Dear Internet Diary,It amazes me to observe the extent to which otherwise rational people are willing to disable their own moral judgement--and prohibit the judgement of others--to protect a favorite idea. How is it that people who promote reason insist on its end?
This happens every time the subject of Cultural and Moral Relativism is brought up. One part of the argument posits, since there are so many different cultures, customs and opinions, morality itself must be culturally relative. It's "okay" for other cultures, and maybe even other people in other cultures to have what we call "morals," but it's not okay for the two discussing the matter. In Moral Relativism, simultaeously nothing and everything is moral. In the first, the Holocaust and genocide is okay, because most germans supposedly agreed it was. In the second, the holocaust is both moral and immoral and everything in between, because everybody has an opinion about it. It's true and false, both and neither, that the holocaust was good, or didn't happen, or both.
It usually doesn't take more than one exchange before the moral or cultural relativist (often both at the same time) pretends to agree that the holocaust, or human sacrifice, or killing the elderly because some think they have outlived their purpose, is morally good. I am skeptical, however that the person is being honest, as they generally don't think that morality could ever be based on the facts of reality, yet they speak about honour killings, human sacrifice, and the The Holocaust, which are facts of reality. They are not ideals or hypotheticals. In fact, how can we not discuss facts of reality? How can we not make moral choices based on facts of reality? We have no choice but to make moral decisions based on reality. It's called "life."
If morality is culturally relative, then it is based on nothing but the majority opinion of the persons in a given culture. That is, assuming that we can have an objective limit on what that culture is and who belongs to it. That would be pretty rare, especially in the 21st century. All we can have is a subjective opinion on who makes up that culture, and what "they" think is moral! If majority opinion within a culture = morality, then the dissenters = immorality. Germans against genocide in the 30's are immoral. Atheists. Girls leaving Muslim families that want them circumcized. All immoral heretics.
Now, if morality is simply subjective, then no culture has a basis for morality, majority or not, even when it comes to protecting one's values, family or individual rights, against the moral judgement of others. Individuals should not attempt to have a moral sense or make moral choices, since it's "not based on reality--it's just their subjective perspective." If this hypothetical person were to manage any decision at all, it could not be moral. Of course, that's impossible. Every person makes decisions based on his values. There is no question that the values themselves exist. Sure, people make irrational choices, leading to disaster. But in order to survive, decisions must be made.
What do we call it when a person makes a choice based on his values? It's called "morality."
We know that "culture" is made up of individuals, and cultural action is made up of individual action. In cultural relativism then, individual action is invalid. Therefore, there is no moral justification for the culture. In this sense, to deny individual morality you must first allow for it!
People are so willing to rationalize themselves away from making damned sense. When I say "you can think for yourselves, you have moral autonomy, you have individual judgement," I mean it. Don't let this kind of nonsense back you into a corner, where you find yourself actually saying that mass-murderers are okay, force and coercion is okey dokey with you, and "it's all good." It's not "all-good. " How much are you really willing to tolerate?
Thanks for listening, diary.
16 comments:
The unfortunate fact is, neither of us are reading your comments anymore. I would like to believe that you are simply a liar and don't really believe in the wholesale killing of innocents. So I ask you for the first and last time, did you lie ?
I am not interested in reading from you more than I need to. First, just answer yes or no. And if your answer is no, don't bother posting again.
That's fine, but that's not what I asked you. Were you lying when you said you believe in the wholesale killing of innocent ?
I could very well explain to you about the role of cooperation in the pursuit of values, game theory, or the value of dealing with others rationally, or the value of freedom from coercion, or other facts of that sort, but none of these will be of any use if you are criminally insane.
And I have certainly been MORE than patient torwards someone who, so far, seems to be to be criminally insane. But I have given you the benefit of the doubt, in the distant hope that you will be honest with me. Since I don't expect you to start now, this will probably be our last exchange.
