The capacity to formulate and understand moral rules is the capacity to formulate and understand any type of rule. If you think whether a creature has that capacity is subjective, try teaching a moral rule, or the rules of chess, to an earthworm. Let me know how well it learned them (based on its subsequent behaviors, of course, since, that is the only type of evidence you can ever get).
Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
o.k., if we're going to define who is or is not a moral agent by behavior than the wild rabbit that sleeps in my backyard certainly deserves the title more than almost any person. He is completely harmless, only eat plants, and never harms another sentient creature.GE Morton: The capacity to formulate and understand moral rules is the capacity to formulate and understand any type of rule.
The fact is, your definition of "moral agent" is subjectively biased. You only consider adult human beings to be moral agents, no matter how amoral or immoral they may act. And you said that children are not moral agents, which does not accord with your theory, since they can learn morals at a young age, and their behavior may be more morally admirable than any adults. Is there some arbitrary age they must reach to earn the right of moral agency?
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
You seem to be using "good" here as a synonym for "well-being." I agree that a sound moral theory must be universal, and concerned with the well-being of all moral agents. But trying to accomplish that aim by exhorting everyone to "love their neighbor" is an exercise in futility. Emotional responses are not rational and therefore not susceptible to argument. Indeed, the reason we need moral rules is just because everyone does not love their neighbor, and never will, partly because they have many antagonistic interests and goals which provoke conflicts, and because of visceral animosities that have no rational explanation.Belindi wrote: ↑September 27th, 2019, 7:14 am
Universal good is to be understood contrasted with tribal good. Universal good is not to be understood as some particular good such as giving each person a Bible, or an egg for their breakfast.Universal good is not a thing but an attitude.It's an attitude towards what you think is your own in-group; instead of only the tribe your love mercy, pity, and peace should be aimed at everybody including foreigners and people who are disabled by whatever.
Now you seem to be using "good" in the more conventional way, as something that contributes to well-being. But that differs from person to person. What is a "false good" for Alfie may be a "genuine good" for Bruno. But perhaps I'm not grasping your point there.The complexities in the small print need not deter you.True, there are large concerns such as climate change that concern all men from every tribe.The way to separate genuine good from false good and lies is to look and see who is disinterested.
A moral theory embraces everyone (who qualifies as a moral agent or moral subject). It is for that reason that a moral principle that requires sacrifice of the well-being for some in order to improve it for others is ruled out prima facie: it violates the universality/equal agency requirement.I don't advocate removing all incentives to work.There are people who cannot work. These are people too and there is no way we can benefit from illegitimating tribalism unless we include less charming individuals.
That is true. But the meanings given in common dictionaries are not determined by lone individuals; they are reports of the usages of words by people in everyday conversation. The eclectic meaning you're giving to "theft" is not the meaning understood by most people when they use that term. That term has pejorative connotations, because theft reduces someone's welfare --- harms them. You're seeking to transfer those pejorative connotations to acquisitions which harmed no one.I am glad you keep raising this point. Because language is a social behaviour meanings are determined not by lone individuals but by individuals living. playing, and working together.
?? But you criticized him, because he "deprived" someone else of the antelope.Socialists don't necessarily want all property to be abolished. Again, please see how I supported Alfie who needed to own the antelope he killed and ate.
The extent to which socialists would abolish private property varies from socialist to socialist.
Perhaps. If so, "the public" can make the owner an offer he can't refuse. It may not steal it in order to secure those benefits for nothing.Socialists want only specific resources to be public property. As a private property becomes more beneficial, or conversely more harmful, to all men that property should be publicly owned.
Well, that would effectively end private investment in research for new drugs.The most recent instance of this is ownership of drugs by big pharma who should be forced to sell those at a reasonable price to people who need them.
Nearly every drug can do harm if abused. But I agree government should intervene if a manufacturer is marketing a drug in such a way as to encourage abuse.Conversely big pharma should be forced to stop producing drugs that for one reason or another does more harm than good.
