John Stossel Goes After PETA Tonight...

[Cain]

{blah blah blah}

Absolutely not true and this doesn't follow from anything I have said.

I suggest you look up human rights, or see how it's used. It is a universal ("absolute") ethic that applies to humans everywhere, regardless of culture or the majority's beliefs in those cultures. It is defined in contradistinction to the relativism you're espousing. That you cannot stomach these (rather straightforward) implications testifies to the ad hoc nature of the hodgepodge of arguments endured thus far.

Precisely. The interests of animals is out of sight out of mind when humans are not involved.

But it is important to understand that you want the interests of animals considered on one hand but not the other.

Humans are at the forefront of abuses against animals. Furthermore, these abuses can be prevented and stopped *because* we're moral agents. In simple utilitarian terms, it makes sense for those concerned to focus on mistreatment as it is perpetrated by humans.

We can't really do anything about lions killing zebras, recreating Eden in accordance with our utopian fantasies. If we could, then we should... but we can't (at the moment).

Yes. And please note that I have also agreed that laws that would curtail or eliminate animal domestication and the consumption of meat could also be legitimate.

Yes, they could be legitimate, but it seems you cannot generate free-standing arguments to justify anything as everythings is "relative".

Well you are entitled to your opinion but it is not one rooted in science.

I rather despise it when people tell me I'm "entitled" to my opinion. Yes, I am, and that goes without saying. You're also entitled to *your* own opinion, but not your own facts. I'm not sure how you can suggest that the viewpoint you expressed earlier -- what people "truly" believe -- is somehow rooted in science. First of all, ethics (normative philosophy) is not rooted in science, in spite of the numerous deductive errors that litter this thread. Science can tell us, for instance when a fetus can feel pain, or when it becomes viable; science cannot tell us if sensation and viability are morally significant attributes.

Your "science" only goes as far as polling opinions, and even then you have to resort to Oprah-like art of deciding what people "really" feel. Science informs our morality, it does not determine our morality (as just about any evolutionary psychologist worth her weight in ◊◊◊◊ cautions readers).

"My genes can go jump in a lake for all I care." -- (paraphrasing Steven Pinker)

You are outlining a classic ethical problem as though I discovered it or that it only exists in the abstract. This is Ethics 101.

I'm not going to bother expressing how pathetic this comment is. The quote is rather more of the same smattering of Wikipedia-Google faux-expertise I've had to endure throughout this thread. Yes, of course there are different expectations in different cultures on moral matters. (Compare and contrast the views of women in the middle-east with Northern Europe). How does this in any conceivable way address my comments?

"Absurdity"? You might want to avoid any courses in ethics.

You can't really escape the moral conflicts based on ideology, theology, age, sex, etc. This is the subject of much research on the part of social anthropologists. You might want to let them know that their research is absurd.

I've already taken my courses in ethics. And now, again, not to appeal to authority -- but I *teach* them. My comment on "absurdity" -- *sigh* -- once again goes to *normative* conceptions.

Let me say this one final time, and you can obstinately ignore it again at your own peril.

What is considered moral differs from person to person, culture to culture. Fact. The crucial, crucial, crucial word here, however, is "considered." Without this distinction the sentence seems to express your views. Human rights activists (not animal rights activists) argue, for example, that torture is wrong everywhere, regardless of where you're from or what people in close geographical proximity happen to believe.

Since we're talking about basic ethics, I'm interested in which academic books you've read on the subject. I'm sure I could count them on one fist.

 

[RandFan]

I suggest you look up human rights, or see how it's used. It is a universal ("absolute") ethic that applies to humans everywhere, regardless of culture or the majority's beliefs in those cultures.

?

Come again? What does this have to do with the point at hand.

It is defined in contradistinction to the relativism you're espousing.

And I agree with them. So what? What is that supposed to prove?

Humans are at the forefront of abuses against animals.

Please to demonstrate?

Furthermore, these abuses can be prevented and stopped *because* we're moral agents. In simple utilitarian terms, it makes sense for those concerned to focus on mistreatment as it is perpetrated by humans.

I'm for ending mistreatment. Of course you would have to define mistreatment. Our definitions don't sync I'm afraid.

We can't really do anything about lions killing zebras, recreating Eden in accordance with our utopian fantasies. If we could, then we should... but we can't (at the moment).

