alexey Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Traditional discussions in this area usually present a choice between an "objective" morality and a "subjective" morality. On the surface, objective morality seems to be a more stable, more safe, more attractive option. However, how can we get to it? Many religions claim to have access to objective morality. We do not know whether their morality is objective, but we do know that it is based on authority. It is authoritarian. Subjective morality seems to have this unstable feel to it. He says one thing, she says another, everything is up in the air. Figuring things out involves deliberation, discussion, even voting. It is virtually guaranteed that not everybody will agree. While this approach has problems, it is also fundamentally democratic. So in morality, just like in government, democracy is a messy option but is the best option available. We the people have to figure this out. The alternative is authoritarian. (therefore i think a choice "objective vs. subjective" morality is a false one. The real choice is "authoritarian vs. democratic" morality.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Isnt there something in between authoritarian and democratic (you know, like our actual system as a Republic)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Isnt there something in between authoritarian and democratic (you know, like our actual system as a Republic)? Both are dictatorships. One is of the few and the other is of the many. Both are rather nasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Isnt there something in between authoritarian and democratic (you know, like our actual system as a Republic)?Yes, I think we actually do a very good job of enforcing moral judgments through a common law system in a democratic republic. When there is a difficult moral judgment, like how to punish a murderer, we rely on laws passed by democratic majorities, constitutional limits enacted by democratic supermajorities, prior precedents decided by professional jurists, and finally on a jury of peers. A good mix of governmental authorities is the most effective way to render moral judgments in real world practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 Isnt there something in between authoritarian and democratic (you know, like our actual system as a Republic)? Good point... By "democratic" I'm referring to all non-authoritarian approaches. ---------- Post added September-21st-2012 at 03:08 PM ---------- Yes, I think we actually do a very good job of enforcing moral judgments through a common law system in a democratic republic. When there is a difficult moral judgment, like how to punish a murderer, we rely on laws passed by democratic majorities, constitutional limits enacted by democratic supermajorities, prior precedents decided by professional jurists, and finally on a jury of peers. A good mix of governmental authorities is the most effective way to render moral judgments in real world practice. We are doing great, but we could do better. Gay marriage is one example. I think it would really help if we called a spade a spade when it comes to moral arguments from authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Both are dictatorships. One is of the few and the other is of the many. Both are rather nasty. I agree in spirit, but would say "Tyrannical" rather than Dictatorship". ---------- Post added September-21st-2012 at 03:12 PM ---------- Good point... By "democratic" I'm referring to all non-authoritarian approaches.---------- Post added September-21st-2012 at 03:08 PM ---------- We are doing great, but we could do better. Gay marriage is one example. I think it would really help if we called a spade a spade when it comes to moral arguments from authority. I agree we could do a lot better in that regard. Though I think that the 2 common sides of the Gay Marriage debate (the pro and the con) are ultimately both authoritarian should a side win. Really, the only way to avoid that topic becoming an authoritarian decision would be to remove the government from the equation altogether Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 So in morality, just like in government, democracy is a messy option but is the best option available. 1. How do you know what is "best"? You are sneaking in an assumption as a conclusion here. 2. Your entire post commits the logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad Consequentiam. Even if we accept your unproven premise that a "democratic" morality is "better", that doesn't make it true. If objective morals and values exist, then they exist, regardless of whether or not you would prefer they do not. 3. Your distaste for the terminology doesn't make the dichotomy a false one. Either objective morals and duties exist, or they do not (subjective). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 I agree we could do a lot better in that regard. Though I think that the 2 common sides of the Gay Marriage debate (the pro and the con) are ultimately both authoritarian should a side win. Really, the only way to avoid that topic becoming an authoritarian decision would be to remove the government from the equation altogether I disagree with the way you use the word "authoritarian". I do not like a lot of things that our government does, but I do not consider those actions authoritarian because our government is democratically elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 We are doing great, but we could do better. Gay marriage is one example. Wait a minute here... How can we do better? We voted, the gays lost. Majority rules, right? "Democratic" morality for the win! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 1. How do you know what is "best"? You are sneaking in an assumption as a conclusion here. I was just stating what I think... and I assumed that in this country people would generally consider democracy superior to authoritarianism. 2. Your entire post commits the logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad Consequentiam. Even if we accept your unproven premise that a "democratic" morality is "better", that doesn't make it true. If objective morals and values exist, then they exist, regardless of whether or not you would prefer they do not. I am not arguing that something is the ultimate objective truth. I am arguing for superiority of a democratic method over authoritarian methods. 