ETHICS WITHOUT ABSOLUTES

[Matt]

So far, I’ve seen nothing suggesting that ethics are anything other than relative… which is in line with my position of ethical relativism.

 

You talk about child sexual abuse being “wrong” across cultures, but ultimately, there is no absolute against which to judge… only other cultures. Child abuse isn’t “wrong”, in the same way that a stream flowing isn’t “right”, it just “is”. We judge it against our own culture and find it reprehensible, and thus, decide to oppose it wherever possible.

 

So, ethical absolutists: What is the absolute to which your ethics are compared to?

[_Robert_]

So, slavery, child sexual abuse, wife beating, mass murder…not really wrong, just wrong to those who think it’s wrong, otherwise not wrong

The very definition of those acts has changed over time. A mercy killing today is a murder tomorrow. A disciplinary action yesterday is spousal abuse tomorrow. An act of war now becomes mass murder.

[.]

@Unseen…????? WTF? How did you derive that from my comment? Lol

• This reply was modified 8 years, 5 months ago by Strega. Reason: Fixed code

[Unseen]

Belle Rose wrote:

@unseen…????? WTF? How did you derive that from my comment? Lol

“Absolutes are a false security blanket that give the illusion of universal moral obligation. Most people don’t live up to their own ethical standards of others anyway so what difference does it make.”

Your statement is pretty much a definition of ethical/moral relativism, which claims that such claims derive their meaning “truth” (such as it is) from the cultural context. Thus, for example, slavery isn’t really wrong, because it was right for the Greeks, so it’s just wrong for us but right for them.

 

[Unseen]

I’m not arguing that ethics can have a basis in absolutes, but that if we don’t believe in absolutes and that ethical statements can be really wrong or right despite cultural context…we are pretty much stuck with relativism whereby all ethics, like all politics, is local.

Don’t start celebrating, though.

If all ethics is local, you have no basis for criticizing outside your local value system. In other words, if all ethics is local, what basis do you have for decrying slavery, child labor, female genital mutilation, etc., happening elsewhere?

[Simon Paynton]

One problem with “absolutes” or “objective morals” is:  where do they exist?  In what sense are they real?  What form does their existence take?

Religious people answer this question by saying that objective morality or absoluteness is a property of God.  So, it “lives” or “exists” somewhere, i.e. God.  This is at least logically consistent.  For something to be real, to exist, there has to be some platform, place, or sense in which it can exist.

Without a God, where do these “absolutes” exist?  What are they, even?  What is a moral absolute?

“really wrong or right”

– what does this mean?

[Simon Paynton]

@bellerose – “universal moral obligation”

– I would say that as a species, and going back further than that, we have evolved the instinct to feel three moral obligations, which are balanced together, in every interaction we have:

1.  the needs of others (helping in response to need)

2.  the needs of self (self-preservation)

3.  the deservingness of others/self (fairness).

So, something like child rape is unlikely to fulfil this ethical requirement – there will have been very few cases where it is seen as properly ethically OK.

[Simon Paynton]

@unseen – “if all ethics is local, what basis do you have for decrying slavery, child labor, female genital mutilation, etc., happening elsewhere?”

– because a person is a person wherever you go.  In each of those cases (presuming that slavery and child labour have been seen as good things) there are external factors which change the balance of “fairness” or “deservingness”.  In the case of female genital mutilation, there are cultural norms (male/societal control of female sexuality – just “because”) which are allowed to override the physical well being of girls, whose needs are basically ignored.  However, if we were to ask the victims, they would say it hurt, they did not like it, and it damages their life.  So, they might say on the one hand, this is the custom or tradition and how things have to be; on the other hand, it’s fuckin dreadful.

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

@unseen – “if all ethics is local, what basis do you have for decrying slavery, child labor, female genital mutilation, etc., happening elsewhere?” – because a person is a person wherever you go. In each of those cases (presuming that slavery and child labour have been seen as good things) there are external factors which change the balance of “fairness” or “deservingness”. In the case of female genital mutilation, there are cultural norms (male/societal control of female sexuality – just “because”) which are allowed to override the physical well being of girls, whose needs are basically ignored. However, if we were to ask the victims, they would say it hurt, they did not like it, and it damages their life. So, they might say on the one hand, this is the custom or tradition and how things have to be; on the other hand, it’s fuckin dreadful.

You’re just expressing one person’s opinion. Personal opinions may express ethical beliefs, but you can’t build a serious ethic on personal beliefs.

The problem with relativism isn’t just that you have no basis of criticizing practices and acts outside your local culture. You can’t even criticize them within your local culture beyond simply saying what your opinion happens to be.

[Simon Paynton]

“You’re just expressing one person’s opinion.”

– I’m expressing the opinion of a standard generic human being.

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

“You’re just expressing one person’s opinion.” – I’m expressing the opinion of a standard generic human being.

