"Natural rights"?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ramo
I don't understand this distinction between objective, absolute, and universal. English is too imprecise; please explain it in set theory.

Universal/Absolute: Here an absolute set of morals would be temporally and spatially independent, one perfect set of moral laws that humans can always turn to. Likely they would be created by a God or something.

Objective: There is difference in opinion over what is "moral," but there exists a decision process by which we can judge whose moral opinions are superior, i.e. not everybody's opinion is of equal value. The decision process involves weighing the justifications offered for different sets of morals. An objective morality is spatially and temporally dependent; morality is a classification tool used by humans, and as such different environments will cause the classifications to be weighted differently to meet the needs of the individual or society.

Relative: There is difference in opinion over what is "moral," and there exists no decision process by which we can judge whose moral opinions are superior, therefore all opinions are equally valid. Relative morality is, like objective morality, spatially and temporally dependent, since morality is determined primarily by our cultural background and idiosyncratic beliefs.

On the set of all moralities, I think you're saying that the existence of an objective morality is equivalent to the existence of one and only one well-ordering of this set. Now, what do absolute and universal mean?

Absolute/universal morality is "one well-ordering of this set." Objective morality, on the other hand, is "one well-ordering of this set for a given time and place." Objective morality is not temporally/spatially independent like absolute morality; the difference between objective and relative morality is just that objective morality incorporates a decision process by which moral opinions can be guaged.

The method wouldn't exist without communication, which is not universal or absolute. Only humans (as far as we know) communicate at the level necessary for objective morality to exist. If you don't have a word for "moral" then you don't have objective morality.

1. What does communication have to do with anything?
2. Can you elaborate why this is so?
3. What is the basis for your objective morality, and why are all other moral systems not valid?

1. Communication is the justification given in Discourse Ethics for why not all opinions regarding morality are equal. It is also the basis by which the Golden Rule is justified in Discourse Ethics: "In order to communicate effectively, you must behave reciprocally with those with whom you are communicating. It is inconsistent for you to presuppose reciprocity and then fail to behave reciprocally."

2. Communication is also the means by which we classify sets of behaviors ("Great in basketball," "Delicious," "Wicked"). We give a name to abstractions, and thus are able to classify them. Even though these terms are human creations, they are also objective. For example, the "meter" is a subjective term, but once defined it can be objectively applied; I can say "To the nearest centimeter, I am 1.87 meters tall on April 5, 2002", and I would be objectively correct even though the term "meter" is a human creation. "Great" as it applies to basketball is a similar term, for if I were to say "Michael Jordan is a great basketball player because he is an excellent shooter" then I would be objectively using a subjective term, while if I were to say "My can of beer is a great basketball player because it is made out of aluminum" then I would be misapplying the term. "Wicked" as it applies to morality is another such term, for if I were to say "It is wicked to torture somebody simply to hear them scream, for one would not similarly wish to be senselessly tortured" then I would be objectively using the term, while if I were to say "It is wicked to grow broccoli because I do not like the taste of broccoli" then I would be misapplying the term, since I am applying it to an inappropriate emotive response.

3. Do you mean "the moral code that I, personally, follow"? I would say, in a nice simplification, that the basis is the Golden Rule, and that maxims that fail to adhere to the Golden Rule are inconsistent and therefore faulty.

[chequita guevara]

I have a minion?!?

[loinburger]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by OzzyKP

The only way to achieve objective morality is to have perfect knowledge and perfect truth. Otherwise you are moral out of ignorance.

Close. If you have perfect knowledge and perfect truth then you have absolute morality. Objective morality requires the decision process, not perfect knowledge or perfect truth; it assumes imperfect knowledge and imperfect truth, which is why people need to argue over what is right or wrong, or else they become ignorant out of choice.

I think it is safe to assume that absolute truth is well out of the grasp of humanity, and may perhaps always be impossible for humans to discern. Absolute truth only exists in God (if you believe), so therefore objective morality is only possible for God.

Humans might not be able to perfectly apply the decision process, but that doesn't eliminate the decision process.

If one were to reject God, then (assuming absolute truth is imposible for Humans to figure out) one must reject objective morality in favor of relitive morality.