Yes. There are many "natural commons," i.e., natural goods which have been used in common by all in a position to do so since time immemorial --- the atmosphere, the oceans (for fishing and transportation), major rivers, some forests and rangelands, etc. Such goods cannot be privatized; they are already "owned" by all in common.Some resources such as breathable air are from ancient times regarded as public property.No, it is not. None of those factors or conditions are mentioned in any dictionary. You are still trying to re-define the word. Theft is the taking, without permission, of another's property, simpliciter. Your property is those goods you have created or discovered, or acquired via a chain of consent from the creator or discoverer. That is how the term is defined in virtually all legal systems. Needs, resources, consciousness, have nothing to do with the meaning of those words. You could perhaps invoke some of those considerations in an argument that theft is sometimes justified. But you would need to construct that moral argument. They do not have a role in the term's definition.
How does that follow?As natural resources shrink so must the extent of private property be less.
?? That doesn't answer the question.Inherited goods. Ownership of capital resources.A laborer's fair share of the fruits of his labor is the entirety of it. What would entitle anyone else to any part of it?
"Should be"? Per what principle? If the workers did not produce that machinery or pay to have it designed and built, what is the basis for their claim to it? And why should the size of the enterprise matter? If you own a truck, for which you paid $100K, and hire a driver to drive it, it belongs to you, but if you have 10 trucks, for which you paid $1 million, they become the property of the 10 drivers you hire?99% is too much by far. The materials and machinery should be owned by labour except when the enterprise is a small one.
Please explain that reasoning.
How should those rewards be determined --- by what others are willing to pay for those various services, or by some autocrat's decree?In any given industry there are not two structures,labour and owners, but three ; labour ,owners, and technologists.The rewards for each of the three are structured differently from each other.
The differential is determined by the contribution each factor makes to the product. In most cases of mass-produced goods the machinery and technology involved contributes more --- much more --- to productivity than the efforts of workers (that is not the case with craftsman or custom-made goods).Not only is your body sacrosanct to yourself so also should be your labour and the fruits of it. This is overwhelmingly not the case anywhere on Earth and socialists want to reduce the differential between labourers and those who profit too much from others' labour.
No, it is not. Now you're trying to re-define "contract." A contract is an explicit agreement between specific persons to do specific things. An expectation or hope or "feeling" on Alfie's part that Bruno ought to do something is not a contract between them.A contract is a contract including when it's not codified by word or deed. The real is what people do and feel they ought to do notwithstanding it's maybe not written in some code of behaviour.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
You might reflect upon Quine's distinction between rules that fit and rules that guide.Felix wrote: ↑September 28th, 2019, 2:54 amo.k., if we're going to define who is or is not a moral agent by behavior than the wild rabbit that sleeps in my backyard certainly deserves the title more than almost any person. He is completely harmless, only eat plants, and never harms another sentient creature.GE Morton: The capacity to formulate and understand moral rules is the capacity to formulate and understand any type of rule.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -2557-7_14
The behavior of the rabbit you observe establishes only that it fits some rule you can articulate. But it does not establish that the rabbit is aware of the rule and guided by it. To confirm that you'd need to observe behavior that changes upon presentation of the rule --- which would be difficult, since rabbits cannot understand speech and would be unable to perceive the noises you make as a rule. A moral agent is a creature who can understand a rule and conform its behavior to the rule.
Yes, with respect to the second clause. Whether a creature is a moral agent does not depend upon whether it acts morally; it depends upon whether it can formulate and understand moral rules. Virtually all persons who act immorally nonetheless understand moral rules. We can establish that by observing, say, a thief's behavior --- his attempts to avoid detection and punishment (because he knows he is violating a rule), his invocation of the rule should he himself should become a victim of an immoral act, and his ability to alter his behavior upon presentation of the rule.The fact is, your definition of "moral agent" is subjectively biased. You only consider adult human beings to be moral agents, no matter how amoral or immoral they may act.
Whether a child is a moral agent depends upon whether he or she understands moral rules. At what age that occurs varies from child to child.
No. I said that young children are not. How young varies with the child.And you said that children are not moral agents . . .
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
I would say that if the person truly understood what it means to be moral, s/he would not violate moral rules. If someone can not add simple sums, we would not presume he understands the rules of mathematics.GE Morton: Virtually all persons who act immorally nonetheless understand moral rules.