3. Your distaste for the terminology doesn't make the dichotomy a false one. Either objective morals and duties exist, or they do not (subjective). A choice between what we know exists (subjective morals) and what we have no way of knowing whether it exists (objective morals) is indeed a false one. In terms of choices that are actually available, we have a choice between democratic morality and authoritarian morality. ---------- Post added September-21st-2012 at 03:36 PM ---------- Wait a minute here... How can we do better? We voted, the gays lost. Majority rules, right? "Democratic" morality for the win! Democracy is not guaranteed to get it right... but it evolves. It took us a bit to figure out the slavery thing, the women voting thing, etc... but we're moving on... I think that democracy would work better if we as a society gave less weight to authoritarian arguments. That is what I am arguing for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 1. How do you know what is "best"? You are sneaking in an assumption as a conclusion here.2. Your entire post commits the logical fallacy known as Argumentum ad Consequentiam. Even if we accept your unproven premise that a "democratic" morality is "better", that doesn't make it true. If objective morals and values exist, then they exist, regardless of whether or not you would prefer they do not. . Why, he's almost as good at it as William Lane Craig himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I was just stating what I think... and I assumed that in this country people would generally consider democracy superior to authoritarianism. So you're using democracy to support the idea that democracy is better? Now you're reasoning in a circle. I am arguing for superiority of a democratic method over authoritarian methods. Superior according to who? A vote of the group? There's that circle again. Democracy is not guaranteed to get it right... but it evolves. How can democracy get it wrong? Compared to what? Isn't democracy our standard to begin with now? Evolves? Evolves towards what? It took us a bit to figure out the slavery thing, the women voting thing, etc... but we're moving on... How do you know we figured it out? What if we return to slavery later? Would it be "right" then? Heck, there's still slavery now, even in the U.S., and according to this article, there are more slaves in the world now than at any time in human history. Is it right now? ---------- Post added September-21st-2012 at 03:56 PM ---------- Why, he's almost as good at it as William Lane Craig himself. It doesn't take two PhDs to spot a series of logical fallacies so egregious that a freshman in high school would recoil in horror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 So you're using democracy to support the idea that democracy is better? Now you're reasoning in a circle. Superior according to who? A vote of the group? There's that circle again. How can democracy get it wrong? Compared to what? Isn't democracy our standard to begin with now? Evolves? Evolves towards what? How do you know we figured it out? What if we return to slavery later? Would it be "right" then? Heck, there's still slavery now, even in the U.S.. According to this article, there are more slaves in the world now than at any time in human history. Is it right now? I can discuss problems of democratic morality... but you seem to imply that you are offering something better. What are you offering but a purely theoretical concept that invariably becomes democratic or authoritarian when implemented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I can discuss problems of democratic morality... but you seem to imply that you are offering something better. One thing I can provide is appropriate terminology. The correct term is "subjective", not "democratic". You don't get to change technical philosophical terms just because you feel like it. Most people seem to think you are simply talking about how governments should derive at the morals behind their laws, so either they're confused about what you're driving at or I am, and either way changing terminology isn't helping. For the record, though, if you are only talking about how governments should form laws, then I agree. Democracy (or more accurately, a Republic) is my preferred method too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Why, he's almost as good at it as William Lane Craig himself. Heresy. :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 One thing I can provide is appropriate terminology. The correct term is "subjective", not "democratic". You don't get to change technical philosophical terms just because you feel like it. I do not have formal philosophical training, but my research shows that you are flat out wrong on this. The proper term appears to be "Moral relativism", and there are TONS of different schools of thought and different terminologies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism Most people seem to think you are simply talking about how governments should derive at the morals behind their laws, so either they're confused about what you're driving or I am, and either way changing terminology isn't helping. For the record, though, if you are only talking about how governments should form laws, then I agree. Democracy (or more accurately, a Republic) is my preferred method too. I am talking about the democratic process and deliberation in the marketplace of ideas where humans attempt to convince each other about what we should do and why. Historically, arguments from authority (force and/or religion) have dominated this discussion. I'd like to see an end of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I do not have formal philosophical training, but my research shows that you are flat out wrong on this. Please feel free to use "moral relativism" then. You could also go with "moral anti-realist", for what that's worth. I chose "subjective" because it's used sometimes in the literature (and in that wiki article you linked, actually), but is more commonly understandable than "moral anti-realist". It's not the most technical term, however, so I accept your correction on that point. "Democratic morality", though, is misleading. Your clarification seems to suggest that I was right in my interpretation of your goals in this thread, and most everybody seems to have thought you mean "democracy" as in government. Oh, and lest my answer imply otherwise, I don't have any formal philosophical