Without God, one must reject absolute morality. Objective morality is based on human communication, and so the decision process is still within the grasp of humans.

If you want a "perfect" morality then you need God. If you want a decision process, i.e. objective morality, then you just need humans.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Very good, Ozzy... I think this might defeat the claim of loinburger. If you are moral out of ignorance with objective morality, then the only way it could actually work (where objective morality could be viable as a moral precept) is where you are in knowledge of everything.

There's no way I could accept "moral out of ignorance" and be claiming to be in favor of absolute morality, but for objective morality you don't need perfect knowledge, only a decision process.

Of course, I reject the whole notion that justification, even if you know everything and all the counter-arguments that could concievably be made, as leading to morals.

Justification doesn't "lead to" morals, since morals themselves result from emotive responses and opinion. Justification is used as the decision process by which opinions are classified as "better" or "worse" than other opinions--it's been going on the entire time throughout this entire debate.

Morality, as we understand it, doesn't have to be held up with anything. It is a very emotional thing... moral revulsion sometimes can't be justified other than it just is immoral.

Most people who feel intense moral revulsion yet can't offer justifications for their revulsion will not change their opinion of what is moral or immoral simply because they do not have a justification. However, this doesn't change the fact that people can and do alter opinions in the face of reasonable justification that is contrary to their opinion. Rejection of the decision process by some people in some circumstances does not nullify the entire decision process.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Shucks, I have a grand Eureka! moment, and Loin and others aren't commenting on it. Imran agrees it is a good point, but I think it is the defining point of this whole discussion.

Sorry, a friend came over so we were drinking beer and watching splosions on the history channel. I just got back to my computer a little while ago.

Actually, I think I must give a nod to the third path, which is probably what Loin will argue for anyways. That Humans can indeed know by themselves all knowledge. Socrates spoke much about this, that humans must strive to know what "is".

Good news, you won't hear that argument from me, since I'm an agnostic. Objective morality is all about the decision process, but I agree that it is impossible for humans to apply the decision process with perfect precision. However, that doesn't nullify the decision process.

So we are faced with a royal rumble of epic proportions. Socrates vs. God vs. Neitzsche

My money's on the fellow with the lightning bolts.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Murder is, by definition, never okay.

If it is murder of someone I consider evil, then I say that murder is ok.

I meant that, by the very definition of murder, it is not okay.

Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Yes, morals are based on emotion, but you don't have to rely on justification to know who's moral are better. I don't really know if you can say that anyone's morals are better than someone elses. You can say someone else's morals aren't the same as yours, but does that make it better (even with justification)? I don't think it does.

Not all opinions are of equal weight, therefore not all opinions regarding what is moral/immoral are of equal weight.

Why not? People might believe they are doing the right thing, but are doing the wrong thing (according to your own morals). Hitler believed he was doing the right thing by killing the inferior Jews, because of his science. He was, as you'd say, 'moral with ignorance', but to me (and mostly everyone today) he was evil.

I would say that if he truly was ignorant that it was intentional ignorance, which nullifies his "moral with ignorance" justification. It is not a valid counterargument to simply ignore somebody else.

Again, political or military power does not give one the ability to arbitrarily redefine terms.

Of course it does. Terms have always been defined by the victors and always will be.

It is not possible for the victors to eliminate an entire system of moral classification. Even were they to do so, the resulting language would develop a new system of moral classification. Like distance, morality is something that requires classification.

This is irrelevant. You can't prove to me who the greatest basketball player of all time is either.

The greatest basketball player of all time isn't a moral question... what is the best form of government IS.

"Who is the greatest basketball player of all time" is an objective question with a decision process, just like "What is the best form of government." The point is that without perfect knowledge by all parties, neither question can be absolutely resolved, but that does not nullify the decision process.

Actually relative morality isn't simply might makes right. You are guilty of simplification.

Guilty as charged.

And terms are different for different people... there is no one set of terms that everyone agrees upon.

People disagree over what is delicious, but that doesn't mean the term is in contention. People disagree over what is moral, but that doesn't mean the term is in contention.

It is in principal possible for everybody to agree to the same set of morals

No it really isn't. In principal it is impossible for everybody to agree to the same set of morals, what with different backgrounds and belief systems.