He attempts to avoid detection because he knows he has committed a crime, and can be punished for it, not necessarily because he gives a damn about moral rules.GE Morton: We can establish that by observing, say, a thief's behavior --- his attempts to avoid detection and punishment (because he knows he is violating a rule).
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
'Love' does often refer to an emotion, lust even.'love' in the context is benign intention in thought word and deed outwards from self to (an)other.Emotions are part of the intention but the main part of benign intention is reasoned not reactive. Love may be not a lot of fun for the one who loves but involve sacrificing personal ease or pleasure.exhorting everyone to "love their neighbor" is an exercise in futility. Emotional responses are not rational and therefore not susceptible to argument. Indeed, the reason we need moral rules is just because everyone does not love their neighbor, and never will, partly because they have many antagonistic interests and goals which provoke conflicts, and because of visceral animosities that have no rational explanation.
This is what I mean by "the small print". It need not deter you from drastically reducing the enormous differences in wealth .Among the more obvious ways to do so is to deprive certain dictators of their wealth and spend it on hospitals and schools. Another way to reduce the differential is to tax people according to their ability to pay tax and spend it on clean air and clean water and healthy food and housing that affects everybody without exception.Now you seem to be using "good" in the more conventional way, as something that contributes to well-being. But that differs from person to person. What is a "false good" for Alfie may be a "genuine good" for Bruno. But perhaps I'm not grasping your point there.The complexities in the small print need not deter you.True, there are large concerns such as climate change that concern all men from every tribe.The way to separate genuine good from false good and lies is to look and see who is disinterested.
Some people have more power than others to be of service.With the best will in the world some people are powerless to help. The more you can help the more you are morally responsible to yourself and others to do so. The ability to help is a relative ability and there are two beneficiaries the server and the served. The moral agent sometimes cannot fulfil her intentions.A moral theory embraces everyone (who qualifies as a moral agent or moral subject). It is for that reason that a moral principle that requires sacrifice of the well-being for some in order to improve it for others is ruled out prima facie: it violates the universality/equal agency requirement.
The eclectic meaning I am giving to 'theft' is not unknown, not terribly eclectic. More importantly language is not static but evolves according to social needs. Social needs are defined partly by authorities and partly by popular usage. I speak my mind as do you and I claim property is theft. Some property theft is justifiable, even 'theft' according to law is justifiable and justified under some circumstances. Theft is relative to need and to availability of the resource in question. Once that all people are accorded personhood need is easy to identify.That is true. But the meanings given in common dictionaries are not determined by lone individuals; they are reports of the usages of words by people in everyday conversation. The eclectic meaning you're giving to "theft" is not the meaning understood by most people when they use that term. That term has pejorative connotations, because theft reduces someone's welfare --- harms them. You're seeking to transfer those pejorative connotations to acquisitions which harmed no one.
I can't have explained properly. I did not criticise Alfie. Rather I supported Alfie. There were plenty of antelopes and Alfie was hungry.?? But you criticized him, because he "deprived" someone else of the antelope.Socialists don't necessarily want all property to be abolished. Again, please see how I supported Alfie who needed to own the antelope he killed and ate.
The extent to which socialists would abolish private property varies from socialist to socialist.
Socialists want only specific resources to be public property. As a private property becomes more beneficial, or conversely more harmful, to all men that property should be publicly owned.
There must remain some incentive for investment. Have you not seen the profits big Pharma make ?Well, that would effectively end private investment in research for new drugs.The most recent instance of this is ownership of drugs by big pharma who should be forced to sell those at a reasonable price to people who need them.
The struggle for existence as natural resources become less and less. You now have a choice of being powerful enough to keep plenty natural resources for yourself and friends (fascism and so forth) or spread the access to natural resources evenly among all men (socialism and so forth).Yes. There are many "natural commons," i.e., natural goods which have been used in common by all in a position to do so since time immemorial --- the atmosphere, the oceans (for fishing and transportation), major rivers, some forests and rangelands, etc. Such goods cannot be privatized; they are already "owned" by all in common.
How does that follow?As natural resources shrink so must the extent of private property be less.
