"Natural rights"?

[SnowFire]

How is one moral system inherently superior to another?

Presumably if there is a God in the classical sense of the term, there would be one moral system that is better. This also would provide for all the natural rights that some here want to give people.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
WHY do justifications matter at all?

Not every opinion is equal.

Gallant says, "Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player ever, because he was a fantastic shooter."

Goofus says, "My can of beer is the greatest basketball player of all time, because it is made out of aluminum and filled with beer."

The first argument is better than the second, since a can of beer cannot play basketball, and since being composed out of aluminum and being filled with beer do not contribute to being a great basketball player.

This is because the term "great" as it applies to basketball is an objective term. This doesn't mean that there can never be any disagreement over who is the greatest basketball player, but it does mean that there is a decision process by which we can ascertain the value of one justification over another.

"Wicked" is a term similar to "great" in that it is objective, meaning that there is a decision process that can be used to ascertain what is and is not wicked. The fact that the decision process is imperfect does not change the objectivity of "wicked," just as the fact that there is disagreement over who is the greatest basketball player of all time does not change the objectivity of the term "great" as it applies to basketball. Any way you cut it, a can of beer is not the greatest basketball player of all time. Any way you cut it, arbitrarily declaring what is "right" and what is "wrong" doesn't make it so.

Someone slaughters their enemies, ripping them to shreads, saying they were plotting to overthrow the government. Someone says that is wrong.. just because it is.

Does that mean the slaughter is more moral because he has justification?

I don't think so.

I thought you were in favor of moral relativism. Wouldn't that mean that the slaugher is more moral because they won?

But to your point, "someone" says that it is wrong just because it is. Does everybody who says that it is wrong use this justification, or just one person? You can't pick the worst justification given by a group of people in your decision process, but rather you need to include all of them.

As was stated by Ozzy... you have to explain this objective morality more in depth. Because saying we communication, and therefore require justification in our arguments mean that justification is required for morality isn't a good system at all.

If humans were not a "higher life form" capable of a complex system of communication then there would be no objective morality; objective morality comes about because humans feel moral indignation at certain actions, and so they call these actions "wicked," and they feel moral vindication or rectitude at certain actions, and so they call these actions "righteous." Humans classify things like this all the time; people are "atrocious" or "great" at basketball, food is "foul-tasting" or "delicious," etc. People disagree over what is wicked/righteous, who is atrocious/great at basketball, what foods are foul-tasting/delicious, but the objectivity comes from the fact that people cannot simply arbitrarily redefine these terms. Calling something "delicious" because it shreds your intestines is a misapplication of the term. Calling a can of beer a "great basketball player" because it is made out of aluminum is a misapplication of the term. Saying that something is "righteous" or "morally right" because Big Brother says that it is so is a misapplication of the term. Something is "rightous" or "morally right" because it causes us to experience a feeling of moral rectitude, not because the head of state has arbitrarily redefined the term.

This is why justification is important. If somebody's opinion (including ours) does not hold up under scrutiny, then it must be altered. Often we will hold moral opinions not because of any good reason, but simply as a result of our own idiosyncrasies ("Homosexuality is gross!" can often lead to "Homosexuality is evil," and "Puppies are cute" can often lead to "Killing puppies is evil," even though "grossness" and "cuteness" have little to do with whether an action is right/wrong or whether an animal ought not to be euthanized and/or eaten). So, if we want to behave morally, then we need to actually stop and think about why something is right or wrong, rather than just going with our inclinations; otherwise we might be completely off in left field.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The only way to achieve objective morality is to have perfect knowledge and perfect truth. Otherwise you are moral out of ignorance. This makes sense, but only seems possible in a religious context. 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.

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.

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. 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.

So, thusly, people think something is immoral, based on their emotional history... And then AFTER they've made up their minds, they think of the justification. They've made their minds up about the morals, and then justify later... which is why people have such wierd morals. Such as those that believe that abortion is totally wrong but the death penalty is right (and conversely, those that believe abortion is ok, but the death penalty is reprehensible). Intuitively they seem contradictory, but there is an indepth justification... However, I believe that that justification came after they made the moral decision.

