Where Do Natural Rights Come From?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Loin - I have these morals because I believe that they are better. in a subjective view, they are better, but objectivly they are the same. Who am I to say that what the Nazi's did was wrong? According to them, what they did was right. According to what I believe in, what they did was wrong. Which one is right objectivly?

[Ramo]

*Bumping the thread for later.* (too busy/tired to respond now)

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Loin - I have these morals because I believe that they are better.

Yes, but why? How are they better, in your opinion?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Loin, I understand that, but who decides what is harmful and helpful for the purposes of classifying? Or does that not matter? If two moral precepts both can classify the harmful effects similarly, who wins out? Can you decide who wins out in that case? IMO, many moral beliefs do a similar job in classification of harmful and helpful classifications.

F'rinstance, you won't find a society/culture/whatever the world over that employs a system of logic in which A == ~A.

What about we need war for peace? I know, I know... I just felt like saying that .

Though while I am quoting this thread, since no moral system is illogical and are basically (IMO) the same in classifying harmful and helpful effects (based on what those societies believe that means), then how to pick who is better?

That's cultural relativism.

So?

Suppose we have Nazi Germany and the people in power believe that the Jews should be exterminated. Does this make their action right simply because the people in power believe it to be?

Yes. If they won WW2, most of us would be praising the 'Final Solution'. Morals usually flow from who wins.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I believe that my morals are better then the Nazi's because I do not believe in the wholesale or individual-sale slaughter of anyone. Therefore, I believe that mine are better because the Nazi moral obviously believed that killing is fine. Now, objectively, does that make my morals better? From a neutral standpoint it doesnt. Just because you believe in something, it doesnt mean that it is the right thing. No one can say that what the Nazi's did was wrong, because some people did believe in it. Does it make them wrong? Only from my standpoint.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If two moral precepts both can classify the harmful effects similarly, who wins out?

If the two systems behave identically then I don't see why there would be a need to differentiate between them.

Though while I am quoting this thread, since no moral system is illogical and are basically (IMO) the same in classifying harmful and helpful effects (based on what those societies believe that means), then how to pick who is better?

First off, what do you mean when you say "no moral system is illogical"? If a moral system is self-contradictory, then it is illogical. If it is inconsistent, then it is illogical. If it fails to satisfy the principle of causation, then it is illogical. There have been (and still are) many moral systems that fail one or more of these basic tests of rationality.

Furthermore, different systems are often not the same in classifying harmful/helpful effects. For example, the Nazis were not particularly helpful to the Jews by any reasonable definition of the word "help" -- on the contrary, they were quite harmful to the Jews, by any reasonable definition of the word "harm." Even if two systems classify the same actions in the same categories, they may still not be equal, e.g. one system may be more efficient in its classification than another (an analogous example being the difference between the American system of measurement and the Metric system of measurement -- they both have the same capabilities, but the latter system is more efficient and is thus superior).

And, generally, there doesn't need to be a grand social consensus as to what is "helpful" and "harmful" -- all that needs to exist is common sense/basic survival instincts. If an action will help me, then it is helpful. If it will harm me, then it is harmful. By extension, if an action will help or harm somebody else then that action is helpful or harmful, respectively. If somebody has a radically skewed view as to what is helpful/harmful, then they are potentially a menace to others, but they are at the same time a menace to themselves, so they are unlikely to survive for long enough (or to maintain their skewed classification system) for long enough to cause much damage.

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
...I do not believe in the wholesale or individual-sale slaughter of anyone.

Why?

[GePap]

On the question of consistency: It is bovious that absolute relativism is impossible (nothing relevitve can be absolute, no?) but when it comes to human morality,a s I said, there are limits. Any moral code in which parents must kill their children would quickly die, since it would not spread at all and lead to the death fo the group.

As for Loin's question, why do we use the set of moral standards we use if there are no aboslutes: I think and individual uses the moral code a) he/she is first intructed in, and then modifies this original moral code according to new information they aquire and personal quirks and opinions. Take the Nazi moral code. It does not come out of thin air: it was derived from various aspects of the late-19th century European moral code and new "scientific" theories of the time. For exmaple, the Nazis fundamentaly believed in progress, in man's ability to imporve his lot through science and knowledge.

Oh, something else: we keep talking about Nazi morals: anyone care to tell the rest fo the class what they were?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by GePap
As for Loin's question, why do we use the set of moral standards we use if there are no aboslutes

Careful there -- I never said that we needed absolutes. I've said in previous threads (e.g. the one I linked to around post #40) that I don't believe in an absolute morality, or an absolute anything for that matter.

[Imran Siddiqui]

First off, what do you mean when you say "no moral system is illogical"? If a moral system is self-contradictory, then it is illogical. If it is inconsistent, then it is illogical. If it fails to satisfy the principle of causation, then it is illogical. There have been (and still are) many moral systems that fail one or more of these basic tests of rationality.

You said there was no society that believes A == ~A. That means that you believe that no society is self-contradictory, no?

Furthermore, different systems are often not the same in classifying harmful/helpful effects. For example, the Nazis were not particularly helpful to the Jews by any reasonable definition of the word "help" -- on the contrary, they were quite harmful to the Jews, by any reasonable definition of the word "harm." Even if two systems classify the same actions in the same categories, they may still not be equal, e.g. one system may be more efficient in its classification than another (an analogous example being the difference between the American system of measurement and the Metric system of measurement -- they both have the same capabilities, but the latter system is more efficient and is thus superior).

