I propose a strike against the rejection of fact in morality.
Why?
Too many secularists reject (or claim to reject) fact and science when it comes to morality, even though they demand them in every other respect. How can we, as atheists and individualists, hope to criticize religion effectively if our evaluations are based on belief? We must submit to the standard of fact, just as science does, in order to properly evaluate ideas and actions.
What You Can Do:
If you have a blog, and use fact to make decisions and evaluate positions, if you wish to reclaim moral autonomy from belief systems, write an article about morality, highlighting fact, or exposing fallacy in subjective/cultural morality. You can write about how you make decisions in your own life, or how cultural belief can prevent you from making good decisions. Maybe you can write about how otherwise rational people treat morality as different from every other aspect of their world.
Your blog post can be from any realist worldview, and can be in any language as long as you have a summary in English. I will post a link to both your blog and the post here. I encourage the use of my banner, such as it is (unless you want to make a cooler one). Send me your link here in the comments, or email me at alleee@hellboundalleee.com . Don't forget to give me the post url and your blog url. New forum threads will also be accepted, if they are substantial enough.
Join the War on Relativism, and reclaim morality from belief systems!
33 comments:
Count me in! I am going to assume command of the West Coast division in this war.
Koftu,
If everyone operates under the same laws of nature, then morality cannot be relative.
"Arguments for relativism in my mind include the superior value placed on liberty"
Uh... where does this "superior value" come from if relativism is true ? There are plenty of cultures that do not value liberty.
I'm an atheist libertarian, but I'm also a moral relativist. I'm open to hearing criticisms, of course, but here is my position:
Morality cannot be measured, quantified, tested or gauged. There is no method by which to scientifically measure the morality of an action; there is no morality meter that discerns 30 degrees of morality or 70 degrees of immorality.
In the absence of scientific measuring instruments, the only way we can discern morality is through our perceptions and thought processes. Unfortunately, both perception and thought are highly fallible. Just look at an optical illusion sometime. The illusion might be entirely convincing without objective testing to reveal the trick. Lacking those testing methods, the illusion could become "fact" to the person seeing it.
Let's use an example: "Shooting your neighbor in the face is immoral."
I agree with that. My perception and thought processes discern such action is indeed highly immoral. But I see no place for scientific testing. That moral statement could very well be analogous to an optical illusion, tricking me into thinking a moral act is an immoral one.
It seems to me that saying there is a "correct moral code" is really no different than saying there is a "correct religion." I'd sooner say no religion is correct and no moral code is correct.
Koftu,
Fair enough, but who's to make the value judgment on what is right and wrong?
Well, who is to make the judgement of whether or not matter/energy is conserved? They are simple facts of reality that are discovered.
That is what
relativistic "morality" recognizes.
It doesnt recognize enough. It is a matter of making claims and testing those claims for validity. This is no different than testing scientific hypothesis.
Your refusal to recognize identity and causality in the context of morality is a form of nihilism to me. Why not take your principle to the logical conclusion and state that you cannot determine the properties or even the existence of anything at all?
Furthermore, what are these "laws* of nature" and what are its dictates**? What proof have you that these dictates hold true in all cases, discovered or not?
That is quite a complicated answer. I dont want to try to justify the entirety of the laws of nature, physics, logic, and the scientific method right now. Do you at least agree with physics, logic, scientific method, and the like?
Absolute morality is not feasible at the moment without tremendous assumptions and egoistic superiority.
I totally disagree. Would you say that negative claims (like atheism), or axioms (like the axiom of identity), or laws of nature (like the first law of thermodynamics) are "not feasible without tremendous assumptions and egoistic superiority"?
Frances:
So we can't determine right and wrong through fact? Tell that to science.
It's this simple: morality is determined through facts, not belief. I know you're smart enough to not base your decsions on belief, so why are you stuck on that? Do you not agree that we must use reason and fact to sove problems? So how is morality different and special? How do you manage to evaluate any morality at all? Are you ready to say that you cannot determine if rape is bad? Don't do this to yourself, man. You're too smart for that nonsense.
"You?
I hope not.
Me?
I hope not."
Koftu:
That's both sad and scary. So much for you. How do you even survive?
Hi, Alleee. Maybe you can explain this to me. Is morality just based on individuals situations or can we judge group actions as being moral or not.
For instance, is the Iraq invasion by the USA moral?
Is the existence of Israel as a Jewish majority state at this ime moral?
Forgive me for banging my head against a wall, because those are fine questions. Really. Fine.
So why couldn't we judge any group action as moral based upon the facts? It doesn't matter what example you give me. Can you judge the KKK's actions? PeTA? Can you judge any government actions?
