Moral Relativity VS. An Absolute Moral System

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I realize that we are verging on philosophy wanker territory here, and I might have to step outside and vomit at any time.

That's why I have a wastebasket.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

What do you think about morals vs. ethics?

Ethics = rules observed to preserve morals, yes?

No, not as I understand the definition. As I understand it, morals are a set of standards of behavior that are very tied to culture and usually religion, whereas ethics are a philosophical attempt to define "good" behavior from a secular, objective perspective.

But maybe I have simply read the wrong books

and I will confess, I am racist against philosophers and Libertarians.

[Dimocritus]

I've never tried to classify my personal moral code under a preexisting label. Humans and their behaviors are very fuzzy- impossible to impose one grid on the whole thing and not end up with a lot of confusion and self-contradiction. I absolutely do not believe in "absolutes".

I support Cultural Relativism - the idea that you can't pass judgment on a culture without knowing what it's like inside of it. As westerners, we're horrified by female genital mutiliation, but we literally can't see how it looks to people within that culture. So it's hard to judge what's "right" from way over here.

extending that, I think that every human being is their own culture, and they have to make rules for themselves. Most people borrow their culture's mores without really evaluating them.


If that didn't answer your question, you'll have to elaborate on the subjectivism vs conventionalism part - I'm not familliar with the jargon.

It sure did. The bolded statement, just to clarify the jargon, would be "Subjectivism," in the sense that the individual produces his own moral code, whereas with conventionalism, the moral code is determined by the social habits in the context of a specific society.

Moral absolutism.

*MY* moral absolutism.

Does that answer your dilemma?

It would have a week ago, but Utilitarianism (my bad, I know I said to keep it out of this argument) is, technically, an absolute moral code (which states, roughly, whenever you make a decision, pick the choice that positively effects the most people, and keeps negative effects to a minimum) and it's not based around one central leader, and there is no other indoctrination opposed on people, outside it's initial "mission statement," so to speak.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

That much said, female genital mutilation seems pretty fucked up to us.

I agree, but
fixed

I normally go with e-prime... but I can't join you at that exrtreme, Cram. I think genital mutilation is simply the outcome of a broken map. I don't specifically blame individuals for acting in line with their social norms, but I can say that their acceptable norm is badwrong.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I've never tried to classify my personal moral code under a preexisting label. Humans and their behaviors are very fuzzy- impossible to impose one grid on the whole thing and not end up with a lot of confusion and self-contradiction. I absolutely do not believe in "absolutes".

I support Cultural Relativism - the idea that you can't pass judgment on a culture without knowing what it's like inside of it. As westerners, we're horrified by female genital mutiliation, but we literally can't see how it looks to people within that culture. So it's hard to judge what's "right" from way over here.

extending that, I think that every human being is their own culture, and they have to make rules for themselves. Most people borrow their culture's mores without really evaluating them.


If that didn't answer your question, you'll have to elaborate on the subjectivism vs conventionalism part - I'm not familliar with the jargon.

It sure did. The bolded statement, just to clarify the jargon, would be "Subjectivism," in the sense that the individual produces his own moral code, whereas with conventionalism, the moral code is determined by the social habits in the context of a specific society.

Moral absolutism.

*MY* moral absolutism.

Does that answer your dilemma?

It would have a week ago, but Utilitarianism (my bad, I know I said to keep it out of this argument) is, technically, an absolute moral code (which states, roughly, whenever you make a decision, pick the choice that positively effects the most people, and keeps negative effects to a minimum) and it's not based around one central leader, and there is no other indoctrination opposed outside it's initial "mission statement," sop to speak.

Fuck utilitarianism.  I want everyone to follow my morals and ethics, because I want what is GOOD, therefore anyone that differs from my beliefs is EVIL.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I don't specifically blame individuals for acting in line with their social norms,

I do.  Excuses are like assholes.  You KNOW that "the cutting of the rose" is going to deprive your daughter of a normal marriage, but you do it anyway, to "preserve her virtue" as society demands.  This makes you an evil bastard, who should be shoved in a chipper.

[Dimocritus]

I don't specifically blame individuals for acting in line with their social norms,

I do.  Excuses are like assholes.  You KNOW that "the cutting of the rose" is going to deprive your daughter of a normal marriage, but you do it anyway, to "preserve her virtue" as society demands.  This makes you an evil bastard, who should be shoved in a chipper.

Absolutely.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I don't specifically blame individuals for acting in line with their social norms,

I do.  Excuses are like assholes.  You KNOW that "the cutting of the rose" is going to deprive your daughter of a normal marriage, but you do it anyway, to "preserve her virtue" as society demands.  This makes you an evil bastard, who should be shoved in a chipper.