Bweeeeep! Bweeeeep! Rant Alert! Rant Alert!
I have recently been interviewing for a new job and one of the best bits of advice I've read is the 90 second rule. Research finds that if one party talks for more than 90 seconds many people start to disengage from the conversation. This holds well for blogs too.
If you think you are so interesting and clever that others will be glued to every word you type, think again.
"Brevity is the soul of wit"
William Shakespeare
"I have better things to do than to watch a man masturbate in public."
The Rev
Rev. Barking Nonsequitor : Are you referring to the latest entry, or to our... um... "friend" Isaac here, or both ?
Meow!
Caution would dictate that I stay out of this discussion, but sometimes that approach is just boring.
Alleee, I don't grasp your meaning when you say,
"One part of the argument posits, since there are so many different cultures, customs and opinions, morality itself must be culturally relative. It's "okay" for other cultures, and maybe even other people in other cultures to have what we call "morals," but it's not okay for the two discussing the matter."
Could you (and would you), expand on that?
Of the exchange between Franc and Isaac, I will only say that it is informative and... um,... colorful. It is clear that you both take this subject very seriously.
Isaac writes:
"Do I believe in cannibalism? Absolutely not. I never said that I felt it was morally acceptable. I think it is horrible and should be stopped. Do I think cannibalism is illogical? No, because, like Wittgenstein, I believe moral discourse is a different language than logical discourse."
The use of the word "Absolutely" is interesting. Does your definition of canibalism include ritual canibalism, or the type described by Kenneth Roberts in "Boon Island", or is it confined to "headhunting"?
The killing of innocents is morally wrong. There are excuses, and justifications, like dehumanizing your enemies, but if man is a social creature, then socialization must be built on a basic moral framework. I favor John Locke's "life, liberty, and property" as a starting point.
The confusion seems to me to be when customs are put forward as morals. In my opinion, a true moral can be discerned when a tort is created by its infraction. I don't mean the legal quagmire that has been created in civil courts, I mean a true and universally acceptable wrong. If I take another's life, I have commited a wrong simply because I cannot restore what I have taken away. In addition, I have taken something that can in no way be logically construed as having belonged to me. If I take another's life to save my own, and if I believe that I had no other alternative, I have still committed a moral wrong, however my perceived right to my own survival and my instinct for self-preservation have superseded that moral imperative.
In contrast, the moral dilemma of the two cultures, one that buries its dead and one that eats them, is in my opionion not a moral dilemma at all. There are very good medical reasons for not eating human flesh, but unless some surviving relative feels deprived in some way, I cannot see how this action causes a harm to be done (dead is dead). Aside from being medically unsafe, and therefore a threat to the welfare of the participants and their dependant children, I cannot ascertain that it is immoral. Not allowing one to not participate in the ceremony would, on the other hand, be immoral (violation of right of liberty). The same argument would apply to making children participate before they were old enough to make an informed decision (No dessert until you finish your Uncle Billy!).
The exchange is not meant to be informative. In our conversation on the entry before this one, Isaac has outright stated that the Holocaust could be morally justified, and that the killing of innocent elderly was good. I simply want him to tell me that he was lying, before I will discuss anything else with him. I am not going to discuss morality with the criminally insane.
Found this site somewhat randomly, cool though, keep rockin the atheism!, very interesting discussion going on here...
My view though, is that morality is based in reality. Not that everyone's morality influences them to make what I'd call "reality-based choices", or to have a worldview accurately reflecting morality -- far from it. But where people come up with their morality is definitely based on reality, what is objectively going on in the world & what is their position in it.
A main argument here seems to be that morality is often seemingly "illogical", I get the sense it is pictured as some kind of "purely" random, subjective thing to fill in the gaps. I disagree.
Morality has everything to do with how do you make decisions of right & wrong. So what is right & what is wrong? Well that depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Is it beneficial or harmful? Well using those words, it's obvious to ask "beneficial to what?" (Whereas "right & wrong" implies universality.)