training either. Historically, arguments from authority (force and/or religion) have dominated this discussion. I'd like to see to see an end of that. People who hold to the existence of objective moral values and duties don't get to vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 Please feel free to use "moral relativism" then. You could also go with "moral anti-realist", for what that's worth. I chose "subjective" because it's used sometimes in the literature, but is more commonly understandable than "moral anti-realist". It's not the most technical term, however, so I accept your correction on that point. "Democratic morality", though, is misleading. Your clarification seems to suggest that I was right in my interpretation of your goals in this thread, and most everybody seems to have thought you mean "democracy" as in government. Oh, and lest my answer imply otherwise, I don't have any formal philosophical training either. I am more concerned with communicating my thoughts rather than using philosophically proper terminology. I chose the word "democratic" to describe a deliberation of subjective moralities, and I chose the word "authoritarian" to describe authority-based objective morality because those are the options as I see them. People who hold to the existence of objective moral values and duties don't get to vote? Did I suggest that? I think that the deliberative process will naturally de-emphasise arguments from authority if they are clearly exposed as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Interesting discussion. I've not heard it framed objective and subjective. I've heard morality discussed as God's will, vs the good of society... The difference being morality is subjective depending upon one's beliefs, laws should thus not be be based on morality but rather what is in the public interest. Morality should be left to personal codes of conduct. I think the founding fathers tackled this exact same issue and handled it in the way described when they wrote and agreed upon the very first phrase of the first ammendment of the constitution.... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Christians don't agree on much with regard to moraity, non christians likely agree on even less; what we can agree on is mutual respect and equality under the law which that implyes... This means basing laws on something other than our personal beliefs on God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupidmorals Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Ugh, this argument again? This is the same discussion as many previous threads, just couched is slightly different terms. I will now participate in it. Look, Alexey, there either are objective morals, or there are not. They don't need to be derived from a religion, necessarily, to be objective; although it would probably be really difficult (if not impossible?) to "know" that they are objective without some kind of a "higher power" involved (God, the Universe, whatever). If objective morality exists, it's not authoritarian, it's just reality. It's just the way things are and should be. Note that this doesn't prevent people from developing subjective morality and living very happily with it, it's just that if their morality differs from the objective "should be" morality, it means they're Wrong. If objective morality does not exist, then nobody can be Right and no one can be Wrong. We're all just "making it up". There may be a deep, seemingly universal basis for one's morality, and when applied on large scales and agreed upon by most people it may work really well, but it is still, fundamentally, arbitrary. And it may well seem right and true, but it's a delusion. And that's fine. Really, it doesn't matter if their morality is based on something permanent and real, just so long as it works for them (as a person, a society, a species, etc.). What it does mean, is that any largely agreed upon code of morality is a wrong and bad one the minute it is replaced by the newest consensus. It means the morality we have now, be it "democratically" derived or not, is good and right and true in its entirety just because it's what was agreed upon. We made the ruling, BAM, it's done, we're right. And every past code of morality that differed from what we now have, was wrong. And that's fine. But it does mean that in the future when new codes of morality are "elected", it will be decided that every past code of morality was wrong, including the one we just had. And that's fine. It's just that it means that we might move "backward" as we think of it now. In the past, many thought slavery was an okay thing. We say they were wrong because we don't do it. In the future, for whatever reason, it may become a thing that happens again. And it will be right, it will be morally correct because we will say it is. And that's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 It doesn't take two PhDs to spot a series of logical fallacies so egregious that a freshman in high school would recoil in horror. I dunno, I thought it was exactly the kind of move a college freshman would embrace from my experience. :pfft: While the below was written earlier, during multiple interruptions, it will somewhat connect to stupidmoral’s post, and at least I’m playing a little bit -----which surprises me. I’m glad I can still surprise myself. I was wondering if "moral relativism" (one of my faves) would appear. It is all relative (and variable)--there are no absolute laws or standards--even that claimed to be so theologically in philosophical arguments, to my view. Using a commandment as what should be a safe example of God's absolute objective morality, and even if we adjust Thou Shalt Not Kill to Thou Shalt Not Murder as has become the fashion after centuries of questioned, we still find out there are still all kinds of ways murder (using common definitions) is "ok" too, with God, and can even come with the blessing and cosigning (however regretful accompanying commiseration may be) of devout Christians/Muslims. One example is "collateral damage." We're in a "justified war" and in such cases are told it's ok to kill-----in the past I could drop a bomb on a village in Vietnam and off some people who have never threatened me, my family, my neighbors, or even my country directly as far as I know, all based on some political/strategic premise that I have no way of knowing is right or wrong in the end---as even now, and we may be diligently