Well, in some sense I agree... though I can see the argument that a monkey with specific programs running in his head might not put those things together and recoginize the badwrongness of their actions. That doesn't make their actions less badwrong... it just means the monkey is in serious need of some reprogramming.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I don't specifically blame individuals for acting in line with their social norms,

I do.  Excuses are like assholes.  You KNOW that "the cutting of the rose" is going to deprive your daughter of a normal marriage, but you do it anyway, to "preserve her virtue" as society demands.  This makes you an evil bastard, who should be shoved in a chipper.

Well, in some sense I agree... though I can see the argument that a monkey with specific programs running in his head might not put those things together and recoginize the badwrongness of their actions. That doesn't make their actions less badwrong... it just means the monkey is in serious need of some reprogramming.

Then you have a defective monkey.  Any primate of average intelligence would realize the above, but they ignore their intelligence in favor of what other people have told them about what a big scarey man in the sky would have said, if he'd thought of it (female circumcision is not in the Koran, IIRC).

Programming is not a reason, it's an excuse.

[Dimocritus]

But how can you "reprogram" with out superimposing an absolute system?

[Cramulus]

That much said, female genital mutilation seems pretty fucked up to us.

I agree, but
fixed

I normally go with e-prime... but I can't join you at that exrtreme, Cram. I think genital mutilation is simply the outcome of a broken map. I don't specifically blame individuals for acting in line with their social norms, but I can say that their acceptable norm is badwrong.

I don't want to get stuck arguing that female circumcision is okay, because I really think it isn't.

(discussions about moral relativity tend to go like, "Envision the most evil thing you can. How the fuck is that okay?" -- and then the person defending relativism has to justify it somehow. I'm not gonna play that game!)

But I don't think maps can be 'broken', they only appear that way to the vast majority of us who see that practice as insane. I can't believe in an absolute evil which female circumcision (and presumably other things) would be a subset of. The ideas that fem.circumcision is wrong comes from values present within our culture, and I can't take those things as a whole seriously enough to agree that any part of them are "absolutely true".

No matter how strongly I disagree with something, I won't agree that it is absolutely, universally bad for everybody in every situation for all time.

[LMNO]

But how can you "reprogram" with out superimposing an absolute system?

Just because the game rules are arbitrary, it doesn't mean that they are equal.


That's been said before in this thread.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I don't specifically blame individuals for acting in line with their social norms,

I do.  Excuses are like assholes.  You KNOW that "the cutting of the rose" is going to deprive your daughter of a normal marriage, but you do it anyway, to "preserve her virtue" as society demands.  This makes you an evil bastard, who should be shoved in a chipper.

Well, in some sense I agree... though I can see the argument that a monkey with specific programs running in his head might not put those things together and recoginize the badwrongness of their actions. That doesn't make their actions less badwrong... it just means the monkey is in serious need of some reprogramming.

Then you have a defective monkey.  Any primate of average intelligence would realize the above, but they ignore their intelligence in favor of what other people have told them about what a big scarey man in the sky would have said, if he'd thought of it (female circumcision is not in the Koran, IIRC).

Programming is not a reason, it's an excuse.

I disagree. Programming is how societies work. For Erissake people used to sacrifice virgins because their programming told them that was a good idea. It was a BAD IDEA, but most of the participants didn't recognize that. I'm willing to say if someone is poorly educated, badly educated or indoctrinated with bad ideas... they may act badly, not because they're evil, but because they got programmed badly by their society. That doesn't excuse the act though, if you act, you are responsible for the action... there may be reasons that you acted the way that you did... and it might be sad that your society programmed you so stupidly... but you're still responsible for doing the deed.

In the 1700's I can grok that some people didn't see slavery as wrong because their leaders told them Africans weren't intelligent enough to live on their own, or that they were cursed by God or whatever... it doesn't excuse the act of slavery, it just provides reason and context to the act. That's why I disagreed with Cram's view that we have to grok the perception of the other person before we can make a judgement... I think we need to grok the perception of the other person, SO we can understand WHY they did what they did... but I don't think it excuses it.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

(discussions about moral relativity tend to go like, "Envision the most evil thing you can. How the fuck is that okay?" -- and then the person defending relativism has to justify it somehow. I'm not gonna play that game!)

Then you're walking away from the argument, because that's a valid question.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I disagree. Programming is how societies work.

But any individual can resist his/her programming.

I wouldn't read any more of your post after you said "grok".