The Holocaust example is good for discussion. (And why? Because just about everyone agrees it's "wrong".) (I agree it's wrong too.) It's a mass slaughter etc etc. Well the universe doesn't care if there's a mass slaughter. The universe doesn't either care if humanity ends from environmental collapse or nukes or a big asteroid or whatever. The universe doesn't care, on the other hand, if mass slaughter is prevented, or if we can build a society without oppression of any kind. The universe is not a person (or an animal), it doesn't have feelings or morality. So there is no universal morality.
People are not born "independent", just them & the universe, chillin'. They are part of society, part of a class, a nation, a gender, etc, etc. They are influenced by other classes etc, especially the one(s) that hold power, as well as forces with varying degrees of opposition to the rulers (& the accompanying ideology, morality, etc attached to these forces).
It's all a very complex process, but anyway a person develops certain way of looking at things, certain goals (not just indivualistic ones either), etc. It boils down to, what kind of world do you want? And you have a morality to go with that, to guide towards that world.
This could be conscious, or not (in which case, I guess the question would be closer to, in varying degrees, what kind of world have you been taught to want?)
So yeah, blah blah blah, this is really long, I know this comment doesn't have a complete answer to all the issues ha ha ha, but I gotta go to work soon, I'll stop with some recommendations for further reading...
section on morality from Revolutionary Communist Party USA's new draft Programme (There's lots of other relevant stuff on the RCPUSA's website, look around a while...)
Bob Avakian's website has mp3s of speeches, many dealing with atheism & religion
I give up. This criminally insane man cannot answer one simple question properly.
Jaroslav,
Universal:
1. Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide: “This discovery of literature has as yet only partially penetrated the universal consciousness” (Ellen Key).
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration: the universal skepticism of philosophers.
3. Applicable or common to all purposes, conditions, or situations: a universal remedy.
4. Of or relating to the universe or cosmos; cosmic.
5. Knowledgeable about or constituting all or many subjects; comprehensively broad.
7. Adapted or adjustable to many sizes or mechanical uses.
8. Logic. Encompassing all of the members of a class or group. Used of a proposition.
Did I imply that the Universe cared? (Hint, add the words "e.g. humankind" in parentheisis to #8, sentence 1, or see definitions 1-3)
No Frank, I wasn't refering to your posts - I do at least try to read and think about even your longer posts, but please avoid getting caught up in a rant-a-thon with these bombastic clowns. I do so get tired of the trying to read "mind spill". Besides, I would hate to get on your bad side. I only have one fire extinguisher.;)
By the way - it wasn't a halocaust. It was genocide.
Rev. Barking : I know I wasted way too much time on this imbecile, but I wanted to make sure he was insane. It's still hard for me to believe there exists people like him. It makes me seriously doubt my position that people are fundamentally moral, and that it's their beliefs that make them say immoral things. I guess I have no choice but to hope I'm right, because otherwise, we're fucked.
Hey idiot. I am not an Objectivist, and axioms are not accepted on "faith or convenience" even in Objectivism, which means you built your whole rant there on two lies.
And I can't be a "pseudo-skeptic" since I NEVER pretended to be a skeptic (because I am not !). Another blatant lie.
Everything verifiable in your post is a lie. Go away, troll.
"Listen dears, objective truth exists, but there is no way to access it directly through human logic. At the bottom of your deductive ladder must lay a cloud of axioms. These we accept through faith or convenience; either way, it is an act of intellectual surrender."
I disagree. "Self-evident" is a logical conclusion. The problem arises when something which is not self-evident is put forward as axiomatic, and is believed to be self-evident without being put to the test.
Sorry. But I had to delete Mike. Mike has been bad, because he is an idiot. I asked him to complete a task, and he did not.
I won't embarrass anyone by pointing out those whose opinions most closely resemble the fake Catholic bondage geek.
Post a Comment