Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[Charles]

I think you may have misunderstood my "understood." It did not mean that I agreed with Seer or was taking his side. It merely indicates I understand his perspective. I have no basis for having any opinion on what you have said or done because I was not privy to that discussion and I only have Seer's perspective on it. If I get a moment, I'll wander the thread you linked, rather than having you post it all again.

Great. I did not suppose you agreed with seer and I am sorry if my post gave that impression.

[Tassman]

That doesn't change anything I said about my discussion with Charles.

Right and that is a circular argument... What is something good? Because a society deems it as good, but why does a society deem it as good because it deems certain behaviors as beneficial for certain goals. But why are those goals good? Because we say so...

[seer]

Sheesh, my discussion with Charles was about the circularity of moral reasoning.


Why is it "good" to conform social mores of the day?

[Tassman]

Sheesh, my discussion with Charles was about the circularity of moral reasoning.

Moral reasoning...whether based upon interpreting 'God's commands' to conform to the social mores of the day, or just based upon the social mores of the day without reference to a deity at all...functions in the same way.

Why is it "good" to conform social mores of the day?

Because the social mores of the day are what communities deem to be good at a particular time of social evolution.

[seer]

Moral reasoning...whether based upon interpreting 'God's commands' to conform to the social mores of the day, or just based upon the social mores of the day without reference to a deity at all...functions in the same way.

That just doesn't make sense Tass, like it our not, Western culture has been influenced by Biblical ethics for a thousand years. We have no idea what our ethical norms would look like today without that influence.

Because the social mores of the day are what communities deem to be good at a particular time of social evolution.

This doesn't make sense either, because if this is correct then men like Ghandi or Martin Luther King or even Jesus would have to be considered "evil" for going against the social norms of the day.

[carpedm9587]

I think, perhaps, you are not seeing the circularity. As a former philosophy student, with at least a passing understanding of basic logic, I am somewhat tuned to these. From what you have posted, the circularity looks like this:

1. What makes an action good?
2. When it conforms to the social norms of the day.
3. What makes the social norms of the day good?
4. Because they are defined to be good by the community.
5. Return to #1

I think you would be on safer ground simply noting that each person defines for themselves what is a moral good (based on a number of factors), and those views held in common by the bulk of the community become communal moral norms. Many are so widely held, they are virtually global. Others are less commonly held and may be associated with a particular religion, social group, or even nation.

Acceptance of homosexuality as a possible moral lifestyle is an example of an evolving moral norm. A century ago, a very small fraction of the population saw homosexuality as a possible moral lifestyle. As a consequence, there were even laws on the books making homosexual acts illegal. Over time, more and more people have accepted it. Today, it is a majority of the population and the vast majority of those laws have been reversed.

[Tassman]

I think you would be on safer ground simply noting that each person defines for themselves what is a moral good (based on a number of factors), and those views held in common by the bulk of the community become communal moral norms. Many are so widely held, they are virtually global. Others are less commonly held and may be associated with a particular religion, social group, or even nation.

I thought that was precisely what I was doing. I'm certainly not arguing that any behaviours or actions are "good" in and of themselves. if there is any "good" to be done in the world we are the ones to do it. The question of 'good' and 'bad' exists only because we need to live among other human beings and to do so successfully means agreeing on a set rules and principles.

[Tassman]

That just doesn't make sense Tass, like it our not, Western culture has been influenced by Biblical ethics for a thousand years. We have no idea what our ethical norms would look like today without that influence.

This doesn't make sense either, because if this is correct then men like Ghandi or Martin Luther King or even Jesus would have to be considered "evil" for going against the social norms of the day.

This is the point, the social norms of the day change as social values evolve and the likes of Ghandi or Martin Luther King are a part of the process.

[seer]

That is not always true, like we discussed in the past. I can go back to second century Christian writings and ethics and agree with 90% of what they believed. Most "bible" believing Christians could. Christians who deviate from scripture are the ones who "accommodate."

This is the point, the social norms of the day change as social values evolve and the likes of Ghandi or Martin Luther King are a part of the process.

Nonsense Tass, you can not have it both ways! If you define good as that which conforms to social norms (which you did) then a King or Gandhi who run counter to those norms can only be considered evil or morally wrong.

[carpedm9587]

I thought that was precisely what I was doing. I'm certainly not arguing that any behaviours or actions are "good" in and of themselves. if there is any "good" to be done in the world we are the ones to do it. The question of 'good' and 'bad' exists only because we need to live among other human beings and to do so successfully means agreeing on a set rules and principles.

Good and bad are value judgments, Tass. We label something "good" because it is desirable or seen as beneficial to us in some way. We label something "bad" when it is undesirable or is harmful to us in some way. When these terms are applied to human action, they become moral definitions.

Many people want moral good and evil to be defined in absolute/universal terms. To them, if people define what is good, then anyone anywhere can define anything they want to be good, and the entire idea of "good" and "evil" becomes meaningless. The same thing happens with the term "purpose." If we select our own purpose, then it is arbitrary and finite, therefore meaningless. Purpose can only be true purpose if it is objective and eternal.

I don't believe that's how either concept works in the real world. But it is extremely hard to have the conversation with someone who is locked into the absolute/universal mindset. In my experience, most of them cannot even see that they are themselves making a circular argument.