True, there should be rewards for the inventor and the entrepreneur. However they could not profit but for the labourers. In the case of the artisan who invents, sets up the business and does the labouring there is no problem about fair distribution.The more the enterprise employs labourers the more it depends on that employment and for that reason the labourers merit fair shares."Should be"? Per what principle? If the workers did not produce that machinery or pay to have it designed and built, what is the basis for their claim to it? And why should the size of the enterprise matter? If you own a truck, for which you paid $100K, and hire a driver to drive it, it belongs to you, but if you have 10 trucks, for which you paid $1 million, they become the property of the 10 drivers you hire?
This applies to enterprises that are founded on shareholders' cash or enterprises the owner has built by gradual stages.
Market forces are unreliable so the three (or more) interested parties can and should sit round a table and arrive at a consensus.How should those rewards be determined --- by what others are willing to pay for those various services, or by some autocrat's decree?In any given industry there are not two structures,labour and owners, but three ; labour ,owners, and technologists.The rewards for each of the three are structured differently from each other.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/acas
With automation that is more and more the case. This causes great social problems with unemployment and that is a new worthwhile discussion.The differential is determined by the contribution each factor makes to the product. In most cases of mass-produced goods the machinery and technology involved contributes more --- much more --- to productivity than the efforts of workers (that is not the case with craftsman or custom-made goods).Not only is your body sacrosanct to yourself so also should be your labour and the fruits of it. This is overwhelmingly not the case anywhere on Earth and socialists want to reduce the differential between labourers and those who profit too much from others' labour.
If only all contracts were explicit!No, it is not. Now you're trying to re-define "contract." A contract is an explicit agreement between specific persons to do specific things. An expectation or hope or "feeling" on Alfie's part that Bruno ought to do something is not a contract between them.A contract is a contract including when it's not codified by word or deed. The real is what people do and feel they ought to do notwithstanding it's maybe not written in some code of behaviour.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
There are so many obvious counterexamples to that it would be tedious to list them.
You're equating "cannot" with "does not." If he cannot add simple sums, you're correct that he does not understand the rules of arithmetic. If he does not --- perhaps because he is a mob accountant "cooking the books" --- you're incorrect. Understanding a rule does not entail following it. If it did there would be no such thing as cheating.If someone can not add simple sums, we would not presume he understands the rules of mathematics.
Now you're equating understanding a rule with caring about it. If the thief knows he has committed a crime and would be punished if caught then he understands the rule --- a law, in this case. If a defendant truly does not understand the law his attorney would likely enter an insanity plea (or challenge the law on the grounds that it was vague or incomprehensible to the average person).He attempts to avoid detection because he knows he has committed a crime, and can be punished for it, not necessarily because he gives a damn about moral rules.GE Morton: We can establish that by observing, say, a thief's behavior --- his attempts to avoid detection and punishment (because he knows he is violating a rule).
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
Agape is a sort of love. Eros is another sort of love. Philia is another. Storge is another. Neither of us is an ancient Greek , however both of us might benefit from ancient Greek analysis of concepts.I referred of course, to agape, and storge is closely related psychologically to agape. Philia and eros too are psychologically related to agape .Well, as I've pointed out several times, inventing your own definitions of common words frustrates conversation. I know of no dictionary that defines love as a "benign intention," or ever heard anyone else use it to mean that. Most people have have benign intentions with regard to most other people most of the time. But they do not love them all.
It's unlikely that people will stop believing in the need for air, water, food, shelter, and nurturing the young. True all else is not a small matter but all other rights such as sex, reproduction, religious beliefs, social equality are relative matters which need to be agreed upon ;as a matter of fact, in an imperfect world, those don't go without saying.Not at all clear about what is this "small print" to which you refer. That what counts as a good differs between Alfie and Bruno is not a small matter.This is what I mean by "the small print". It need not deter you from drastically reducing the enormous differences in wealth .Among the more obvious ways to do so is to deprive certain dictators of their wealth and spend it on hospitals and schools. Another way to reduce the differential is to tax people according to their ability to pay tax and spend it on clean air and clean water and healthy food and housing that affects everybody without exception.