The Nazis simply used another classification structure for the Jews and other undesirables to what is helpful and harmful (mostly harmful, of course). What is wrong with that? Most moral systems, especially modern ones, are highly complex and cannot fall within ONLY one classification structure of what is helpful or harmful. In almost all moral societies there are different classification structures for different species.

Why does there have to be only one? Why does equality have to take precedent? It's highly subjective to state that.

Furthermore, why do logical moral reasonings take precedence over illogical moral reasonings? That too is subjective. I'd consider Christianity more illogical than Stalinist communism, but I'd take Christianity, myself.

Basically preferences among moral systems are all subjective, whether you base them on logicalness (I know, I made that word up) or whathaveyou.

This, loin, is why I said we should agree to disagree .

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes. If they won WW2, most of us would be praising the 'Final Solution'. Morals usually flow from who wins.

So might makes right? Would you be among those praising the Holocaust if the Nazis won?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, might makes right. I've never said otherwise. However, whether might SHOULD make right is a decision for your yourself to make.

And maybe. I don't know because it never turned out that way. However, it would be totally naive of me to say catagorically I'd NEVER support the Holocaust even if the Nazis won. How could anyone really say that without getting laughed at.

[GePap]

Well, I guess I have to answer my own question, though I assume my answer will be debated.

A few things were key to Nazi's:

1) Nation is the basis of the system. An individual is born to a nation (so their definition of nation is not only simply ethno-linguistic), and his duty is to the nation. He can only achieve fulfilment through the nation and in works for it.

2) the world of man is comparble to any bilogical system. Competition is constant, healthy, and deadly. Nations compete as biological units. Like biological units, some are better adapted, or bound to be more sucessful than others. This sucess is key to future development.

3) The Nation is also the sole arbitrer of political systems. A nation must be a single political unit to be healthy and sucessful.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't forget the one leader, who lives the 'moral' life and is who all people in the society should look to for moral guidance.

[GePap]

Well, I have some problems with calling the fuhrer principle one fo the fundamental moral tenets of Nazi's. It is obviosuly critical for the political part, but I fail to see its basis given th basic tenets (and thus, one part of the internal problems of this sysstem as was put into practice)

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You said there was no society that believes A == ~A. That means that you believe that no society is self-contradictory, no?

So you're claiming that people are completely logical all of the time? Come on!

There is no society that can be self-contradictory and yet still be "logical," since no society would exist that accepts self-contradiction as being logically valid. A society (or a member of a society) that believes in something that is self-contradictory is therefore being illogical, regardless of the society in question.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The Nazis simply used another classification structure for the Jews and other undesirables to what is helpful and harmful (mostly harmful, of course). What is wrong with that?

It's inconsistent, as I noted in my first post addressed to you:

Originally posted by loinburger
...it is inconsistent (and therefore unreasonable) for you to perform a set of actions that would cause you to become morally indignant were said actions to be performed unto you...

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Most moral systems, especially modern ones, are highly complex and cannot fall within ONLY one classification structure of what is helpful or harmful. In almost all moral societies there are different classification structures for different species.

Yes, there is also a different moral structure for criminals, and often a different moral structure for the unborn or for the brain-dead. This is because such differences in classification can be made without necessarily violating causation, e.g. "Bob is immoral because he eats babies, therefore it is acceptable to lock him up because his lesser moral worth exempts him from reciprocation." Often causation is violated, though, e.g. "I don't like Bob, therefore he is of lesser moral worth simply because I do not happen to like him, so it is acceptable for me to punch him in the face." The former example can be applied reciprocally (the person performing the classification expects to be treated similarly to Bob if the person were to ever eat babies), while the latter example cannot (the person would not consider himself/herself to be of lesser moral worth simply because Bob does not happen to like him/her, and would not accept Bob's dislike of him/her as a reasonable justification for Bob punching him/her in the face, but on the contrary would be indignant at such an assault).

Why does there have to be only one? Why does equality have to take precedent? It's highly subjective to state that.

If a reasonable justification can be provided as to why somebody else is of lesser moral worth, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to fail to reciprocate with them to some extent or another. Barring such a justification, reciprocation is necessary to maintain consistency -- there is no valid reason to believe that you are somehow of greater (or lesser) moral worth than somebody else who is substantively equivalent to you. Without violating causality it isn't possible to justify the claim that the default moral worth of one person is different from the default moral worth of another person who is substantively equivalent (specifically: same general mental state, same criminal record). Simply saying that a default of equality is "highly subjective" just isn't going to cut it as a justification -- you need to explain why Occam's razor doesn't apply here.

Furthermore, why do logical moral reasonings take precedence over illogical moral reasonings?

Because logic == rationality, and a rational justification is objectively superior to an irrational justification. That's what it means to justify something -- to give reasons for it. Obviously, good reasons (rational reasons) are better than bad reasons (irrational reasons). Illogical moral reasonings are inferior because they are unjustified and unjustifiable.

Basically preferences among moral systems are all subjective, whether you base them on logicalness (I know, I made that word up) or whathaveyou.

Not true. A reasonable justification is better than an unreasonable justification, and a classification system that works is better than a classification system that doesn't work. A reasonably justified opinion is objectively superior to an unjustified opinion or an unreasonably justified opinion, regardless of the subject of the opinion.

This, loin, is why I said we should agree to disagree .

Why? Because you're going to keep crying "Subjective, subjective!" until I fall asleep?