So we yawn and shrug our shoulders. We are only bothered by predation when perpetrated by humans.

Yes, they could be legitimate, but it seems you cannot generate free-standing arguments to justify anything as everythings is "relative".

I don't hold that all things are equal. Only that morals are relative. Please don't put words in mouth.

I rather despise it when people tell me I'm "entitled" to my opinion. Yes, I am, and that goes without saying.

As long as you are spouting it I will continue to let you know that you are entitled to it.

Science can tell us, for instance when a fetus can feel pain, or when it becomes viable; science cannot tell us if sensation and viability are morally significant attributes.

Agreed. That is my point.

Science informs our morality, it does not determine our morality...

No argument.

Yes, of course there are different expectations in different cultures on moral matters. (Compare and contrast the views of women in the middle-east with Northern Europe). How does this in any conceivable way address my comments?

I don't know how it could be any clearer. It directly address your comments. It demonstrates that perceptions about morality change from culture to culture.

I've already taken my courses in ethics. And now, again, not to appeal to authority -- but I *teach* them.

{Too easy}

What is considered moral differs from person to person, culture to culture. Fact. The crucial, crucial, crucial word here, however, is "considered." Without this distinction the sentence seems to express your views.

And what does it mean to be "considered"? Morality does not exist in a vacuum. It's not something that is written in our genome or on stone tablets. Morality is a human construct. Without consideration, without perception there is no morality (see lion example above).

Human rights activists (not animal rights activists) argue, for example, that torture is wrong everywhere...

And I agree. However that does not mean that the immorality of torture is an absolute. Human rights activists did not come to their conclusions absent cultural influence and empathy (which could be argued is simply a fluke of nature). These things shaped their perceptions and can't be removed from the equation.

Since we're talking about basic ethics, I'm interested in which academic books you've read on the subject. I'm sure I could count them on one fist.

Obviously the books you have read, if any, haven't given you a basic understanding of how culture has shaped morals.

As to your question, counting course text books in ethics, psychology, and sociology I have probably read less than 10 books.

That you pose the following question says much about your understanding of ethics.

In your previous post you said:

What if the majority in an insulated town believes in X, Y, Z, as does the region, but the state/country disagrees?

This is a classic moral dilemma and one should expect it to be addressed in rudimentary ethics courses throughout the world. Like I said, it is Ethics 101. Yet here you are asking me the question as if it should prove something counter to current paradigms. I have to say that truly amazes me. How you can teach ethics and pose such a question as though it proves something counter to my position is rather odd. The question doesn't prove anything. It only demonstrates the very real moral dilemmas that have confounded humans for thousands of years. But here you are solving the problem simply by asking the question and assuming that it proves something.

 

[RandFan]

Since we're talking about basic ethics, I'm interested in which academic books you've read on the subject. I'm sure I could count them on one fist.

BTW, the question is fallacy and intended by you to be a gotcha. As if the number of books that either of us have read proves something. The number of books that you or I have read won't change the validity of our argument.

 

[monoman]

Is sex with animals considered abusive?

Sex with animals is non consensual (if the human is doing the do) so could be considered abuse. You'd have to ask the animal.
The killing of an animal executed correctly doesn't cause any suffering (assuming there's no strong bonds with other animals)

Aside from that, eurgh!

 

[Mycroft]

Sex with animals is non consensual (if the human is doing the do) so could be considered abuse. You'd have to ask the animal.
The killing of an animal executed correctly doesn't cause any suffering (assuming there's no strong bonds with other animals)

Aside from that, eurgh!

I dunno. I've seen cats in heat that would consent.

 

[monoman]

I dunno. I've seen cats in heat that would consent.

My own (tom) cat used to have a penchant for getting 'down' with my arm. No idea why he was so attracted to that.
I have to admit it made me feel special, but the nads had to go!

 

[Cain]

BTW, the question is fallacy and intended by you to be a gotcha. As if the number of books that either of us have read proves something. The number of books that you or I have read won't change the validity of our argument.

Wait a second, you're the one pretending to lecture on "Ethics 101" while basically having no clue of the definitions and terms you're bandying about. It's only a fallacy, by the way, if I conclude that your arguments on X, Y, Z are invalidated by lack of study. Instead I can rationally conclude that you're not very well informed (which is what I've been suspecting for years, based on dozens and dozens of posts).