That he alternative to reducing the difference yields worse effects, is my argument against Nozick.What deters me from reducing differences in wealth among agents is the lack of any moral argument or rational justification for doing so. As Nozick observed, "While there is no shortage of presumptions in favor of [material] equality, there is a surprising dearth of arguments supporting that presumption." Do you have such an argument?
I base my moral beliefs on naturalism. That's to say , although human nature is practically indefinable the human animal has essential needs to be anything at all. The human individual has core needs plus individual needs. Among the essential needs of the human animal is community without which there could be no human animals.That is no doubt true. But if you propose to force people to "be of service," you'll need some moral argument justifying that force. No person has any a priori duty to serve anyone. Moral duties derive from some moral theory. If you believe everyone has a duty to serve others, please articulate some theory, some rational basis, for that belief.Some people have more power than others to be of service.
The status quo is there is such a thing as personal property. The meaning of "all property is theft" is twofold. 1.If Alfie consumes one particular thing Bruno has no opportunity to get it for himself.Fact.Well, that claim is incoherent, Belindi. If all property is theft, then there is no such thing as property. And if there is no such thing as property there is no such thing as theft. You're allowing yourself to be confused by a nonsensical slogan.The eclectic meaning I am giving to 'theft' is not unknown, not terribly eclectic. More importantly language is not static but evolves according to social needs. Social needs are defined partly by authorities and partly by popular usage. I speak my mind as do you and I claim property is theft.
2. If Alfie refuses to share the roasted antelope with hungry Bruno then Alfie's property is theft. Traditional moral definition of theft.
"Social needs": societies evolve and their ideas evolve. Particular usages of language change according to popular ideas of needs and also according to authorities' demands. Together those constitute social needs Thus we have recent additions to dictionaries, and laws against blasphemy or incitement to murder.And I have no idea what qualifies as a "social need." The only needs I know of relevant to moral agents are the needs of individuals, which differ depending upon what they desire, what they count as a good or goal, which differ from individual to individual.
Regarding investments in big companies: 1. Economic growth must slow down or we will all become extinct. 2. Economic growth depends upon both investments and good management. When the management takes too much the small shareholders suffer losses.
But manufactured goods used natural resources to get made and will use natural resources when they are discarded!Most private property does not consist of natural resources, Belindi. Indeed, natural resources constitute only about 3% of GDP globally, about 0.5% in the USA.The struggle for existence as natural resources become less and less. You now have a choice of being powerful enough to keep plenty natural resources for yourself and friends (fascism and so forth) or spread the access to natural resources evenly among all men (socialism and so forth).
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY ... view=chart
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankin ... es_income/
The overwhelming portion of private property consists of manufactured goods.
Basic needs such as civil engineering infrastructure, food, shelter, education, legal aid, universal suffrage, ownership of mind and body, and health care. If the industry / industrial complex cannot or will not provide those the industry/industrial complex is failing. There is an argument for government to prop up failing industry but unless the industry in question can provide the above it should not be financed from the public purse. The same argument goes for central and local government policies.Well, I agree. But I suspect we'd disagree about what counts as a "fair share." I've given my definition before: a fair share of the returns from a cooperative endeavor is the share proportionate to the value of of each person's contribution to that endeavor. What is yours?
I was unsure if consensus is the word I want. Can 'consensus' cover mode, or democratic vote? I'd like for there to be trades and professional unions as well as management sitting around the table. I'd like for the consensus to be based upon mode or democratic vote.
I agree! I assume, however, that that you're using "consensus" according to the dictionary definition, which means unanimous agreement by all parties:
Perhaps 'contract' is not the best word I might have chosen. However if parties know each others' unwritten or inexplicit mores then it's equally as bad if not worse to betray those as it is to betray a written contract. Interpersonal trust is the very basis of a society that work
If it is not it is not a contract. If a contract dispute comes to court and the judge can't determine who has agree to what, the contract is deemed unenforceable and the suit dismissed.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
------------------
Well, as I've pointed out several times, inventing your own definitions of common words frustrates conversation. I know of no dictionary that defines love as a "benign intention," or ever heard anyone else use it to mean that. Most people have have benign intentions with regard to most other people most of the time. But they do not love them all.