"In principal" meaning "with perfect knowledge."

[Ramo]

Objective: There is difference in opinion over what is "moral," but there exists a decision process by which we can judge whose moral opinions are superior, i.e. not everybody's opinion is of equal value. The decision process involves weighing the justifications offered for different sets of morals. An objective morality is spatially and temporally dependent; morality is a classification tool used by humans, and as such different environments will cause the classifications to be weighted differently to meet the needs of the individual or society.

Interesting. How locally would you be referring to? Would there a be a different morality for each Planck time? For each Planck distance? If not, why are there no other dependences (independent of spatial and temporal positions - such as income or culture or religion)? Why does this functional dependence exist in the first place? How is the function derived? Is this derivation not subjective?

It sounds to me that the function would be derived from the golden rule (i.e. what "they would do unto you" is based upon time and space).

Communication is the justification given in Discourse Ethics for why not all opinions regarding morality are equal. It is also the basis by which the Golden Rule is justified in Discourse Ethics: "In order to communicate effectively, you must behave reciprocally with those with whom you are communicating. It is inconsistent for you to presuppose reciprocity and then fail to behave reciprocally."

If the function is derived from the golden rule, this sounds somewhat circular...

For example, the "meter" is a subjective term, but once defined it can be objectively applied;

Objectively applied? So that would mean the the application is dependent upon time and space? Or something else entirely?

I can say "To the nearest centimeter, I am 1.87 meters tall on April 5, 2002", and I would be objectively correct even though the term "meter" is a human creation. "Great" as it applies to basketball is a similar term, for if I were to say "Michael Jordan is a great basketball player because he is an excellent shooter" then I would be objectively using a subjective term, while if I were to say "My can of beer is a great basketball player because it is made out of aluminum" then I would be misapplying the term. "Wicked" as it applies to morality is another such term, for if I were to say "It is wicked to torture somebody simply to hear them scream, for one would not similarly wish to be senselessly tortured" then I would be objectively using the term, while if I were to say "It is wicked to grow broccoli because I do not like the taste of broccoli" then I would be misapplying the term, since I am applying it to an inappropriate emotive response.

Would "I would not like to give a blow job because I'm straight." (as opposed to not wanting to get a blow job) be immoral?

3. Do you mean "the moral code that I, personally, follow"? I would say, in a nice simplification, that the basis is the Golden Rule, and that maxims that fail to adhere to the Golden Rule are inconsistent and therefore faulty.

More generally, I wanted to know the derivation of the moral code function.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not all opinions are of equal weight, therefore not all opinions regarding what is moral/immoral are of equal weight.

Not all opinions are of equal weight to you. Some might consider an opinion that you consider not to be of equal weight to be even greater than yours. It is, ironically, a matter of opinion which opinions are equal or not... even if you throw in justifications.

I would say that if he truly was ignorant that it was intentional ignorance, which nullifies his "moral with ignorance" justification. It is not a valid counterargument to simply ignore somebody else.

How is it intentional ignorance to truly believe that what you are doing is right, but you don't really know all the facts?

It is not possible for the victors to eliminate an entire system of moral classification. Even were they to do so, the resulting language would develop a new system of moral classification. Like distance, morality is something that requires classification.

Of course victors can eliminate an entire system of moral classification and replace it with something entirely different. Look at the French Revolution for one.

People disagree over what is delicious, but that doesn't mean the term is in contention. People disagree over what is moral, but that doesn't mean the term is in contention.

The only problem is that it is... perhaps not in delicious, but in other terms. IE, people disagree with what is socialism, which means the term is in contention. People disagree with what is terrorism, which means the tearm is in contention. Morality isn't simply a word with an accepted decision like delicious... it is more like socialism or terrorism. Where people have many different definitions of the term. The meaning is nebulous, different to each person and one person's idea could be totally different from the others.

"In principal" meaning "with perfect knowledge."

Even with perfect knowledge, I'd postulate that you would NEVER get everyone to agree to one form of morality. People would veer different ways with the knowledge. Some might decided freedom is the best end, other equality and morality might be different to each. The morals would always be relative.