[carpedm9587]

That is not always true, like we discussed in the past. I can go back to second century Christian writings and ethics and agree with 90% of what they believed. Most "bible" believing Christians could. Christians who deviate from scripture are the ones who "accommodate."

But if you don't agree with them 100%, then aren't you also "accomodating," just to a lesser degree?

Nonsense Tass, you can not have it both ways! If you define good as that which conforms to social norms (which you did) then a King or Gandhi who run counter to those norms can only be considered evil or morally wrong.

That is exactly how it works, seer. Society has a norm they consider "good," but then a man like King of Ghandi stands up and says, "that's not a good and it has to change." They are decried by many as evil, as undermining, as a danger to society. If they are arguing for something that ultimately DOES harm people (e.g., like Hitler), they may succeed for a time, but eventually the harm of what they are doing becomes clear and socierty turns away from them and fights them. If they are arguing for something that will actually better humankind in some way, eventually, their words strike a chord and society begins to embrace the message. The early society sees them as an evil, but the later society sees them as a good. It is never absolute - there are still some today who see MLK as a man of evil, and some who still see Gandhi's teachings as dangerous. But most of society has embraced the messages of these men.

The same has happened around gay rights, though without the single charismatic voice. Initially, people speaking for these rights were seen as promoting evil. In time, society began to embrace the message. It is by no means even close to universal today, but worldwide there is a trend towards promoting the rights of homosexuals and other members of the LGBT community.

The issue is harm vs. benefit. Whatever someone may claim, eventually whether a thing is harmful or beneficial becomes clearer, and society reacts accordingly.

[seer]

But if you don't agree with them 100%, then aren't you also "accomodating," just to a lesser degree?

I may have a disagreement for any number of reasons, but not because I'm trying to be accommodating to the culture at large. Which was Tass' point.

That is exactly how it works, seer. Society has a norm they consider "good," but then a man like King of Gandhi stands up and says, "that's not a good and it has to change." They are decried by many as evil, as undermining, as a danger to society. If they are arguing for something that ultimately DOES harm people (e.g., like Hitler), they may succeed for a time, but eventually the harm of what they are doing becomes clear and socierty turns away from them and fights them. If they are arguing for something that will actually better humankind in some way, eventually, their words strike a chord and society begins to embrace the message. The early society sees them as an evil, but the later society sees them as a good. It is never absolute - there are still some today who see MLK as a man of evil, and some who still see Gandhi's teachings as dangerous. But most of society has embraced the messages of these men.

Right, so King and Gandhi were immoral or evil according to the mores of the day. And again, what is better for humankind, or whether that is even the goal, would be no less subjective than anything else.

The same has happened around gay rights, though without the single charismatic voice. Initially, people speaking for these rights were seen as promoting evil. In time, society began to embrace the message. It is by no means even close to universal today, but worldwide there is a trend towards promoting the rights of homosexuals and other members of the LGBT community.

Well I still think of gay rights (certain aspects at least) as evil or morally wrong. In keeping with Scripture and Church tradition. But it could easily turn the other way, especially if Islam keeps spreading as it is.

The issue is harm vs. benefit. Whatever someone may claim, eventually whether a thing is harmful or beneficial becomes clearer, and society reacts accordingly.

But that is merely your definition. What is harm? What is a benefit? Nevermind we could never really know the long term consequences of these things. For instance I see no good coming from the sexual revolution. More abortions, out of wedlock births, no fault divorce leading to more broken homes, more STDs etc...

[Tassman]

Good and bad are value judgments, Tass. We label something "good" because it is desirable or seen as beneficial to us in some way. We label something "bad" when it is undesirable or is harmful to us in some way. When these terms are applied to human action, they become moral definitions.

Yes. But they are not universal moral definitions, they evolve as societies evolve.

Many people want moral good and evil to be defined in absolute/universal terms.

Yes. This is what I think seer and other theists are doing.

To them, if people define what is good, then anyone anywhere can define anything they want to be good, and the entire idea of "good" and "evil" becomes meaningless. The same thing happens with the term "purpose." If we select our own purpose, then it is arbitrary and finite, therefore meaningless. Purpose can only be true purpose if it is objective and eternal.

I don't believe that's how either concept works in the real world. But it is extremely hard to have the conversation with someone who is locked into the absolute/universal mindset. In my experience, most of them cannot even see that they are themselves making a circular argument.

I agree with all of this, but I have the impression that you think you are arguing against me.

[Tassman]

That is not always true, like we discussed in the past. I can go back to second century Christian writings and ethics and agree with 90% of what they believed. Most "bible" believing Christians could. Christians who deviate from scripture are the ones who "accommodate."

Nonsense Tass, you can not have it both ways! If you define good as that which conforms to social norms (which you did) then a King or Gandhi who run counter to those norms can only be considered evil or morally wrong.

[seer]

I'm not speaking of that, I'm speaking of Christians changing their beliefs to conform to the culture, as you suggested. I have not, and many bible believing Churches have not.

No, you again are trying to have it both ways. King and Gandhi in their time would have to be considered evil since good, defined by you, was that which conformed to the social mores of the day. They may not be considered evil in our present moral climate, but that could change too...