The better question is, how? My answer is by using facts. How will those actions affect you, me, and the other guy. There you go.
*Bang*
That makes better sense, certainly. I stand corrected.
Groups don't act. People do, using the group often as the value--which can very easily be judged.
Of course, as atheists, we often like to point out the destructive consequences of religious beliefs. But it's the individual who decides to hold religious beliefs and act on them.
Absolute Morality is a logical fallicy. This is the same thought dogma that religions try to use. You used and example of rape, of course you and I see that as wrong, but look in the bible, or among a portion of the people in the world and you will find people that don't see it as wrong.
Someone also gave the example of the KKK. This is a terrible group by most of the views in america and the world today, but in the hieght of its time the groups goals were considered moral and are still condsidered moral by its current followers.
Moral relativism really doesn't say much on what is right and wrong, it only says that morals are not defined, or devinely inspired. Morals are based on many things, culture, biology, environment, ect.
I think you might have made a mistake in the war on relativism area.
I think an idea that would be more relavant and more accurate would be the idea of a social contract. In a social contract, somewhat like the us constitution, ideas for the betterment of society are proclaimed. Rights are delegated and defined by following guideline. The guidelines are based in personal freedom, societal wellfare, equality and other ideals. These ideals, in a proper social contract, must not be hindered by religion, or political parties.
From what I just wrote, some might see a way of finding an absolute morality. This is just an illusion of morality because are proper as it appears, these are still just opinions.
Koftu:
Be assured that I am a complete and total atheist who likes to fuck with assumptions -- of christains and atheists.
You are making moral decisions, Koftu, or else you would not survive--unless I am mistaken and you are being taken care of. You say that you hope you do not make moral determinations. Are you not an adult? Do you not make decisions at all?
Reasological
"Absolute Morality is a logical fallicy. This is the same thought dogma that religions try to use. You used and example of rape, of course you and I see that as wrong, but look in the bible, or among a portion of the people in the world and you will find people that don't see it as wrong."
So what?
Reasological:
"I think you might have made a mistake in the war on relativism area."
I hope not. But here is what I know to be true, based on episemological data: one cannot argue effectively against belief systems if one has no standards with which to judge that belief system. I know that belief can not be a standard (that's why I am an atheist) to find out the truth. If you want to find out the truth in a situation, you're not going to get it by refusal of evidence--which is what belief is. All you have is reality. No moral judgements can be made without facts, despite the fact that many people think so.
Because, as we know for a fact, even big numbers of believers cannot make something true.
PS everyone: Is it possible to get people to argue points we made in our posts, rather than arguments against the darned title? I really don't feel like re-writing my arguments against relativism in the comments section, when I spent so much time making a post about it.
I'm cleaning out the well as of now.
Nowhere has any of us said that we are promoting absolutism. If you have an argument against absolute morality, go argue with an absolutist.
If you're still not sure what we're talking about, read the story of Sally and Cy below.
Now, Koftu:
Who said that we want someone to make decisions for you? You already said you can't make moral decisions, anyway. Now you're saying you do. You don't make moral decisions relative to your circumstances (and that's not even what relativism is), man. You make moral decisions based on the facts of your circumstances, and so does everyone else. The fact that everything you do has a result, and we use facts when making moral decisions has absolutely nothing to do with gestapos and authority figures making you do stuff.
Are you getting the picture yet?
Yes, it looks familiar, and no, Bob,
we love you!
You have a specific article you wanna add?
I added some new captions to your Sally and Cy story that possibly points to a problem in your thinking.
Sorry, but you messed up about "value." Franc pointed it out.
No, you don't like my blog, you stupid, lying son of a bitch puff of electrical impulses. May you rot in cyber-hell and live forever in a Nigerian Email, where the Mugu is hurling insults about sex with goats and stretched anuses.
#1: Rape has nothing to do with women or gender.
#2: You are assuming positions I have not asserted.
#3: Agreement has nothing to do with it.
Rape is forcibly penetrating a human. Can you pursue your values in a society that condones rape? Rape will take away your freedom to pursue your values, and the values of those you care about. Being against rape has nothing to do with women.
"There is no objective way to determine that killing a man is immoral, "
You're insane, or simply not creative. Or you give up your autonomy and you live in someone's cage.
Let me explain this simply, as if I haven't already made a children's cartoon about it, located a couple of posts down:
Again--for the 56th or 104th or 212th time (I'm not counting)
Morality:
The study of causality as it relates to human a\behavior,
How to Pursue Morality:
1. Identify the values
2.Identify, through fact, if the values are rational.
3. Determine if the values are being fulfilled by the action.
You have assumed I am talking about "the golden rules" or magical rules. I am not, as you can see by the definition above.
Question: are all moral judgements equal?
