Huh? Makes approximately as much sense as: "Girls need jewelry. It is a natural urge. Boys have a duty to give their money to us," as a justification of a girl gang member taking a hammer to the head of a sleeping guy gang member and taking his wallet.GE Morton wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 9:03 pm Belindi,
Greta and anonymous66 have been debating whether rape is always wrong. Your marxist trope, "From each according to ability, from each according to his needs," reminds me of a book review or article I read several years ago concerning teenage gangs in Los Angeles, in which several gang members were interviewed. One of them was quoted as saying, "Boys need sex. It is a natural urge. Girls have a duty to give it to us."
Is that boy a predator or an enlightened marxist?
Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
Yes, it does. That girl is also an enlightened marxist.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
That's one opinion.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
1. Sure, it's obviously an unpleasant and nasty thing to inflict on another. Bashings aren't great either. Dismemberment. Drawing and quartering. None of them appeal.anonymous66 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 6:53 am @Greta
It seems we are discussing a few different issues.
1. Is rape always wrong?- we both agree it is.
2. If rape is wrong, what can we do about a society in which those in authority not only believe that rape isn't wrong, they use rape as a means of punishment?
2. What can societies that use rape as a punishment do to convince us that we should do it too?
I think 'should" is not a helpful word here. The fact is that people are constantly trying to control others. That is what they do, and have always done, so should does not come into it. Society is all about control. Without control you have loose aggregations, not societies.anonymous66 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2019, 6:53 am3. If there are certain specific moral actions such that those moral actions are always wrong- what should we do about it? Should we try to change/stop other people? Or should we just worry about our own moral actions?
Moral intervention is a matter of power. If the Middle East had the strength and population of the Pacific Islands, then its more rapey cultures would have been forced to adopt more humane practices.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
It's pretty straightforward. The sleeping guy has the ability, she has the need. She assumes, no doubt correctly, that he won't do his duty voluntarily. Hence she is justified in using force. That's the same reasoning the Stalinists followed in dealing with the kulaks.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
In the real world, everyone uses force. It's only a matter of degree, which is what makes this thread's subject matter so lame and obvious.
As I say, "society" and "control" are inextricably tied.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
I didn't question the main thesis of the "Axial Age" hypothesis, Belindi. That thesis is that during the first millenium BCE some philosophical questions were posed for the first time (insofar as we have evidence), and that the questions and answers suggested in various cultures bore similarities. That is a plausible historical claim, but it sheds no light on the question of whether those answers are sound, or even whether the questions are the right ones to be asking.
And of course ideas evolve. But, again, the philosophical question is whether a given idea is sound.
Whether or not an idea might be absolutely sound is what we are debating.
My stance is It's more sound to aim for universal good than to aim for tribal good which is the general tenet of Axial Age thinkers and seers. Universal good . good that transcends the individual, the family, and the tribe, has been the ethic of all the main religions of the east and the west ever since 800-200 BCE.
What else would you replace this ethic with? One of your arguments is property is legitimate and an individual deserves the fruit of his labour. This is true but it's insufficient.
a) the labourer deserves to enjoy the fruits. b) some people cannot produce fruits of labour and should be carried by others preferably in a well organised manner.
With what would you replace the ethic (or what you call a moral theory) of universal good?
Universal good relates to needs and wants. Unless we attend to the imperative of this climate change event our children and children's children will die. Living is a basic need and tribalism will not serve.
Ideologues too live in societies. The later Wittgenstein's theory of language is a social theory. Ideologues are not famous for proposing pro tem meanings of words, ideologues are generally dictatorial. People who make pro tem meaning for words are specialists in some profession or academic discipline, such as law or psychology.Now, now. Let's not be abusing Wittgenstein by reciting his words with a meaning he did not intend. Yes; we learn the meanings of words by observing how they are used --- by ordinary people in everyday conversation. Not by ideologues seeking to undermine those understood meanings in order to rationalize and justify predatory behaviors.The meaning of a word is its use.