However, everyone's emotional background is different, and thus any kind of absolute or objective morality just can't work.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I thought you were in favor of moral relativism. Wouldn't that mean that the slaugher is more moral because they won?

Moral relativism means what is says... morals are relatives. I think that vicious slaughter isn't moral.

But to your point, "someone" says that it is wrong just because it is. Does everybody who says that it is wrong use this justification, or just one person? You can't pick the worst justification given by a group of people in your decision process, but rather you need to include all of them.

Say everyone does just thinks it is wrong, just cause. They'll come up with the justification later (as always happens). People decide it is immoral and the justification will be applied at a later date.

[loinburger]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

This is a circular argument. Premise 3 states Wickedness is a term to 'describe actions that cause moral indignation'. Humans don't want wicked acts to be done to them, therefore if they do acts that wicked when performed by others they are inconsistent, and thus immoral.

Your last sentence is covered by the conclusion, not by the premise. I fail to see the circularity here.

So, what you are saying is that if someone does something that causes moral indignation but doesn't want it done to them, then they are not moral.

Yes, unless they are able to justify why their actions were not "wicked," i.e. unless they are able to show that the "victim" of their actions has misapplied the term, then their actions were wicked.

This needs explination on why wickedness is immoral in the first place.

By definition, wickedness is immoral. Look in the dictionary.

"Wicked: Evil by nature and in practice."

And before you look in the dictionary and pull up another definition of wicked (for example, "Strikingly good, effective, or skillful"), please only post it if it is relevant to morality.

Bascially your argument is that people should not do to others which they would not like done to themselves. But then you say the murdering an evil person is ok, even if they do not want it done to them, because there is a justification.

Don't mix terms. Murder is, by definition, never okay. And I don't see where I said that killing an evil person is okay, I believe I only said that there may be a reaonable justification for it.

Then you introduced that morals are based on whether you can justify them.

Morals are based on emotive responses. Determining whose morals are better requires the justification.

And if you can't justify them, but know they are wrong... then the other person is 'moral, but ignorant', because there is a better morals out there that they don't know of.

I fail to see how somebody can be evil, if they are unaware that their actions are evil. Are you assuming that the slaveholder "just knows" that slavery is wrong without hearing any justification for why it is wrong? Guess what, men aren't angels, so it isn't reasonable to assume that they "just know" what's good and evil.

Your arguments suuuure have a lot of loopholes.

Again, are you saying that somebody is evil even if they did not know that their actions were harmful?

And if you see history, relative morality is what has been seen. The state/people who have been powerful dictated what morality others (weaker people) should follow. And the way these are followed is by force... through might.

The State may not arbitrarily redefine a term. Even if the State told me that broken glass was delicious, it wouldn't make it so. Even if the State told me that killing the Jews was virtuous, it wouldn't make it so.

The decision process has been made... by the strong and powerful.. and others may have other morals that they think is better.

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

You can't prove to me that the morals of a capitalist (like me) is better or worse than the morals of a communist (like che)

This is irrelevant. You can't prove to me who the greatest basketball player of all time is either. That doesn't make a can of beer the greatest basketball player of all time; it doesn't allow you to arbitrarily redefine terms like "great," "wicked," or "virtuous."

Because SOMEONE has to decide whose justification is better.

Absolutely. And SOMEONE'S decision process is not based on whether you or Che has more firepower, their decision process is based on which of you gives the best justification for your position. Therefore it isn't relative morality (might makes right), because objectivity is maintained (terms cannot be arbitrarily redefined by you or Che).

They have to decide if my justification of maximizing liberty or che's justification of maximizing equality (or something similar) is better... and different people will have different ways of judging... VERY relative.

There are standards for objectivity incorporated into the decision process, unlike the relative morality you're talking about. It is in principal possible for everybody to agree to the same set of morals, and the fact that this is unlike is, as I said up above, irrelevant.