?

Come again? What does this have to do with the point at hand.

That you have no idea what human rights are while taking inconsistent positions.

And I agree with them. So what? What is that supposed to prove?

Uh, that there's an internal contradiction in your belief system.

Please to demonstrate? I'm for ending mistreatment. Of course you would have to define mistreatment. Our definitions don't sync I'm afraid.

This is kind of what the thread is about. What constitutes an "abuse" depends on respective paradigms of morality. Your shifting definition of what "mistreatment" means is contingent upon on the muddled "true" beliefs of some vaguely defined "moral society." The disagreement is far more fundamental, as I've emphasized in these last few postings.

I don't hold that all things are equal. Only that morals are relative. Please don't put words in mouth.

Please read the sentence you're pretending to reply to again before putting your foot in your mouth. Thanks!

Agreed. That is my point.

And what does it mean to be "considered"? Morality does not exist in a vacuum. It's not something that is written in our genome or on stone tablets. Morality is a human construct. Without consideration, without perception there is no morality (see lion example above).

"Considered" as in what people believe. What person A believes is moral differs from what person B believes is moral. The fact that these beliefs diverge -- that they are mutually exclusive -- does not mean morality is "relative", or subjective. This is "relativism" in the most superficial way (instantiated, incidentially, by your posts).

[quote And I agree. However that does not mean that the immorality of torture is an absolute. Human rights activists did not come to their conclusions absent cultural influence and empathy (which could be argued is simply a fluke of nature). These things shaped their perceptions and can't be removed from the equation.[/quote]

Of course everyone carries on board their epistemological baggage: from being born human and being socialized at a particular time and place. Culture influences all kinds of beliefs: whether we were created from animals, or created by God, sexual mores, etc.

Obviously the books you have read, if any, haven't given you a basic understanding of how culture has shaped morals.

Oh, yes, that weasel word "obviously" -- the one you constantly invoke when making a shaky allegation.

You're *still* failing to distinguish the different senses of morality.

This is a classic moral dilemma and one should expect it to be addressed in rudimentary ethics courses throughout the world. Like I said, it is Ethics 101. Yet here you are asking me the question as if it should prove something counter to current paradigms. I have to say that truly amazes me. How you can teach ethics and pose such a question as though it proves something counter to my position is rather odd. The question doesn't prove anything. It only demonstrates the very real moral dilemmas that have confounded humans for thousands of years. But here you are solving the problem simply by asking the question and assuming that it proves something.

It's not a "moral dilemma" as the common usage has it. It is an argument that challenges your morality on a more fundamental level: the coherence of relativism. It's also sailing right over your head.

 

[Josh]

Sex with animals is non consensual (if the human is doing the do) so could be considered abuse. You'd have to ask the animal.
The killing of an animal executed correctly doesn't cause any suffering (assuming there's no strong bonds with other animals)

Aside from that, eurgh!

Eurgh indeed. But aside from that, you are saying that it's ok that the animals die, as long as they do not suffer? On this, I think you'd have to ask the animals. One common method is to hang the animals upside down by thier hind-legs, then slice their throats and let them bleed to death. It certainly seems painful to me, but then again I've never experienced it. I suppose I could do a survey. But then, that's alot of people to eat.(it's ok as long as I don't let the meat go to waste) So, are you feeling any discomfort? Any shock knowing that your life is draining out of you? Any fears surfacing? I'm sorry, what was that last part? All I got was a low gurgling noise.

 

[RandFan]

Wait a second, you're the one pretending to lecture on "Ethics 101" while basically having no clue of the definitions and terms you're bandying about. It's only a fallacy, by the way, if I conclude that your arguments on X, Y, Z are invalidated by lack of study. Instead I can rationally conclude that you're not very well informed (which is what I've been suspecting for years, based on dozens and dozens of posts).

We'll if successfully completing undergraduate study at a university in social sciences is uninformed then I'm guilty. To be fair it has been over 20 years and I have been in computer sciences since then.

On the other hand your making some very fundamental errors that would cause me to wonder your background. I won't press you because I think it irrelevant. Yeah, I know, you "teach" ethics. Right.

That you have no idea what human rights are while taking inconsistent positions.

"No idea"? If I really had no idea we would not be having this exchange.