Not at all clear about what is this "small print" to which you refer. That what counts as a good differs between Alfie and Bruno is not a small matter.This is what I mean by "the small print". It need not deter you from drastically reducing the enormous differences in wealth .Among the more obvious ways to do so is to deprive certain dictators of their wealth and spend it on hospitals and schools. Another way to reduce the differential is to tax people according to their ability to pay tax and spend it on clean air and clean water and healthy food and housing that affects everybody without exception.Now you seem to be using "good" in the more conventional way, as something that contributes to well-being. But that differs from person to person. What is a "false good" for Alfie may be a "genuine good" for Bruno. But perhaps I'm not grasping your point there.
What deters me from reducing differences in wealth among agents is the lack of any moral argument or rational justification for doing so. As Nozick observed, "While there is no shortage of presumptions in favor of [material] equality, there is a surprising dearth of arguments supporting that presumption." Do you have such an argument?
That is no doubt true. But if you propose to force people to "be of service," you'll need some moral argument justifying that force. No person has any a priori duty to serve anyone. Moral duties derive from some moral theory. If you believe everyone has a duty to serve others, please articulate some theory, some rational basis, for that belief.Some people have more power than others to be of service.
Well, that claim is incoherent, Belindi. If all property is theft, then there is no such thing as property. And if there is no such thing as property there is no such thing as theft. You're allowing yourself to be confused by a nonsensical slogan.The eclectic meaning I am giving to 'theft' is not unknown, not terribly eclectic. More importantly language is not static but evolves according to social needs. Social needs are defined partly by authorities and partly by popular usage. I speak my mind as do you and I claim property is theft.
And I have no idea what qualifies as a "social need." The only needs I know of relevant to moral agents are the needs of individuals, which differ depending upon what they desire, what they count as a good or goal, which differ from individual to individual.
Yes. It is those profits which attract investment.There must remain some incentive for investment. Have you not seen the profits big Pharma make ?
Most private property does not consist of natural resources, Belindi. Indeed, natural resources constitute only about 3% of GDP globally, about 0.5% in the USA.The struggle for existence as natural resources become less and less. You now have a choice of being powerful enough to keep plenty natural resources for yourself and friends (fascism and so forth) or spread the access to natural resources evenly among all men (socialism and so forth).How does that follow?
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY ... view=chart
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankin ... es_income/
The overwhelming portion of private property consists of manufactured goods.
Well, I agree. But I suspect we'd disagree about what counts as a "fair share." I've given my definition before: a fair share of the returns from a cooperative endeavor is the share proportionate to the value of of each person's contribution to that endeavor. What is yours?True, there should be rewards for the inventor and the entrepreneur. However they could not profit but for the labourers. In the case of the artisan who invents, sets up the business and does the labouring there is no problem about fair distribution.The more the enterprise employs labourers the more it depends on that employment and for that reason the labourers merit fair shares."Should be"? Per what principle? If the workers did not produce that machinery or pay to have it designed and built, what is the basis for their claim to it? And why should the size of the enterprise matter? If you own a truck, for which you paid $100K, and hire a driver to drive it, it belongs to you, but if you have 10 trucks, for which you paid $1 million, they become the property of the 10 drivers you hire?
I agree! I assume, however, that that you're using "consensus" according to the dictionary definition, which means unanimous agreement by all parties:Market forces are unreliable so the three (or more) interested parties can and should sit round a table and arrive at a consensus.
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dic ... /consensus
And, of course, that no force or pressure from outside parties is involved.
If one of the parties demands a share that exceed the market value of his contribution, however, there will not likely be any consensus.
If it is not it is not a contract. If a contract dispute comes to court and the judge can't determine who has agree to what, the contract is deemed unenforceable and the suit dismissed.If only all contracts were explicit!Now you're trying to re-define "contract." A contract is an explicit agreement between specific persons to do specific things. An expectation or hope or "feeling" on Alfie's part that Bruno ought to do something is not a contract between them.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
Then your moral theory is a pointless exercise, since, as you say, it carries no moral authority. No one need accept or follow its rules, only understand them intellectually. I don't know why you think that will be productive when history shows that it never has been.GE Morton: Understanding a rule does not entail following it. If it did there would be no such thing as cheating.