Their decision is based on

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ramo
But you misunderstand the concept of a right. Where does it come from, if not from a government? What is the meaning of a right, outside of a legal context?

According to the Oxford American Dictionary, this is one of their eight definitions, with the one below most relevant to our argument:

1) a thing one may morally or legally claim; the state of being entitled to an immunity, authority to act, or privelege

So based on this definition, one could argue that natural rights fall into the realm of morality. It would be immoral for any legal system to disregard the natural rights of humans to strive for any of the five needs in Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by loinburger
If you have a natural right to life, then you must either a. recognize the right to life of others, or b. you must justify why you have a right to life but somebody else does not. Any other behavior (like wanton unjustified killing) is inconsistent.

You have a natural right to life, because life is the natural state for a human - you have the right to life until you cease to be a human, in which case your life, and your right to it, are taken away.

[chequita 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.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Relative morality as Imran said, is purely based solely on the will of the strong and powerful.

Which is why we must band together, so that our collective unity is more powerful than the strong and the powerful. They recognize it, which is why they always try and keep us divided.

[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.

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".

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

Nicely fitting into Ancient, medieval, modern. Which gives credence to another one of my theories.... I think I'm gonna do some writing tommarrow. I have come to some very good stuff here.

But I'm tired at the moment, so somebody please take a shot at my theory here, I will get to it in the morning.

[Goingonit]

Just read your post, Ozzy, and realized you should read Kant.

Relative morality is an oxymoron: morality becomes irrelevant if no weight is attached to it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Goingonit
Relative morality is an oxymoron: morality becomes irrelevant if no weight is attached to it.

Well then morality has no weight, since it can never be anything but relative. Since morality does have weight, and morals are relative, you must be incorrect.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Murder is, by definition, never okay.

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

Morals are based on emotive responses. Determining whose morals are better requires the justification.

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.

I fail to see how somebody can be evil, if they are unaware that their actions are evil.

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.

Like I said before, the morals are made up first, then the justification comes after.

Even if the State told me that killing the Jews was virtuous, it wouldn't make it so.

It did for plenty of Germans in the Nazi state.

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.

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.

Absolutely. And SOMEONE'S decision process is not based on whether you or Che has more firepower, their decision process is based on which of you gives the best justification for your position. Therefore it isn't relative morality (might makes right), because objectivity is maintained (terms cannot be arbitrarily redefined by you or Che).

Actually relative morality isn't simply might makes right. You are guilty of simplification. Relative morality means that everyone has their own morality, and there is no absolute morality that goes over everyone else's moral ideas.

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

How is that judge supposed to decide who's justification is better? People have different ideas of what is better, and some people might think I have a better justification and others think that che has a better justification. If everyone agreed on the best sort of justification then there wouldn't be seperate political parties.

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.

Relative morality as Imran said, is purely based solely on the will of the strong and powerful.

Not entirely. Like I said above, relative morality is based on the fact that everyone has different moralities and there is no absolute above them.

However, because of this, those that are the most powerful can dictate what morality should be accepted by everyone else by making their morality into law. Since there is really no absolute law, this morality isn't really set in stone, which is why law always changes and morality is different as eras progress.

[chequita guevara]

To add on to what the libertarian said, not only do the powerful have the ability to make their morals law, but they also have much more powerful mechanisms for passing their morals onto the population, be it religion up 'till recently or television and newspapers today. It is much, much easier for someone like Imran to get his views aried to a larger audience than someone like me (and they'd be iffy about him, cause he's not exacly mister pro-coporate, which is what they like). I have to stand around on street corners and sell funny little papers, while Thomas Novak has a syndicated column nationwide, as well as television time. Because his ideology serves the dominent interests, he is given a platform, while I have to stick to the edges, and even then the cops still shut us down sometimes.

So might still makes right, because their might alows them to convince far more people than I ever could.

[Inverse Icarus]

and all too often in society, money = might.