Morality or Obedience?

[JimL]

In my opinion moral rules that best serve the most capable individuals, and are not concerned with lesser individuals, best serve us whether we subjectively agree that they do or not.

How do you counter that?

One of our opinions concerning the above would be right, and the others (opposing opinion) would be wrong.

[seer]

The reason the argument fails, Seer, is that you have randomly selected something that IS objective/absolute to make the claim that morality is too. You haven't actually shown that morality actually IS objective/absolute.

No Carp, you still don't get it. It is obvious that mathematics would not be rational without an objective standard, just as ethics are not rational without said standard. If you disagree I would ask, what makes ethics rational? The content? Which content? Why?

[LIST][*]Legal systems are irrational - they have no universal/absolute basis. It's like mathematics - without an absolute basis - mathematics would be irrational. Since legal systems also lack an absolute basis - they are irrational.

Well that is exactly correct, I would say that legal systems are just as irrational without an objective standard. We can demonstrate that by asking and answering: which legal system is correct. None are correct, all are correct. Absurdity.

[carpedm9587]

[QUOTE=seer;523697]No Carp, you still don't get it. It is obvious that mathematics would not be rational without an objective standard, just as ethics are not rational without said standard. If you disagree I would ask, what makes ethics rational? The content? Which content? Why?

No, no no - it's obvious that legal systems, philosophical systems, monetary systems, and language systems are irrational because, like mathematical systems, they lack an objective/absolute basis.

Well that is exactly correct, I would say that legal systems are just as irrational without an objective standard. We can demonstrate that by asking and answering: which legal system is correct. None are correct, all are correct. Absurdity.

You are apparently arbitrarily assuming that only ojkective/universal/absolute/eternal things are "rational." The term "rational" means "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." A system is rational if it proceeds logically from it's premises to its conclusions. There is no requirement in "rational" for everyone to agree on the premises or even the conclusions. An argument is sound - is it flows logically, and valid if it flows logically AND the premises are true.

You are adding things to "rational" that I do not think are required.

[seer]

No, no no - it's obvious that legal systems, philosophical systems, monetary systems, and language systems are irrational because, like mathematical systems, they lack an objective/absolute basis.

You are apparently arbitrarily assuming that only ojkective/universal/absolute/eternal things are "rational." The term "rational" means "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." A system is rational if it proceeds logically from it's premises to its conclusions. There is no requirement in "rational" for everyone to agree on the premises or even the conclusions. An argument is sound - is it flows logically, and valid if it flows logically AND the premises are true.

Then make the case, why are ethics or laws rational. Does the content make them rational? If a particular behavior can be both moral and immoral, depending on the culture, how can logic even be applied? Or are you admitting that logic does not play a role?

[JimL]

Then make the case, why are ethics or laws rational. Does the content make them rational? If a particular behavior can be both moral and immoral, depending on the culture, how can logic even be applied? Or are you admitting that logic does not play a role?

What behavior are you suggesting that it can be both moral and immoral. Remember, we can only have subjective opinions concerning morals, and they can be either right or wrong opinions, not both. Just because a particular society is of the opinion that "wife rape" is a moral good, doesn't make it a moral good in reality.

[carpedm9587]

Then make the case, why are ethics or laws rational. Does the content make them rational? If a particular behavior can be both moral and immoral, depending on the culture, how can logic even be applied? Or are you admitting that logic does not play a role?

The case is, that each culture begins with it's premises, and proceeds to its conclusions. If the premises are true for them, and the reasoning in their moral code is sound, then their conclusions will be valid - for them. It will not be true for a culture who's premises differ, and yet are are true for them.

And I notice that you cut out philosophy, language, and monetary systems from the list I provided. I have to wonder why...?

And that previous post of mine was a mess... sorry about that...

[carpedm9587]

Seer - there is a close parallel between legal systems and moral systems - as I noted before. The former is put in place by a community/society/country and the latter is defined by an individual. Both are defined to protect things that entity has deemed to be "off value." The first is a formal written code with formal mechanism for changing it, evaluating it, and applying it. The latter is a personal code that, when combined with the individual codes of others in the community, often serves as the basis for some/all of the legal code. Indeed, it is clear that legal codes "work." They are not perfect, but they provide a mechanism by which a society/culture/country defines the rules by which it will live, and then enforces those rules. I cannot imagine too many people describing legal systems as "irrational" or "nonfunctional." They may object to some laws - and the system may sometimes fail to work as well as we all would like (punishing the innocent and exonerating the guilty), but it is mostly functional and rational.

So too is morality.

[carpedm9587]

What behavior are you suggesting that it can be both moral and immoral. Remember, we can only have subjective opinions concerning morals, and they can be either right or wrong opinions, not both. Just because a particular society is of the opinion that "wife rape" is a moral good, doesn't make it a moral good in reality.