"agreement has nothing to do with it"
What people think has nothing to do with whether something's moral, any more than popularity has anything to do with something being true. If you believe that, you're religious, and I have nothing more to say to you about this topic.
Any further comments should be made after listening to the show we recorded today:
SHow 101: The War on Relativism
"If someone arbitrarily chooses that he cares not about women, and his only purpose is his own best interest, there is no objective moral reason for him not to rape or to think rape is immoral."
And yet a dick will just as easily be stuffed in your mouth or anus, you stupid bitch.
This alone proves that you are a little kid who has no idea what he's talking about. Go back to momma.
If someone arbitrarily chooses that he cares not about women, and his only purpose is his own best interest, there is no objective moral reason for him not to rape or to think rape is immoral.
Your problem is in your proemise. You said: "If someone arbitrarily chooses that he cares not about women"
If someone chooses to disregard another, then they are implicitly admitting that someone else can choose to disregard him, and in turn rape or kill him. So, objectively, it is not within this mans best interests to violate the sovereignty of another. That is because you cannot logically state that it is valid to coerce or violate another person without agreeing that it is ok to be coerced or violated yourself.
Is it? Why are you assuming this similarity or identity between that someone and that other?
Because its obvious that we are all conscious individuals. Or do you deny this?
If person A chooses to disregard person B, they are not performing any action on the behalf of person B, and not making any implicit admission of what person B can make.
You are 100% wrong. Forcing rape upon a woman is to force the victim to perform an action. It also violates their ability to determine for themselves what they are to do. What are you trying to deny the existence of force or coercion? Please.
This assumption of equivalence between all persons, is called "The Golden Rule" that I mentioned earlier.
You may accept or reject the golden rule, but this acceptance or rejection is purely arbitrary.
Sorry I didnt read about your golden rule. Theres too many comments here. How does your "golden rule" apply to a rape scenario? Do you think it is "wrong" to rape someone?
What I meant was, because we are all conscious individuals, we all have the same sovereignty over our own selves, and to say that ones self-ownership can be violated is to say that all individuals can be violated, including the individual making the claim of relativism or applying force to another.
I've completely lost patience and respect now.
"If you wish not to be raped or more generally mistreated, you better not be mistreat others. If you do mistreat others, many others will do it too."
You wrote it. If you still don't get it, and you wrote it, then I'm not seeing any evidence for you having any sense.
Now, why shouldn't I come over and rape and kill you, or is that just "arbitrary?"
I do not accept the golden rule, because it is not rational. People do not all want to be treated the same way. Since you can't see why I shouldn't rape you with a broken bottle, this is obvious. The reason you insist that this means morality is not based on fact, and only arbitrary acceptance is because you haven't read a fucking thing we've written or recorded, except this thread.
If you can't see any earthly reason why you make decisions every day, things look grim for old peaker. Morality is not what we're doing here, man. It's not about assholes sitting around thinking about what other people shouldn't do. It's what we do. And if you don't know why you're doing it save for your giving up your moral autonomy and submitting to a cultural belief , you're either a monk or a kid. You can't possibly think that you have any grounds for trying to convince anyone here of anything, can you? Because itIs all just made-up opinion anyway. If it's not based on fact, Peaker, I don't give a shit what you say, and nobody else should, either.
Aw crap! You've drawn me into another one. You might have noticed that I like to lighten the mood once in a while, but this is too serious for me to take lightly.
"I don't deny it, but I believe it is irrelevant and unprovable either way."
How is this not denying it?
You speak with forked tongue, it seems to me.
I believe that most people act from a standpoint of perceived self-interest. The difference is, that those of us who are not qualified to have an opinion but have one anyway, could tell the sociopath about the mistakes that they are making. The sociopath is incapable of agreeing. Talking about rapists in the context of morality is like mice trying to bell the cat. Could we possibly talk about the majority of human beings that are, for the greater part, sane?
When the Government takes over the job of law enforcement, they dis-empower us to execute justice. There are reasons to support this. In truth, if I caught a rapist in the act, I would not call 911, I would dispach that individual with no more concern than I would feel killing a cockroach. I have my reasons. I am also both prepared to live with the consequences, and unconcerned as to the opinions of others. Does this make me a potential murderer? Depends upon your definition. Am I a threat to you? Only if.... Is this an immoral position? Not from where I sit. The sanctity of human life is a convenient fiction.
Morality is an opinion.
And the drooling continues.
Is any opinion moral, Simon, or just the moral ones?
That would be a perfectly relevant post, grigsy, if we were promoting absolute anything.
But we're not.
Good Grief.
Objective morality. :)
Are there also objective taste facts, fashion facts, beauty facts?
Post a Comment