the validity of moral relativism and your actual personal moral system are logically inconsistent.

I assure you that my ideas about morality are consistent, if they are nothing else.


EDIT: I don't believe in objective moral truth for the same reason that I don't believe in God: There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe in such a thing, no matter how strongly we might wish there was. I'm an atheist because there's no proof of God's existence and I think that reasonable people don't believe in things without reason; and I'm a moral relativist because there's no proof of objective moral truth's existence and I think that reasonable people don't believe in things without reason. Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely LOVE for there to be some sort of objective moral truth that says, for instance, Rape Is Wrong. That would make things a lot easier. I really do wish that I could say that my view of rape (i.e., that it's wrong) is objectively correct, while the view of someone who doesn't believe that rape is wrong is objectively incorrect. But as far as I can tell, there is no such objective moral truth in the universe. And no matter how much I might want to, I can't bring myself to believe in something when I know that it's baseless and when I know that it's a fiction. It's self-delusion, it's not in my nature... again, that's why I'm an atheist too. It still baffles me that people who apply this reasoning to God, and are thus atheists (aren't you an atheist, gwahir?), will nevertheless steadfastly cling to belief in objective morality and refuse to apply the same reasoning to the idea of moral truth. None of this means I don't have moral ideas of my own; I do have my own ideas about morality, and I hold them dear. It just means that I don't try to pretend, to tell myself and others, that my moral ideas reflect or align with any objective, absolute, or universal moral truth--because there's no such thing.

And one more word on the topic of whether this recognition makes moral ideas "worthless"; as I already said, the very idea of "worth" is socially constructed and therefore subjective and arbitrary in it's own right. What's worthwhile or worthless to me may not be the same as what's worthwhile or worthless to you, and neither one of our ideas about worth/worthlessness are more valid than the others. But to me, my moral views are not worthless; they definitely have worth to me, because they are what I use to guide myself through life, to make decisions I can live with and respect myself for, and to evaluate the people around me and decide whether they're deserving of my respect or my friendship. That makes them worthwhile to me, no matter what you (or anyone else) thinks of the fact that I don't base them on some alleged objective moral truth.