We were talking about moral rules, not legal ones. When you don't have a legitimate answer to a question, you tend to dodge it by changing the subject.GE Morton: Now you're equating understanding a rule with caring about it. If the thief knows he has committed a crime and would be punished if caught then he understands the rule --- a law, in this case.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
That depends upon what you count as moral authority. If you think that the precept, "Act in accordance with principles which allow all agents to maximize their welfare," then the rules carry moral authority. If you don't, then they won't.Felix wrote: ↑September 30th, 2019, 11:38 pmThen your moral theory is a pointless exercise, since, as you say, it carries no moral authority. No one need accept or follow its rules, only understand them intellectually. I don't know why you think that will be productive when history shows that it never has been.GE Morton: Understanding a rule does not entail following it. If it did there would be no such thing as cheating.
As I said before, the capacity to understand moral rules is the same capacity required for understanding any sort of rule.We were talking about moral rules, not legal ones. When you don't have a legitimate answer to a question, you tend to dodge it by changing the subject.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
Yes, it is defined that way, but that is not the meaning usually intended when the word is used. And in any case it is still an idiosyncratic emotional state or response not felt by everyone and not elicitable via rational argument.
Needs depend upon desires. Everyone who desires to continue living will need air, food, etc. Everyone who desires to raise children will need to nurture them. But not everyone desires either of those things; those who lack those desires also lack those needs.It's unlikely that people will stop believing in the need for air, water, food, shelter, and nurturing the young.
I assume you're referring to moral principles and rules concerning those things. None of those have ever been agreed upon, and never will be. But while a sound moral theory must apply universally, it need not be universally agreed upon.True all else is not a small matter but all other rights such as sex, reproduction, religious beliefs, social equality are relative matters which need to be agreed upon . . .
By "worse effects," do you mean the envy reaction? John Stuart Mill called envy " . . . that most anti-social and odious of all passions . . .".That the alternative to reducing the difference yields worse effects, is my argument against Nozick.What deters me from reducing differences in wealth among agents is the lack of any moral argument or rational justification for doing so. As Nozick observed, "While there is no shortage of presumptions in favor of [material] equality, there is a surprising dearth of arguments supporting that presumption." Do you have such an argument?
--- On Liberty, Ch.4
https://www.bartleby.com/130/4.html
Is your argument, "If we don't reduce inequality murder and mayhem will ensue"? That argument is a version of "might makes right." A threat --- "your money or your life" --- is not a moral argument.
Of course people have needs (which vary from person to person, as mentioned above). But the questions were whether Alfie has some duty to meet Bruno's needs, or whether Alfie may be forced to perform that alleged duty. Your response doesn't answer them. That persons have needs doesn't entail that other persons have duties to meet them.I base my moral beliefs on naturalism. That's to say , although human nature is practically indefinable the human animal has essential needs to be anything at all. The human individual has core needs plus individual needs. Among the essential needs of the human animal is community without which there could be no human animals.That is no doubt true. But if you propose to force people to "be of service," you'll need some moral argument justifying that force. No person has any a priori duty to serve anyone. Moral duties derive from some moral theory. If you believe everyone has a duty to serve others, please articulate some theory, some rational basis, for that belief.
I suspect you assume otherwise, because you cling to an "organic" conception of society (i.e., that it is an "organic unity," a collective, a "big happy family") whose members are bound by some sort of "all for one, one for all" pact. But there is no such pact, and civilized societies do not have that structure. That conception rests on beliefs which are objectively false.
As for the need for community, yes, humans are social animals, and most of them desire relationships with others. But the relevant community there is one's circle of family, friends, other associates with whom one maintains personal relationships. Society at large is not necessary to meet that "need."
That is true. We've covered that. That is true of anything anyone consumes. But unless the thing consumed belonged to someone else, taking and consuming it is not theft. So describing it is an attempt to portray it as immoral. But deeming it immoral leads to the reductio ad absurdum mentioned earlier.The status quo is there is such a thing as personal property. The meaning of "all property is theft" is twofold. 1.If Alfie consumes one particular thing Bruno has no opportunity to get it for himself.Fact.