A socialist is not an ideologue but aims to promote universal good insofar as this is possible.
Theft is relative. It relates to law, to conscience/consciousness, to relative need, and to relative resources. In the simple example of Alfie taking and eating the antelope it's presumed we all sort of know the circumstances of Alfie's life and needs and the mores of his tribe.The fact always remains natural resources such as prey animals are finite.Well, as I've shown, per the ordinary, dictionary meanings of "theft" and "property," that assertion is patently false. It could be true per some spurious, Newspeak re-definitions of those terms. But those can be dismissed prima facie as sophistry, or jabberwocky.All property is theft.
No, Belindi. If the antelope was no one's property, then taking it cannot be theft, no matter who takes it.It's impossible to live without a degree of thievery (see Alfie who killed the antelope so he'd live) .
I agree the labourer should be rewarded with a fair share of the fruits of his labour. Usurers and shareholders are not labourers.Really? If I want your shirt, I may take from you at will? How about your kidney? If I need one because mine are failing, may I take yours? How about your whole body? If I'm hungry, may I kill and eat you?The time has come for property, including appropriated natural resources, to belong to all in equal measure.
I suspect you have no idea how silly that proposal is. If everything belongs to everyone, then the word "property" loses its meaning, since nothing properly belongs to any particular person. But millions of particular people will see it differently. They will believe, rightly, that the bushel of wheat they've raised, the house they've built, the antelope they tracked and killed belongs to them, and dismiss anyone else's claims to them as baseless and frivolous. What you are suggesting is renewing Hobbes' bellum omnium contra omnes.
My body is sacrosanct. So is yours. nobody should own another's body or body parts . Slavery is outlawed by all free societies.
Have another think about Hobbes who was talking facts. Universality as the prevailing ethic is alone among ethics as countering constant wars and inequalities.
But that contract does exist and is implemented by a lot of famous or obscure people. I see examples of it around me every day. And such events are and have been promoted by all the world class religions. These religions have been murky and politicised, but the message has survived almost unharmed.Well, there are only two methods by which that precept could be implemented: by a contract or agreement among all the affected parties, or by force. No such contract or agreement currently exists, and is highly unlikely to ever exist. So force seems to be the only viable option. That brings us back to the master/slave problem mentioned earlier. And you have not answered the question I posed earlier: per what moral theory or argument does Alfie have a duty to meet Bruno's needs?From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Possibly there is new axial age being born.What would you have?
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
Is this a philosophy forum, or a cultural anthropology or current affairs forum? The philosophical question is not how many people use force, but under what circumstances and for what purposes is force morally justifiable.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
That question cannot be separated from the question of who has the authority to use force. This is evident in your moral theory wherein you have granted moral agency to some but not to others. And what is the foundation of your moral agents authority? - simply that their socially dominant position allows them to assert it. The predator will always claim that his prey is not a moral agent.GE Morton: The philosophical question is not how many people use force, but under what circumstances and for what purposes is force morally justifiable.
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
All moral agents have the "authority" to use force, and all are subject to the same constraints and conditions regarding its use.
Moral agency is not something "granted." It is definition of creatures who have the capacity to formulate and understand moral principles and rules, as evidenced by their behavior. It is an empirical question.This is evident in your moral theory wherein you have granted moral agency to some but not to others.
The aforementioned capacity.And what is the foundation of your moral agents authority?
-
- Posts: 4696
- Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
I think we covered this in several earlier exchanges. The idea of a "universal good" is not sound, because there is no such thing. Things are deemed "good" or "bad" either instrumentally, which means they are good or bad in the sense of furthering some end, in which case they are relative to the end sought, or they are good or bad per se, as "ends in themselves." But what counts as an end-good is subjective and idiosyncratic. Hence what is good or bad is always relative, either to an end or a valuer, and what counts as an end good differs from valuer to valuer. None are universal.Belindi wrote: ↑September 26th, 2019, 5:22 am
Whether or not an idea might be absolutely sound is what we are debating.