Justification is used as the decision process by which opinions are classified as "better" or "worse" than other opinions--it's been going on the entire time throughout this entire debate.

But justification hasn't made any opinion better or worse. I don't consider your opinion inferior to mine at all. It is simply different. We have different morals and opinions. Yours is no better than mine and mine is no better than yours, they are simply different. We are simply articulating our points in debate, trying to make the other see our belief in a different light than already presented (see below).

Most people who feel intense moral revulsion yet can't offer justifications for their revulsion will not change their opinion of what is moral or immoral simply because they do not have a justification. However, this doesn't change the fact that people can and do alter opinions in the face of reasonable justification that is contrary to their opinion. Rejection of the decision process by some people in some circumstances does not nullify the entire decision process.

However, people add a justification after they decide what is moral. They don't decide what is justified and then become revolted by something. They are revolted and then think of a justification, which I said, leads to some wierd belief systems. The justification simply doesn't matter. And it isn't some people in some circumstances, it is a majority of people in a vast number of circumstances.

And yes, people do change their minds when hearing of something else, when another answer is presented. It isn't because the case has more justification than their own and thus they flip morals... it is because the opinion makes them think of the issue in a different light, and that different light fits with their own moral code better than the way they were thinking about it. They convincing is seeing the opinion in a different way.

For example, when I shifted from pro-life to pro-choice in abortion, I didn't shift because the pro-choice side had more justification.. rather I shifted because I saw the issue in another light, that dealing with consent as opposed to simply life and death. Seeing it in that way showed me that my moral code was more disposed to the pro-choice idea than the pro-life.

People really don't shift their underlying moral codes, they merely see issues in different lights that fits better or worse with their moral code than before (which is why the analogy is such a popular debating technique). Therefore, no one's moral code is better... it simply is.

Of course you are going to ask how this moral code was achieved and postuate that as children we go through justifications for things and that is how we decide what is right and wrong. I don't think so... I believe that morals are more based on emotion than that. Emotions are a product of our environment, and thus morals come from the environment in which we live. The underlying beliefs that we possess come from our emotional basis. Not because we justified that our beliefs were better than someone elses, but because our beliefs sprung from our emotive self.

--

Why don't we just agree to disagree or something. This philosophical stuff might make my head hurt soon (if may already have begun .... and instead why not disagree while writing a book. I bet philosophy departments will eat it up.

I'm sure my whole 'changing opinions coming from seeing issues in different lights therefor conforming or moving away from our morals' idea is somewhat new and unique.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Let me add (just thought of something):

That because of my belief systems and the morals and ideals I have, I can judge other people's opinions. However, if I devoid myself of emotion (which lead to morals, I believe) I can't really say anyone's opinions are better or worse off that mine.... or anyone else's for that matter.

Only because I have emotions and thus morals, do I decide if an opinion is good or bad to me, but take me away from my morals (because having them while judging opinions is kind of a conflict of interest... one that we can't avoid), then opinions are simply different.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ramo
Interesting. How locally would you be referring to? Would there a be a different morality for each Planck time? For each Planck distance? If not, why are there no other dependences (independent of spatial and temporal positions - such as income or culture or religion)? Why does this functional dependence exist in the first place? How is the function derived? Is this derivation not subjective?

Since the fuction relies on communication, substantive alterations in language will alter the function. We can judge these substantive alterations in language (not all classification systems are equal, for example, a system by which we measure length that relies on a "standard" that fluctuates wildly is not a very good classification system) as well, which is why we can arbitrary changes to the system that contribute nothing.

It sounds to me that the function would be derived from the golden rule (i.e. what "they would do unto you" is based upon time and space).

The function is derived from objectively applying terms like "wicked" or "righteous" to actions. This boils down to the golden rule, however, because it is inconsistent to classify an action for one subject, e.g. "It is wicked for you to kill me for my sneakers," without also applying that classification for all substantively identical actions, e.g. it would then be inconsistent to say "It is righteous for me to kill you for your sneakers."