Uh, that there's an internal contradiction in your belief system.

Uh, no. That I share many of the same perspectives in no way demonstrates an internal contradiction. It simply demonstrates the ability to see another point of view even if I disagree with that point of view.

This is kind of what the thread is about. What constitutes an "abuse" depends on respective paradigms of morality. Your shifting definition of what "mistreatment" means is contingent upon on the muddled "true" beliefs of some vaguely defined "moral society." The disagreement is far more fundamental, as I've emphasized in these last few postings.

This has nothing to do with my position.

Please read the sentence you're pretending to reply to again before putting your foot in your mouth. Thanks!

{sigh} Again, you make no argument.

What person A believes is moral differs from what person B believes is moral. The fact that these beliefs diverge -- that they are mutually exclusive -- does not mean morality is "relative", or subjective.

Actually it does. That is exactly what it means.

{rhetoric snipped}

Of course everyone carries on board their epistemological baggage: from being born human and being socialized at a particular time and place. Culture influences all kinds of beliefs: whether we were created from animals, or created by God, sexual mores, etc.

Bingo, including what is right and what is wrong.

You're *still* failing to distinguish the different senses of morality.

I see no relevance in distinguishing between different senses of morality as it relates to this discussion. One can't define morality to be absolute. Duty, responsibility, rights, considerations, interests, virtue, etc. are all subjective.

Prima Facie Principles are not held as universal by all ethicists. There isn't even consensus as to whether to take a teleological or deontological approach. We can use logic to help us resolve moral conflict and to avoid the irrational but we first must come to a consensus as to which principles to accept and which approach to use.

In other words as rational human beings we can come up with good strategies to create social cohesion and maximize benefits to humans. Or we can simply determine what commons sense or intuition tells us is correct, codify those beliefs and follow them come hell or high water.

Moderate Objectivism adheres to basic notions of the Natural Law Theory. William Ross refers to these moderate objectivists accounts of moral principles as “Prima Facie Principles” which are valid rules of action that one should generally adhere to but, in cases of moral conflict, may be be overridable by another moral principle, hence the moderation. Prima Facie Principles contain duties that are correlated with many ethical theories. Such duties include fidelity, fulfilling commitments, truth and promises; justice, giving people what they deserve; respect for freedom; beneficence, improving the conditions of others; non-injury; self-improvement, stemming from the possibility of improving one’s own condition with respect to virtue, intelligence, and happiness; non parasitism, and most importantly reparation, the duty of making up for wrongful acts previously done to others. David Ross believed that these duties are to be followed and remain with each person's thought processes of behavior because it is their moral obligation to do so. Also, Prima Facie principles prove the existence of ethical principles that are binding on rational beings. Pojman, on the other hand created ten similar principles “necessary for the good life within a flourishing human community.” He refers to these principles as the “Core Morality.” These simple, common sense principles include such morals as do not: kill innocent people, cause unnecessary pain, lie or deceive, cheat or steal, honor your promises, deprive another of his/her freedom…as well as show gratitude, help others, do justice, and obey just laws. Both Prima Facie and Core Morality are exceedingly similar unlike the ideas of objectivism and absolutism. As said before, absolutists pursue the notion of “do the act that is set and given and do nothing else regardless the situation.” A good example of an extreme absolutist following is those of the Divine Command Theory. In The Divine Command Theory, the good is whatever the "God" or deity commands, meaning whatever and whenever and wherever.

 

[Cain]

We'll if successfully completing undergraduate study at a university in social sciences is uninformed then I'm guilty. To be fair it has been over 20 years and I have been in computer sciences since then.

On the other hand your making some very fundamental errors that would cause me to wonder your background. I won't press you because I think it irrelevant. Yeah, I know, you "teach" ethics. Right.

Yes, very basic errors such as... ? Oh, and the next time you want to set a clumsy "gotcha" trap why don't you disguise it as a big wooden horse.

"No idea"? If I really had no idea we would not be having this exchange.

??

Uh, no. That I share many of the same perspectives in no way demonstrates an internal contradiction. It simply demonstrates the ability to see another point of view even if I disagree with that point of view.

This has nothing to do with my position.

{sigh} Again, you make no argument.

I see nothing resembling content here. When I point out a mistake in your reasoning or characterization, you say that that specific sentence lacks an "argument." Well, it's part of a broader argument. You say something has "nothing to do with your position" -- probably because your "position" is rather protean and incoherent.