My stance is It's more sound to aim for universal good than to aim for tribal good which is the general tenet of Axial Age thinkers and seers. Universal good . good that transcends the individual, the family, and the tribe, has been the ethic of all the main religions of the east and the west ever since 800-200 BCE.
With one that proceeds, not from a presumption of a universal good, which does not exist, but from some universal facts about moral agents. I.e., that they all regard certain things, which differ from person to person, as good, and that the quality of their lives is a function of the extent to which they secure those things.What else would you replace this ethic with?
Well, Belindi, a moral argument can easily be given for your a), but you've given none for b). You seem to regard that as an axiom, but it clearly is not. You need some argument for it.One of your arguments is property is legitimate and an individual deserves the fruit of his labour. This is true but it's insufficient.
a) the labourer deserves to enjoy the fruits. b) some people cannot produce fruits of labour and should be carried by others preferably in a well organised manner.
??? Are you suggesting that any meaning attached to a word is as good as any other, provided the speaker lives in society? Isn't that the Humpty Dumpty doctrine?Ideologues too live in societies. The later Wittgenstein's theory of language is a social theory.
Oh, but they are. Re-defining common words is a favorite tool in their rhetorical armamentaria.Ideologues are not famous for proposing pro tem meanings of words, ideologues are generally dictatorial. People who make pro tem meaning for words are specialists in some profession or academic discipline, such as law or psychology.
In fact, ideologues quickly revert to the standard meanings when actually trying to communicate, as opposed to harangue or bamboozle. If someone had run off with Proudhon's horse or bicycle or manuscripts, you can be sure he would have yelled, "Stop, thief!"
Socialism is an ideology. An advocate for an ideology is an ideologue. All ideologies seek to promote "the universal good," as they conceive it, whether Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, fascism, communitarianism, Maoism, Marxism, etc.A socialist is not an ideologue but aims to promote universal good insofar as this is possible.
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.Theft is relative. It relates to law, to conscience/consciousness, to relative need, and to relative 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?I agree the labourer should be rewarded with a fair share of the fruits of his labour. Usurers and shareholders are not labourers.
By "usurers," do you mean lenders? If lenders and shareholders are involved, providing tools and raw materials, then the product is not entirely the fruits of the laborer's labor. If a laborer can make one widget per 8-hour day, using materials he has gathered himself and tools he has fashioned himself, then the product is entirely his. If he can produce 100 widgets per day with materials and machinery provided by others, then those others are entitled to 99 of the widgets. If the laborer is paid 2 widgets per day he is better off than if he would be working independently.
"Labor productivity" is typically reported by dividing value of product produced in a given time period by the number of man-hours of labor. But that is highly misleading, in that it appears to credit improvements in productivity to workers. But that is almost never the case. It is almost always due to improvments in technology, for which the worker can claim no credit.
My body is sacrosanct, but my efforts, the exertions and fruits of my mind and body, are not? They are up for grabs? What good is my mind and body, if I cannot use them to maintain my life and secure the things that make it worth living?My body is sacrosanct. So is yours. nobody should own another's body or body parts.
As it should be. But apparently you disagree, since you advocate forcing others to labor for your benefit.Slavery is outlawed by all free societies.
But that contract does exist and is implemented by a lot of famous or obscure people.Well, there are only two methods by which that precept could be implemented: by a contract or agreement among all the affected parties, or by force. No such contract or agreement currently exists, and is highly unlikely to ever exist. So force seems to be the only viable option. That brings us back to the master/slave problem mentioned earlier. And you have not answered the question I posed earlier: per what moral theory or argument does Alfie have a duty to meet Bruno's needs?
You may not understand what a contract is. It is a tangible, empirically verifiable agreement among a number of parties, each of whom agrees to perform certain tasks in exchange for certain benefits. A hypothetical contract put forth by philosophers as a heuristic device does not bind anyone; it has no actual signatories.