"Theft" has never been so defined in any tradition I know of. Can you cite some sources (Proudhon and his acolytes don't count)? Unless Bruno has some legitimate claim to the antelope --- a property right to it --- then Alfie's taking it is not theft. Again, you're relying either on an assumption that Alfie has some duty to meet Bruno's needs, or that his needs give rise to property rights. The first requires a moral argument, and the second is historically false (historically, property rights arise from first possession, and have nothing to do with needs).2. If Alfie refuses to share the roasted antelope with hungry Bruno then Alfie's property is theft. Traditional moral definition of theft.
A need is something necessary for achieving some goal or accomplishing some task. An "idea of a need" may or may not actually denote a need. And only individuals, not societies, have goals and tasks. I.e., something does not become a "social need," which all members of the society are bound to pursue, because some politician declares it to be."Social needs": societies evolve and their ideas evolve. Particular usages of language change according to popular ideas of needs and also according to authorities' demands. Together those constitute social needs Thus we have recent additions to dictionaries, and laws against blasphemy or incitement to murder.
That's true. Are you arguing that all private property must be collectivized because 3% of its value is derived from natural resources? Also, there seems to be an underlying presumption there that natural resources are all public property, that "the public" is their owner. What is the basis for that belief? (You're not alone with that presumption, of course, which I've elsewhere described as "Locke's error").But manufactured goods used natural resources to get made and will use natural resources when they are discarded!
That doesn't answer the question of, What is each person's "fair share" of those products and services?Basic needs such as civil engineering infrastructure, food, shelter, education, legal aid, universal suffrage, ownership of mind and body, and health care.Well, I agree. But I suspect we'd disagree about what counts as a "fair share." I've given my definition before: a fair share of the returns from a cooperative endeavor is the share proportionate to the value of of each person's contribution to that endeavor. What is yours?
But industry obviously does provide those, quite lavishly in Western societies. It does not, of course, provide them willingly to persons who have contributed nothing to their production. That it should is a moral judgment, which --- again --- requires a moral argument.If the industry / industrial complex cannot or will not provide those the industry/industrial complex is failing.
No. Majority rule and consensus are two different things. Majority rule is a workable, and morally defensible, method of reaching a decision where there are multiple decision-makers, all of whom have an equal right to make the decision. E.g., if Alfie, Bruno, and Chauncey have equal shares in factory, then they may decide by majority vote whether to manufacture widgets or twinkets. But non-owners do not have an equal right to a vote in that decision. They have no right to a vote at all.I was unsure if consensus is the word I want. Can 'consensus' cover mode, or democratic vote?
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
That is our main point of disagreement. People are not wholly or simply rational and their moral disposition cannot be either. The aptitute required to understand love and morality is different than the aptitude needed to understand mathematics and chemistry.GE Morton: As I said before, the capacity to understand moral rules is the same capacity required for understanding any sort of rule.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
Methinks you're still conceiving morality to be a function of, or a product of, emotional responses or "feelings." Those do, of course, require different aptitudes --- innate or perhaps conditioned dispositions --- than an aptitude for mathematics. They require a particular emotional reaction pattern. Love is something one feels, not understands. But a rational set of moral rules has no more to do with feelings or emotional makeup than a workable set of rules governing any other arena of human interaction, e.g., a set of traffic rules or fishing/hunting regulations.Felix wrote: ↑October 2nd, 2019, 2:51 pmThat is our main point of disagreement. People are not wholly or simply rational and their moral disposition cannot be either. The aptitute required to understand love and morality is different than the aptitude needed to understand mathematics and chemistry.GE Morton: As I said before, the capacity to understand moral rules is the same capacity required for understanding any sort of rule.
People may not be wholly rational, but most of us can solve problems rationally when the situation calls for it. If we could not we'd all still be hunters and gatherers eating our food raw.
Again, the definition of a public morality: A set of principles and rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting, logically derivable from premises that are self-evident or empirically verifiable.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023