Actually it does. That is exactly what it means.

No, this is your simple confusion from which all else stems, as evidenced (in part) by the following quote:

I see no relevance in distinguishing between different senses of morality as it relates to this discussion. One can't define morality to be absolute. Duty, responsibility, rights, considerations, interests, virtue, etc. are all subjective.

Heh, if you only we get that far. I'm merely talking about distinguishing "is" from "ought". That our behavior from person to person, culture to culture, IS different does not mean a great deal for this type of discussion.

I see your block quote mentions Louis Pojman (a religious moral theorist). He writes introductory books on ethics, and I suggest you take a gander at the first few chapters. Most undergrads, I believe he notes, enter their university education believeing in a kind of cultural relativism (by a 2 to 1 ratio in his classes, across the country, at different institutions). When pressed, however, they reveal beliefs that contradicts this outlook (and this has been common in my experience as well, just everywhere in life -- messageboards etc. Of course, sometimes I do encounter someone who is colossally pig-headed, but I digress). Moral subjectivism -- which is actually much more intense than cultural relativism -- and it seems like a view you have at times defended during the course of this discussion -- makes nonsense of morality. Morality is about what we ought to do, how we ought to behave. Saying that all of us DO do different things is superficial and obvious.

Then there are these weird biological considerations you keep introducing -- "the good of the species" -- which is simply mistaken (i.e., wrong, biologically speaking. You also talk about "social cohesion", a type of communitarianism from what I gather. Why is social cohesion important? Because it allows humans to flourish? Why is THAT important? More critically, why are we trying to benefit humans?

Prima Facie Principles are not held as universal by all ethicists. There isn't even consensus as to whether to take a teleological or deontological approach. We can use logic to help us resolve moral conflict and to avoid the irrational but we first must come to a consensus as to which principles to accept and which approach to use.

In other words as rational human beings we can come up with good strategies to create social cohesion and maximize benefits to humans. Or we can simply determine what commons sense or intuition tells us is correct, codify those beliefs and follow them come hell or high water.

Yes indeed, there is nothing resembling a consensus among moral philosophers on some of the most pressing issues of the day. Derek Parfit says that this is because only relatively recently have ethicists extricated morality from religion. He speculates that real progress should be made in the next one-hundred years. However, it is worth pointing out, that there is a consensus on some basic matters. One, just mentioned, is disposing of God. Another is the abandonment of subjectivism and relativism (especially in philosophy departments in the United States). Literature departments are another matter, and so is France/Europe. According to an article in _Skeptic Magazine_ (the one with Spinoza on the cover, second volume I believe), there is a lower percentage of moral subjectivists in philosophy departments than intelligent design theorists in biology departments. It has been awhile since I read the issue -- and I've mentioned it before on this board, in threads like this one -- but it's no doubt true that the position(s) you're taking, though common among the young laity, is rather marginal.

 

[RandFan]

Morality is about what we ought to do, how we ought to behave. Saying that all of us DO do different things is superficial and obvious.

But I'm not saying simply that all of us do different things. I'm not talking about comparative behavior. I'm talking about comparative morality. What we "ought" to do varies from culture to culture.

Comparative morality among cultures

There has been considerable work done in studying comparative morality among cultures. To such researchers, morality is not seen as a constant essential "truth" but as a series of values that is influenced by (and influences) the cultural context. One well known commentator is Fons Trompenaars, author of Did the Pedestrian Die?, which (among other values) tested the proposition of what expectation did the driver of a car expect to have his friend, a passenger riding in the car, lie to protect the driver from the consequences of driving too fast and hitting a pedestrian. Trompenaars found that in different cultures there were quite different expectations (from none to almost certain), and in some cultures it mattered whether the pedestrian died what assistance would be expected.

Then there are these weird biological considerations you keep introducing -- "the good of the species" -- which is simply mistaken (i.e., wrong, biologically speaking.

No, it is not wrong biologically speaking. Evolution endowed us with a means of survival. How we view each other and society are critically important to us.

You also talk about "social cohesion", a type of communitarianism from what I gather. Why is social cohesion important?

Social cohesion might not be important. It is important to me because I want to live in a society free of stress and disorder. So to ME social cohesion is important.