I know the difference between a fact and an opinion, and that is an opinion, not a fact.

[Simon Paynton]

“that is an opinion, not a fact.”

– why is this not an opinion?

Apparently there is a philosopher called J L Mackie who argues against objective morals with “the argument from queerness” – according to him, they’re just too weird to exist.

“Mackie argues against the view that there can be objective ethical values by noting the queer or strange consequences belief in such values implies. The argument is in the form of a modus tollens: If P then Q; but Q is implausible (or “queer”), so P is implausible.

He states that “If there were objective values, then they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe” (1977, p. 38). For all those who also find such entities queer (prima facie implausible), there is reason to doubt the existence of objective values.”

However, I think this is a poor argument.  It’s like, so what, they’re different.

I would argue, there is nowhere for objective morals to exist outside of the human race, or, presumably, other species.  It is like saying that TV, or Walmart, are a part of the fabric of the universal cosmic order.

The one thing we can talk about is the universality of facts and values.  Both the fundamental instincts, and strategies, of morality are driven by physical facts and conditions which are universal to all people.

Another thing is, people think the morality in “their world” is the “real one”, which means that somehow, in some freaky undefined way, it’s part of the fabric of the universe.

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

“that is an opinion, not a fact.” – why is this not an opinion? Apparently there is a philosopher called J L Mackie who argues against objective morals with “the argument from queerness” – according to him, they’re just too weird to exist. “Mackie argues against the view that there can be objective ethical values by noting the queer or strange consequences belief in such values implies. The argument is in the form of a modus tollens: If P then Q; but Q is implausible (or “queer”), so P is implausible. He states that “If there were objective values, then they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe” (1977, p. 38). For all those who also find such entities queer (prima facie implausible), there is reason to doubt the existence of objective values.” However, I think this is a poor argument. It’s like, so what, they’re different. I would argue, there is nowhere for objective morals to exist outside of the human race, or, presumably, other species. It is like saying that TV, or Walmart, are a part of the fabric of the universal cosmic order. The one thing we can talk about is the universality of facts and values. Both the fundamental instincts, and strategies, of morality are driven by physical facts and conditions which are universal to all people. Another thing is, people think the morality in “their world” is the “real one”, which means that somehow, in some freaky undefined way, it’s part of the fabric of the universe.

You’re catching on. Ethics and morality will forever be simply a matter of opinion. No basis for criticizing beside one’s gut response. Slavery wrong? Not a fact. It’s an opinion. Sex with prepubescents wrong? Not a fact. It’s an opinion. Wife beating? Fraud? Adultery? Same answer for all.

In short, there can be no “field” of ethics that’s rigorous and can draw conclusions that are provable and must be respected by all.

BTW, if “universal values” actually existed (a contention standing in need of proof), that might be thought to be some sort of absolute, but I doubt if universality of opinion exists. Two or three millennia ago, slavery was widely accepted. Even the enlightened Athenian Greeks owned slaves.

An absolute is true, opinions aside, for all time.

[Simon Paynton]

“provable“, “true”

– you’re not saying what these mean, in the case of a moral statement, whatever a moral statement is.  Presumably, a statement that X is right or wrong.

[Simon Paynton]

“there can be no “field” of ethics that’s rigorous and can draw conclusions that are provable”

– the field of ethics is similar to mathematics, as a field of knowledge.  This means, it consists of a system of facts connected by relationships.  That is rigorous.  It can also make predictions that are testable, for example, in looking at the behaviour of narcissists and psychopaths, or, frankly, in using it for what it is intended for, which is making good decisions in life and getting through tough situations, by adopting an informed philosophical way of thinking.

“No basis for criticizing beside one’s gut response. Slavery wrong? Not a fact. It’s an opinion. Sex with prepubescents wrong? Not a fact. It’s an opinion. Wife beating? Fraud? Adultery? Same answer for all.”

1.  any system of ethics depends on a choice of initial values.

2.  the universal system of ethical values belonging to the human race consists of kindness and fairness.  This is a plausible statement, since the conditions which led to the evolution of our instincts of kindness and fairness, and the conditions which continue to require kindness and fairness, are common to all persons.

3.  in any given social environment, in the modern day, there are multiple levels of morality, namely, interpersonal norms of benefit/harm, fairness, and respect; and social norms.  These may directly conflict.

4.  “Sex with prepubescents wrong? Not a fact. It’s an opinion. Wife beating? Fraud? Adultery? Same answer for all.”

– most of those things go directly against the ethical sense of the human race in general, and always have.  The major exception is wife beating, which is still seen as correct in many countries, and was in the West until not too long ago.  Sex with prepubescents is also fairly widespread.

I don’t know what you want me to say.  It’s simplistic to say that a moral statement is “true”.  That’s “not even wrong” – it’s a category error.  We can have an opinion about it, because the opinion is like a judge’s decision, in which a lot of factors need to be weighed up.

[Author]

Posts