There is no actual "social contract," Belindi --- certainly none I've ever signed. The hypothetical "social contract" you no doubt have in mind has been reified in Western cultural mythology, but it is not real.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
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.I think we covered this in several earlier exchanges. The idea of a "universal good" is not sound, because there is no such thing. Things are deemed "good" or "bad" either instrumentally, which means they are good or bad in the sense of furthering some end, in which case they are relative to the end sought, or they are good or bad per se, as "ends in themselves." But what counts as an end-good is subjective and idiosyncratic. Hence what is good or bad is always relative, either to an end or a valuer, and what counts as an end good differs from valuer to valuer. None are universal.
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.With one that proceeds, not from a presumption of a universal good, which does not exist, but from some universal facts about moral agents. I.e., that they all regard certain things, which differ from person to person, as good, and that the quality of their lives is a function of the extent to which they secure those things.What else would you replace this ethic with?
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.Well, Belindi, a moral argument can easily be given for your a), but you've given none for b). You seem to regard that as an axiom, but it clearly is not. You need some argument for it.One of your arguments is property is legitimate and an individual deserves the fruit of his labour. This is true but it's insufficient.
a) the labourer deserves to enjoy the fruits. b) some people cannot produce fruits of labour and should be carried by others preferably in a well organised manner.
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.??? Are you suggesting that any meaning attached to a word is as good as any other, provided the speaker lives in society? Isn't that the Humpty Dumpty doctrine?
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. When individuals sucha s Alfie in your story needed to hunt to live there were plenty of antelopes; that's not the case now of course!Oh, but they are. Re-defining common words is a favorite tool in their rhetorical armamentaria.
In fact, ideologues quickly revert to the standard meanings when actually trying to communicate, as opposed to harangue or bamboozle. If someone had run off with Proudhon's horse or bicycle or manuscripts, you can be sure he would have yelled, "Stop, thief!"
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. Conversely big pharma should be forced to stop producing drugs that for one reason or another does more harm than good.
Theft is relative. It relates to law, to conscience/consciousness, to relative need, and to relative resources.Socialism is an ideology. An advocate for an ideology is an ideologue. All ideologies seek to promote "the universal good," as they conceive it, whether Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, fascism, communitarianism, Maoism, Marxism, etc.
True, some socialists are ideologues .Whether or not one is an ideologue relates to the degree of investment in the belief and the lengths to which one will abandon other moral tenets to support the ideology, not the kind of belief.So ideology is a relative term.
Some resources such as breathable air are from ancient times regarded as public property. As natural resources shrink so must the extent of private property be less. Theft is defined by recognisable laws. In free democracies recognisable civil laws follow and lag behind the moral tenets which are founded on consensus. In some legal systems extenuating circumstances practically change the meaning of 'theft'.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.
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?
99% is too much by far. The materials and machinery should be owned by labour except when the enterprise is a small one. The rights and wrongs relate to actual harms and goods of the given industry. Please see my remarks on big pharma.
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."Labor productivity" is typically reported by dividing value of product produced in a given time period by the number of man-hours of labor. But that is highly misleading, in that it appears to credit improvements in productivity to workers. But that is almost never the case. It is almost always due to improvments in technology, for which the worker can claim no credit.
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.My body is sacrosanct, but my efforts, the exertions and fruits of my mind and body, are not? They are up for grabs? What good is my mind and body, if I cannot use them to maintain my life and secure the things that make it worth living?
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.
You may not understand what a contract is. It is a tangible, empirically verifiable agreement among a number of parties, each of whom agrees to perform certain tasks in exchange for certain benefits. A hypothetical contract put forth by philosophers as a heuristic device does not bind anyone; it has no actual signatories.
There is no actual "social contract," Belindi --- certainly none I've ever signed. The hypothetical "social contract" you no doubt have in mind has been reified in Western cultural mythology, but it is not real.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?
Defining a being's moral capacity, based on observations of their behavior, is not an empirical calculation, it's a subjective determination.GE Morton: Moral agency is not something "granted." It is definition of creatures who have the capacity to formulate and understand moral principles and rules, as evidenced by their behavior. It is an empirical question.
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