More critically, why are we trying to benefit humans?

Because we care about humans. "Mankind was my business" --Marley

Because trying to benefit humans is beneficial to most of us. There is utility in it.

...there is a lower percentage of moral subjectivists in philosophy departments than intelligent design theorists in biology departments.

I'm skeptical but more importantly what is the basis of this objective morality? Interests? Consideration? No interest is universal. No consideration is universal. What is moral to a masochist could be immoral to someone who is not a masochist. What is moral to someone who places a higher value on honesty could be immoral to someone who places a higher value on harmony.

 

[Cain]

But I'm not saying simply that all of us do different things. I'm not talking about comparative behavior. I'm talking about comparative morality. What we "ought" to do varies from culture to culture.

Earlier we agreed that not only does it vary by culture, but there are (obvious) intracultural disputes. This cultural relativism leads to the absurd consequences already mentioned.

No, it is not wrong biologically speaking. Evolution endowed us with a means of survival. How we view each other and society are critically important to us.

Here I believe I was referring to your "good of the species" claim, which is false.

Social cohesion might not be important. It is important to me because I want to live in a society free of stress and disorder. So to ME social cohesion is important.

So then it just gets pushed back for a subjectivist: why don't you want to live a society of stress and disorder? The answer may seem obvious, but there's no grounding. Utlimately everything is arbitrary. You cannot (morally) condemn a person who murders, pillages and rapes because that's what he wants. You might appeal to "society", but what if society agrees with his behavior? You might say they only agree because they have nefarious, selfish motives, but what if they don't? And each level of argument -- what a person believes, what a society believes, whether or not a person's motives are "selfish" -- you have to provide a reason why that is morally relevant.

Because we care about humans. "Mankind was my business" --Marley

Big deal. So what if we cared only about white people? Or only about males? The whole point -- going back to the marginal cases argument -- has to do with distinguishing the arbitrary from the non-arbitrary. Besides, it's arguable that we care about humans when some 50,000 die each day from malnutrition and poverty related diseases.

Because trying to benefit humans is beneficial to most of us. There is utility in it.

This is another inconsistent argument. Earlier you were talking about motives (whether or not people were being selfish) and now you're talking about goals. And besides, there was already a good reason to reject this limited and arbitrary utilitarianism: why would you respect the rights of all humans? There's no utility in spending resources for the severly mentally handicapped unless you inconsistently elevate their interests above similarly situated non-humans.

I'm skeptical but more importantly what is the basis of this objective morality? Interests? Consideration? No interest is universal. No consideration is universal. What is moral to a masochist could be immoral to someone who is not a masochist. What is moral to someone who places a higher value on honesty could be immoral to someone who places a higher value on harmony.

There are many different universalist views. Since utilitarianism is an empirical philosophy, it could subordinate honesty (in some cases) to harmony... but then a utilitarian, if she is rational, takes a long term view, and therefore she must consider the full implications of dishonesty. And even still there is a difference between rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism.

How we reconcile different "moral beliefs" is not a question of morality really. It is a question of political theory (which is itself derived from some morality). Good political theory, in my opinion, endeavors to answer the following question: how are we to live together? Even people who agree on a specific type of utilitarianism may have different views about how the world works -- the economy especially -- and consequently advocate different types of political, social, and economic institutions.

When it comes to not harming animals one could take either of the most influential moral theories: (Tom Regan with Kant; Peter Singer with Utilitarianism) and apply them consistently. Cultural relativism and subjectivism cannot be co-opted because they are arational.

 

[RandFan]

Earlier we agreed that not only does it vary by culture, but there are (obvious) intracultural disputes. This cultural relativism leads to the absurd consequences already mentioned.

The consequences are what they are. They don't change the relative nature of morality.

Here I believe I was referring to your "good of the species" claim, which is false.

Yes, just declare it false. Good argument.

So then it just gets pushed back for a subjectivist: why don't you want to live a society of stress and disorder? The answer may seem obvious, but there's no grounding. Utlimately everything is arbitrary.

But there is no "grounding" to anything. In the end there is only our wants, interests and considerations. Since many of us share similar wants, interests and considerations we can establish etiquette, ethics, laws to increase the likelihood that we will achieve social order, justice and anything else that we commonly hold to be "good".

