Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

Felix wrote: September 27th, 2019, 4:00 pm
Defining a being's moral capacity, based on observations of their behavior, is not an empirical calculation, it's a subjective determination.
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).
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Felix »

GE Morton: The capacity to formulate and understand moral rules is the capacity to formulate and understand any type of rule.
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.

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?
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
?? But you criticized him, because he "deprived" someone else of the antelope.

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.
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.
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.
Well, that would effectively end private investment in research for new drugs.
Conversely big pharma should be forced to stop producing drugs that for one reason or another does more harm than good.
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.
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.
Some resources such as breathable air are from ancient times regarded as public property.
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.
As natural resources shrink so must the extent of private property be less.
How does that follow?
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?
Inherited goods. Ownership of capital resources.
?? That doesn't answer the question.
99% is too much by far. The materials and machinery should be owned by labour except when the enterprise is a small one.
"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?

Please explain that reasoning.
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.
How should those rewards be determined --- by what others are willing to pay for those various services, or by some autocrat's decree?
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.
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).
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.
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.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

Felix wrote: September 28th, 2019, 2:54 am
GE Morton: The capacity to formulate and understand moral rules is the capacity to formulate and understand any type of rule.
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.
You might reflect upon Quine's distinction between rules that fit and rules that guide.

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.
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.
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.

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.
And you said that children are not moral agents . . .
No. I said that young children are not. How young varies with the child.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Felix »

GE Morton: Virtually all persons who act immorally nonetheless understand moral rules.
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: 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).
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.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote:
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.
'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.

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.
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.
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.


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.
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.


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.
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.
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.
?? But you criticized him, because he "deprived" someone else of the antelope.
I can't have explained properly. I did not criticise Alfie. Rather I supported Alfie. There were plenty of antelopes and Alfie was hungry.

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.

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.
Well, that would effectively end private investment in research for new drugs.
There must remain some incentive for investment. Have you not seen the profits big Pharma make ?



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.
As natural resources shrink so must the extent of private property be less.
How does that follow?
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).


"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?
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.
This applies to enterprises that are founded on shareholders' cash or enterprises the owner has built by gradual stages.

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.
How should those rewards be determined --- by what others are willing to pay for those various services, or by some autocrat's decree?
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.gov.uk/government/organisations/acas


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.
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).
With automation that is more and more the case. This causes great social problems with unemployment and that is a new worthwhile discussion.
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.
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.
If only all contracts were explicit!
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

Felix wrote: September 29th, 2019, 3:49 am
I would say that if the person truly understood what it means to be moral, s/he would not violate moral rules.
There are so many obvious counterexamples to that it would be tedious to list them.
If someone can not add simple sums, we would not presume he understands the rules of mathematics.
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.
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).
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.
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).
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote;
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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 he alternative to reducing the difference yields worse effects, is my argument against Nozick.
Some people have more power than others to be of service.
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 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.

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.
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 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.
2. If Alfie refuses to share the roasted antelope with hungry Bruno then Alfie's property is theft. Traditional moral definition of 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.
"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.

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.


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).
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.


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.
But manufactured goods used natural resources to get made and will use natural resources when they are discarded!


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?
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.

I agree! I assume, however, that that you're using "consensus" according to the dictionary definition, which means unanimous agreement by all parties:
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.




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.
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
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

This post, to which Belindi responds above, has mysteriously disappeared. So re-posting.
------------------
Belindi wrote: September 29th, 2019, 4:55 am
'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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?
Some people have more power than others to be of service.
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.
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.
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.

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.
There must remain some incentive for investment. Have you not seen the profits big Pharma make ?
Yes. It is those profits which attract investment.
How does that follow?
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).
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.

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.
"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?
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.
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?
Market forces are unreliable so the three (or more) interested parties can and should sit round a table and arrive at a consensus.
I agree! I assume, however, that that you're using "consensus" according to the dictionary definition, which means unanimous agreement by all parties:

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.
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.
If only all contracts were explicit!
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.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Belindi »

That disappearance was my fault, GE Morton. I apologise and thank you for your patience.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Felix »

GE Morton: Understanding a rule does not entail following it. If it did there would be no such thing as cheating.
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: 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.
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.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

Felix wrote: September 30th, 2019, 11:38 pm
GE Morton: Understanding a rule does not entail following it. If it did there would be no such thing as cheating.
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.
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.
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.
As I said before, the capacity to understand moral rules is the same capacity required for understanding any sort of rule.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: September 30th, 2019, 5:56 am
Agape is a sort of love.
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.
It's unlikely that people will stop believing in the need for air, water, food, shelter, and nurturing the young.
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.
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 . . .
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.
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 the alternative to reducing the difference yields worse effects, is my argument against Nozick.
By "worse effects," do you mean the envy reaction? John Stuart Mill called envy " . . . that most anti-social and odious of all passions . . .".

--- 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.
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 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.
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 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."
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.
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.
2. If Alfie refuses to share the roasted antelope with hungry Bruno then Alfie's property is theft. Traditional moral definition of theft.
"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).
"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.
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.
But manufactured goods used natural resources to get made and will use natural resources when they are discarded!
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").
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?
Basic needs such as civil engineering infrastructure, food, shelter, education, legal aid, universal suffrage, ownership of mind and body, and health care.
That doesn't answer the question of, What is each person's "fair share" of those products and services?
If the industry / industrial complex cannot or will not provide those the industry/industrial complex is failing.
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.
I was unsure if consensus is the word I want. Can 'consensus' cover mode, or democratic vote?
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.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Felix »

GE Morton: As I said before, the capacity to understand moral rules is the same capacity required for understanding any sort of rule.
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.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

Felix wrote: October 2nd, 2019, 2:51 pm
GE Morton: As I said before, the capacity to understand moral rules is the same capacity required for understanding any sort of rule.
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.
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.

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.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021