I have to say - I think you're trying to split the difference in a way that does not work. You're trying to define an absolute in a framework that lacks such a thing. IMO, Seer is right to point out the inconsistency. In a subjective/relative moral system - it IS possible for someone to define "wife rape" as a "moral good" and (for them) it would be a good. The rest of us are likely to disagree - so it is unlikely to be seen as a moral good by the vast majority of humanity, for a variety of reasons. But the statement "doesn't make it a moral good in reality" suggests some objective/universal metric against which this oral statement is being assessed. It would be better to say, "doesn't make it a moral good for the majority of humanity."

[seer]

The case is, that each culture begins with it's premises, and proceeds to its conclusions. If the premises are true for them, and the reasoning in their moral code is sound, then their conclusions will be valid - for them. It will not be true for a culture who's premises differ, and yet are are true for them.

A premise is either true or not, logically it can't merely be true for me and no true for you. That violates all laws of reasoning.

And I notice that you cut out philosophy, language, and monetary systems from the list I provided. I have to wonder why...?

Because you have a habit of running down rabbit holes, and I'm not in the mood to dirty my fluffy white tail...

[carpedm9587]

A premise is either true or not, logically it can't merely be true for me and no true for you. That violates all laws of reasoning.

Not true. "Water above 96 degrees is uncomfortably warm" is a premise that may well be true for me, and false for you. If it is true for me, then it follows:

• "Water above 96 degrees is uncomfortably warm" - True (for me)
• "Uncomfortably warm water should not be entered if one wishes to be comfortable - True by tautology
• "I want to be comfortable" - True (for me)
• "I ought not enter that water - Conclusion is both sound AND valid - for me.

You may find that 1 or 3 is untrue for you, ergo this argument would be sound for both of us, but valid for me and invalid for you.

Because you have a habit of running down rabbit holes, and I'm not in the mood to dirty my fluffy white tail...

I have to admit, I am doubtful. My experience with you is that you are selective in your responses, and set aside the things that are problematic for your argument.

I guess we are both a little dubious about the other's approach to the discussion....

[Tassman]

No, no it didn't. If there were no objectively right answers for mathematics, math would not be rational. Why should we think that ethical questions with no objectively right answers would be any less irrational?

there are no absolutely true premises or answers except ones we define to be true (such as 2+2=4). The same applies to ethical systems. Why would you think otherwise?

[JimL]

I have to say - I think you're trying to split the difference in a way that does not work. You're trying to define an absolute in a framework that lacks such a thing. IMO, Seer is right to point out the inconsistency. In a subjective/relative moral system - it IS possible for someone to define "wife rape" as a "moral good" and (for them) it would be a good. The rest of us are likely to disagree - so it is unlikely to be seen as a moral good by the vast majority of humanity, for a variety of reasons. But the statement "doesn't make it a moral good in reality" suggests some objective/universal metric against which this oral statement is being assessed. It would be better to say, "doesn't make it a moral good for the majority of humanity."

The way I see it, there are such moral absolutes. For instance, I think that though it is possible for some cultures to define "wife rape" as a moral good, their defining it as a moral good isn't what makes it a moral good, nor does defining it as a moral good necessarily make it a good for them. The only thing that actually makes a moral rule or behavior a moral good would be if that rule and behavior served the best interests of all the members involved in the group regardless of any one individuals opinion as to whether it is in their best interests or not. Just because there be an opinion that "wife rape" is a behavior that is somehow beneficial to those involved and to the community as a whole, doesn't mean that it is.

[carpedm9587]

The way I see it, there are such moral absolutes. For instance, I think that though it is possible for some cultures to define "wife rape" as a moral good, their defining it as a moral good isn't what makes it a moral good, nor does defining it as a moral good necessarily make it a good for them. The only thing that actually makes a moral rule or behavior a moral good would be if that rule and behavior served the best interests of all the members involved in the group regardless of any one individuals opinion as to whether it is in their best interests or not. Just because there be an opinion that "wife rape" is a behavior that is somehow beneficial to those involved and to the community as a whole, doesn't mean that it is.

The problem with your position, Jim, is that "benefit" is a relative term. You cannot assess a benefit without knowing the circumstance involved and what would improve it. I think that you are trying to argue against a moral absolute - while clinging to moral absolutes. I'm not sure how you can sustain that position.

[seer]

Not true. "Water above 96 degrees is uncomfortably warm" is a premise that may well be true for me, and false for you. If it is true for me, then it follows:

So you don't need true premises but subjective premises, that can change on a dime. This is why you can not logically make the case that something like wife rape is morally wrong, except to say that you/we don't like it. You have successfully reduced all ethics to mere preference.

My experience with you is that you are selective in your responses, and set aside the things that are problematic for your argument.

Kind of like what happened with you and Matt on the Philosophy board...

[seer]

The problem with your position, Jim, is that "benefit" is a relative term. You cannot assess a benefit without knowing the circumstance involved and what would improve it. I think that you are trying to argue against a moral absolute - while clinging to moral absolutes. I'm not sure how you can sustain that position.

Bingo!