You cannot (morally) condemn a person who murders, pillages and rapes because that's what he wants.

If it is counter to the morals of society then of course I can.

You might appeal to "society", but what if society agrees with his behavior?

I'm SOL. And "society" might be acting counter to their own morals. We certainly have plenty of history to demonstrate that.

...you have to provide a reason why that is morally relevant.

But that is what Social anthropologists strive to do. Nothing is solved by declaring morals objective. We can only objectivly apply our morals. You will always come back to the same starting point. Perspective. You can't escape it.

Big deal. So what if we cared only about white people? Or only about males?

What is the basis for your hypothetical society to care only about white people or males for that matter? You cannot argue morals in a vacuum. I have never held that the behavior of the majority is de facto moral.

Earlier you were talking about motives (whether or not people were being selfish) and now you're talking about goals.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusivel. #1 If the majority believe murder to be wrong but act counter to their own beliefs for selfish purposes that would be immoral. #2 I'm stating that there is reason to have shared values that will likely benefit me if they also benefit society.

Why would you respect the rights of all humans? There's no utility in spending resources for the severly mentally handicapped...

No, and perhaps we shouldn't. I happen to think it good that we do.

...unless you inconsistently elevate their interests above similarly situated non-humans.

non-humans as a group are not moral agents.

When it comes to not harming animals one could take either of the most influential moral theories: (Tom Regan with Kant; Peter Singer with Utilitarianism) and apply them consistently. Cultural relativism and subjectivism cannot be co-opted because they are arational.

Your conflating two different things.

A moral theory that treats all moral agents consistently can't be said to be irrational as it relates to moral agents.

Such a theory is not morally relativistic per se.

If you want to hold that marginal cases should be treated equitably good or equitably bad then that is appropriate. If you say that the life of a baby should have no more value than the life of a goat then that is fine. If I choose to kill and eat both would you consider me consistent?

I chose to hold all moral agents equal in deserving of consideration and rights. This is a consistent position as it relates to moral agents. I choose to value human babies because nature has giving me the wherewithal to value human babies via evolution. My value of babies is bottom up.

As to relativism, I'm only pointing out that there is no universal guide that all rational persons would agree on to govern the behavior of all moral agents. We can always find exceptions for any prohibition against acts that most would agree are wrong.

 

[Cain]

The consequences are what they are. They don't change the relative nature of morality.

Yes, just declare it false. Good argument.

Heh, I thought we agreed earlier it was wrong. You know, Kropotkin, selfish genes, Dawkins? Since not even something as simple as this can be established, I wonder why we're bothering continuing,

But there is no "grounding" to anything. In the end there is only our wants, interests and considerations. Since many of us share similar wants, interests and considerations we can establish etiquette, ethics, laws to increase the likelihood that we will achieve social order, justice and anything else that we commonly hold to be "good".

Yes, you *can* do that.

If it is counter to the morals of society then of course I can.

No, you can't because that's just your society. Their society is different. But it's interesting you say this because it implies that you agree you cannot condemn murder, rape etc., if your society holds similar values.

But that is what Social anthropologists strive to do. Nothing is solved by declaring morals objective. We can only objectivly apply our morals. You will always come back to the same starting point. Perspective. You can't escape it.

A good deal of progress is possible through adhering to a universal morality: it allows us to arbitrate matters in a manner that is unobtainable through cultural relativism. As for another of your comments, it is possible to, as an Arendtian scholar once put it, "visit other perspectives." This is part of growing as a person, cultivating what Kant called an "enlarged mentality." We can learn a lot from the anthropologists who report back on other cultures, other forms of social organization etc. But justifications for certain types of behavior must transcend, "It's OK because my culture says it is." Apologists for female "circumcision" support the practice by appealing to universal values: the good of the woman, social harmony, etc. If they only said, "this is justified by the fact that it's part of culture, so **** off", then that wouldn't be much of an argument at all.

What is the basis for your hypothetical society to care only about white people or males for that matter? You cannot argue morals in a vacuum. I have never held that the behavior of the majority is de facto moral.

What does it matter what the basis is? Here you again seem to be striving for the moral foundationism that you claim to reject. They probably think males and whites are better, which justifies different types of treatment. Of course, they don't have a GOOD reason for this distinction, but neither does our society when it comes to animals.