The difference between this function and the Categorical Imperative is that a. this function does not claim full linguistic independence (spatial and temporal independence), and b. this function helps to eliminate individual idiosyncrasies from the picture. It is inconsistent for me to communicatively reciprocate with somebody in one instance and then unjustifiably refuse to reciprocate in another instance, so I cannot simply reject somebody's opinions regarding morality out of hand. As a result, through moral argumentation I can come to realize that some of my moral beliefs are completely ass-backwards and unjustifiable, since they were a result of my individual idiosyncrasies. The Categorical Imperative does not include this crucial stage of the decision process.

If the function is derived from the golden rule, this sounds somewhat circular...

It's derived from objectively applying terms like "wicked" and "righteous," and the golden rule comes in from the fact that a. these terms typically incorporate the golden rule in some form, and more importantly b. these terms must be consistently applied. It is conceivable that a language might have ass-backwards definitions for terms like "wicked" and "righteous," just as it is conceivable that a language might have ass-backwards definitions for things like "meter" and "delicious." However, ass-backwards classification systems simply do not work as well as consistent and rational classification systems, which is why arbitrarily redefining a classification is invalid.

Objectively applied? So that would mean the the application is dependent upon time and space? Or something else entirely?

The primary dependence is on language.

Would "I would not like to give a blow job because I'm straight." (as opposed to not wanting to get a blow job) be immoral?

I'd say that "I would not like to give a blow job because I'm straight" is a non-moral statement. Your sexual preference is heterosexual, therefore by definition you would prefer not to give a blowjob. Similarly, "I would not like to eat broccoli because broccoli is not delicious" is also non-moral.

More generally, I wanted to know the derivation of the moral code function.

It pretty much boils down to using an efficient (not ass-backwards) moral classification system consistently.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why don't we just agree to disagree or something.

Fair enough. Let's let Urban Ranger have his thread back.

This philosophical stuff might make my head hurt soon (if may already have begun .... and instead why not disagree while writing a book. I bet philosophy departments will eat it up.

My ethics professor is already not a happy camper with me, since he's a die-hard fan of Aquinas. Me saying that morality is independent of God doesn't fly very well with him.

I'm sure my whole 'changing opinions coming from seeing issues in different lights therefor conforming or moving away from our morals' idea is somewhat new and unique.

Of course, if we were still debating and not agreeing to disagree, I'd be obliged to point out that "changing opinions coming from seeing issues in different lights" is really just the same thing as "changing opinions in the face of superior justification for the dissenting opinion." But, since we're not still debating, I won't point this out.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I think Maslow's point are an excellent place to argue about what rights a human being should have. However, as I previously wrote, a person has only those rights he or she can defend and rights only arose under certain, concrete historical circumstances.

Human beings have no inherent right to life. If you tried to explain that theory to anyone 400 years ago, let alone 2,000 or even a million years ago(assuming homo erectus was capable of understanding you), you would have been laughed at, if you were lucky, and burned at the stake as a heretic if not.

For the vast majority of human history, society has functioned perfectly well without human rights. This is one of the reasons they are so special, because they are so fragile and easily lost. But unless we realize that rights are not inherent, but something we must fight to hold on to, we will lose them, because there are always those out there who are willing to destroy your rights.

Good points, Chegitz.

But, there never were any societies anywhere on Earth in anytime in human history that functioned perfectly without human rights.

And just because people can argue that there are natural rights that exist, that are inherent, does not mean we cannot fight for them if they are endangered. Rather, they make them even more valuable to fight for when threatened.

[chequita guevara]

Loinburger is a postmodernist. SHUN HIM!!!!!

[loinburger]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Loinburger is a postmodernist. SHUN HIM!!!!!

Quiet, you! Nobody must know my dirty secret...

[mactbone]

How exactly does morality fit into a cannabilistic society? Or a headhunter's society? Or the Mayan sacrificing society?

Especially the Mayan and the cannibal societies. I know that in Mayan society your right to life was not guaranteed, in fact, you sacrificed others and were willing to sacrifice yourself, so if that is true than reciprocity exists, yet now we would not approve of that morality. So, there is no Objective Morality.

I think that there are no "Natural Rights". Rights are just a social construct to keep everyone in line with what we want. Generally the stronger will force their definition of rights on the weaker, but sometimes it's just pure mass that makes a right be recognized. If enough people respect (or disregard) a right, then that right will (or won't) be recognized.