trying to only target enemy soldiers, but we know civilians will die (including children, and they are not all in such a situation where they could get away) but it's accepted and it's a green light (however regrettable) with many Christians, including clergy, though obviously not all. And God (according to the Bible and Koran) murders (by normal definition) when he sees fit. So do his agents under his instructions. If you wanted to really push an argument’s boundaries, you could even suggest fatal natural disasters (another old and worn philosophical bromide) often result in murder by God for "his own good reasons." The free pass there is that God is not subject to his own rules, and he has a reason you can't understand, etc etc--always an awesome card to have to play in an argument. It reminds me of when Burt in Soap waves his crossing arms back and forth in front of his face and snaps his fingers to "become invisible." So in reality as I perceive it, claiming there's an absolute pure objective morality and its origin is a deity just doesn't mean a lot, however elegantly arranged and performed as a concept. Morality is and always has been (in my viewpoint, and at this point in my experience) subjective and variable, but has some elements and aspects (forms of behaviors with powerful "yes" and "no" connections for most normally developed humans) driven by evolutionary forces and our species experiences. And it is dynamic. It ebbs and flows and moves erratically and in any way but steadily and dependably linear. Now that was a rather wandering, off-the-cuff, and poker-night version what could be a very long and much more intellectual exchange on classical philosophical arguments on moral relativism among other things, but it's not the main reason I'm making this post--the following is. :pfft: alexy, how do you think we do arrive at our codes (social and legal) now? Do you see some God descend and give them to us authoritatively? Now if your real point here is that you wish people would not use a belief in God and all that their particular religion entails as THE platform from which they construct their thoughts on morality, and you prefer if it wasn't so, fine. Just come right out and say it, is my suggestion. They're (religious believers) not going away anytime soon (thankfully IMO, for more than one reason), any more than are people of differing faiths and agnostics and atheists. If you'd rather argue the reality (as some see it) and pragmatic effectiveness of a secular, and ultimately subjective (not a term to fear in the topic, though so many do) morality with its roots in evolutionary biology, psychology (connected of course), and arguable socially useful benefits (to the survival of the species-- happiness/contentment/comfort/peace of mind/security can all be tied to facilitating survival) as widely recognized over history as your base platform, why not do it? The "group dialogue" is how it's being done here already, although varying groups and individual influences often have a lot to say on how "democratic/republic", or pluralistic, the process is, of course. And in a society we will have “moral authority“, period. We can only argue it’s origins and form. The need is there, no matter what kind of debate we hold or what “winner” we declare. When someone coughs up the inevitable “then if it’s not absolutely wrong in the edicts of some God to kill babies (though He and his angels did kill babies according to the Book) who cry too much, then why not do it?”, you can just say, "I just think it would be way nicer not to, and be better for family unity, and they seem so cute, and I think they’re supposed to cry, and they don’t really bother me too much, and they might grow into some cool Redskin player….and well, anyway, I just don’t want to. ” And you can take comfort in that you’ll likely find that most people whether Buddhist or Jainist or Shamanist or Shinto or Muslim or atheist or agnostic simply agree with you. So there's a heap of hot gas to play with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 In my opinion, it doesn't take belief in God to find objective morality. Heck, even monkeys understand basic fairness. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8mynrRd7Ak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 So, mob rule makes for the best morality? Not sure I want to vote on that one While some morality is gray and evolving... other rules and codes of behavior seem pretty imprinted and static. I don't think it's one rule or strategy fits all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 de Waal is a fantastic speaker and brilliant. He's been to the U of W and Chapman a few times (he's active in psych dep't in ATL). While always a primate guy, he's joining most in the behavioral field in making neuroscience a major focus. (to the best of my knowing, he'd call himself an atheist or a skeptical agnostic) ---------- Post added September-21st-2012 at 05:39 PM ---------- ... other rules and codes of behavior seem pretty imprinted and static. Intro from one of de Waal's books if you want to read more on such matters (he has a lot of intelligent <and well-mannered> company): In this thoroughly engaging book, leading primatologist and thinker Frans de Waal offers a heartening, illuminating new perspective on human nature. Bringing together his pioneering research on primate behavior, the latest findings in evolutionary biology, and insights from moral philosophy, de Waal explains that we don’t need the specters of God or the law in order to act morally. Instead, our moral nature stems from our biology—specifically, our primate social emotions, which include empathy, reciprocity, and fairness. We can glimpse this in the behavior of our closest relatives in the animal kingdom: chimpanzees soothe distressed neighbors, and bonobos will voluntarily open a door to offer a companion access to their own food. Building on a wealth of evidence, de Waal reveals that morality is not dictated to us by religion or social strictures. Rather, it is the inevitable product of our biological nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Did I suggest that?I think that the deliberative process will naturally de-emphasise arguments from authority if they are clearly exposed as such. Can you select a moral topic and put forward an argument in support of a position that doesn't involve authority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.