Do you see how you're being completely inconsistent on this point? When it comes to consuming animals you talk about our soceity, and never ever ever provide a morally significant difference. When it comes to others you want to know their reason.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusivel. #1 If the majority believe murder to be wrong but act counter to their own beliefs for selfish purposes that would be immoral. #2 I'm stating that there is reason to have shared values that will likely benefit me if they also benefit society.

My point was much broader, in line with the teleolgocial/deontological distinction you mentioned earlier. Incidentially: 1) is inconsistent with moral subjectivism. 2) Is subject to criticisms cited earlier

Now, in the case of 1) you're right that the person is doing something wrong because he's being inconsistent: he's saying murder is wrong, but he's allowing for murder.

Well, that's basically the case made by animal rights advocates. I'm not espousing some kind of utilitarianism or Kantian morality. I take agreed upon ehtical precepts and apply them.

skipping ahead to thoughts in this vein:

A moral theory that treats all moral agents consistently can't be said to be irrational as it relates to moral agents.

Such a theory is not morally relativistic per se.

If you want to hold that marginal cases should be treated equitably good or equitably bad then that is appropriate. If you say that the life of a baby should have no more value than the life of a goat then that is fine. If I choose to kill and eat both would you consider me consistent?

Yes, I would say you were consistent -- though of course the question is: consistent with what? It depends on your reasoning but the scenario you describe is, on its face, consistent.

I'm not sure what ideas you're saying I'm "conflating". Cultural relativism and moral subjectivism are only consistent in their "almost-anything-goes" inconsistencies (particularly in the case of the latter).

I chose to hold all moral agents equal in deserving of consideration and rights. This is a consistent position as it relates to moral agents. I choose to value human babies because nature has giving me the wherewithal to value human babies via evolution. My value of babies is bottom up.

OK, but is this a good reason? If that's so then you have to accept the full range of implications: a cuckolded husband can then plausibly excuse the murder of his wife's baby by saying it was evolution at work. Evolution wants us to help our biological children to become successful, and so this may create pressures to generate advantages by lying, cheating, stealing and worse. Appealing to one's genetic legacy, however, is not typically a convincing form of argument.

Now that's taking your argument at face-value and assuming you do value babies (in general) because of some evolutionary quirk. I don't think this is the case to the extent that you think it is. Also remember that there is no end-point to evolution: it is a work in progress. If the people who prey on the innocent and weak manage to kill them, weed them out, then evolution selects for aggressive take-charge people with those predispositions, which subsequently inverts our value scheme: what we consider "good" and "moral" is "bad" and "immoral" via competition and survival of the fittest.

 

[RandFan]

Heh, I thought we agreed earlier it was wrong. You know, Kropotkin, selfish genes, Dawkins? Since not even something as simple as this can be established, I wonder why we're bothering continuing

Your statement is nonsensical.

No, you can't because that's just your society. Their society is different. But it's interesting you say this because it implies that you agree you cannot condemn murder, rape etc., if your society holds similar values.

?

How can I imply the positive by stating in the negative?

A good deal of progress is possible through adhering to a universal morality:

Oh, I understand the practical advantages of a universal morality. I just dispute that there is one.

What does it matter what the basis is? Here you again seem to be striving for the moral foundationism that you claim to reject.

I never said that there were no foundations for morality. I said there is no universal foundation.

Do you see how you're being completely inconsistent on this point?

Not at all. All of the individuals in question are moral agents.

a cuckolded husband can then plausibly excuse the murder of his wife's baby by saying it was evolution at work.

If society accepted that reasoning. As it is we extend some rights including life to babies.

Evolution wants us to help our biological children to become successful, and so this may create pressures to generate advantages by lying, cheating, stealing and worse. Appealing to one's genetic legacy, however, is not typically a convincing form of argument.

Note that such an argument as this seeks advantage over other moral agents.

Now that's taking your argument at face-value and assuming you do value babies (in general) because of some evolutionary quirk. I don't think this is the case to the extent that you think it is. Also remember that there is no end-point to evolution: it is a work in progress. If the people who prey on the innocent and weak manage to kill them, weed them out, then evolution selects for aggressive take-charge people with those predispositions, which subsequently inverts our value scheme: what we consider "good" and "moral" is "bad" and "immoral" via competition and survival of the fittest.

I have no argument with this paragraph. Agreed.