Gods and Generals

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd


So, then, if your society (by which I assume you mean >50% of people with power to enforce their will) believes in slavery, and you don't have the power to resist slavery, then you have no right to be free?

Well, gee, I guess there really was nothing wrong with the Holocaust, or, to use a more current example, nothing wrong with Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, right?

, David. Are you talking "rights" like "civil rights" or right as in "right and wrong?"

Social convention now makes the gassing of the Kurds wrong (by both Iranians and Iraqis) and the Holocaust too. Sorry, there's no "objective" wrong there, because the entire concept of right and wrong is a human construct, not an objective condition.

Social convention in the past (say the Roman empire) considered slavery to be A-OK, and genocide was quite appropriate if the barbarians continued to pester a la Carthage.

I'll agree with that, if we define society as a collection of individuals, with a majority being defined as >50% of power-wielding individuals, and if we change your use of the word "granting" to "recognizing".

Why change the word, when it's accurate?

This doesn't, however, change the basic facts - that certain rights are present regardless of what society says

If you want to argue "natural rights" or rights as "facts" - then do so while in a cage with a hungry tiger, and see who wins. (No guns, just your debating skills on the concept of natural rights.) "Rights" are nothing more than moral ideas - i.e. they require human thought to exist, and those thoughts are meaningless fantasy without a social construct by which those rights are granted. Can you imagine a Jew in the holocaust successfully arguing with the SS that "We have basic rights and you can't do this to us?" - nice try, but it ain't gonna happen.

(and your opposition to the Holocaust or gassing Kurds or slavery validates this position, regardless of what you say),

My finding such things morally repugnant has nothing to do with a presence or absence of some "right" on the part of the people affected.

and that violating those rights is an immoral act (I can't imagine you think that slavery is moral, therefore it must be immoral).

The fact that I feel it is immoral does nothing to change the objective conditions which existed - namely, that until society granted a right that no person shall be enslaved, slavery in the United States existed as a common institution.

Sure I have it. I just might be unable to exercise it without getting killed/imprisoned.

Then it's meaningless, except perhaps for an ego exercise.

No it didn't. If the Southern States had a right to secede, then they STILL have a right to secede, regardless of the outcome of the war. Might and military power do NOT change objective truths and moral right and wrong.

Might and military power ARE objective truths. Rights and morality are abstract concepts.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Might and military power ARE objective truths. Rights and morality are abstract concepts.

Tell that to Gandhi, Paine,... and Bush?.

Abstract concepts are what gets people to USE military power.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Shawnmmcc - some excellent points, though there's a couple of things on which I disagree - wrt States and disenfranchisement, this was essentially universal, not specific to the secessionist south. Shay's rebellion and Dorr's rebellion both dealt with these issues, and there are many other examples - Lincoln's promise to appoint Simon Cameron Secretary of War (the most lucrative spoils and kickbacks post in the Federal government) in return for delivering the state of Pennsylvania is another example, as is Tammany Hall. State and local politics throughout the US was always about the elites, not the majority.

Also, regarding the three-fifths rule, the only thing affected was apportionment in the House and the number of electors. Although the number of white voters per representative or elector was reduced by application of the three-fifths rule, this never resulted in any real shift in power - southern states simply had somewhat less of a minority in the House than they would have had otherwise.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ozz


Tell that to Gandhi, Paine,... and Bush?.

Abstract concepts are what gets people to USE military power.

The catch is that nobody controls ahead of time what those abstract concepts are - whether enlightened, or brutally oppressive, or anywhere in between.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The catch is that nobody controls ahead of time what those abstract concepts are - whether enlightened, or brutally oppressive, or anywhere in between.

Nobody controls them after most of the time eithier, ie Rosepierre. Ideas are like genies out of the bottle once
out you can't put them back in.

Our concepts of "good" or "evil" isn't the issue, it's whatwever concept in the generals culture what will inspire his soldiers and people to fight and to win.

The Vikings were the most honest, LOOT. But every
war has it's concepts Christianity vs Heathens, Crusades
Holy wars, Freedom and Democracy, the Master Race
The white mans burden etc.

[David Floyd]

shawn,

"Moral" unfortunately is extremely relative except for some basic maxims . For example, thou shalt not kill - except for infidels, witches, mud people, strangers, etc. This is why I used the dual examples of Sharia and the anti-gay beliefs of many (not all) Christian fundamentalists in this country (please note - if you believe the activity is sinful, i.e. wrong than you are usually considered against that activity).

I wasn't saying that everyone believes in the same objective truth - just that everyone believes SOME objective truth exists. If we can establish that, we can go on to establish other things by looking at common threads throughout these beliefs. For example, I find it highly unlikely that anyone, anywhere, would find it morally right for another person to murder them, or rob them at gunpoint, or lock them in a closet. If people believe that applies to themselves, then in the name of consistency and logic that must also be applied to others. Hence, most people believe that everyone possesses the right to life, liberty, and property.

Now, the biggest stopping point here is the definition of liberty. Most people in the world define liberty as the freedom to do whatever activity they agree with. However, everyone agrees with different activities - yet everyone would still claim to agree with the right to liberty. I would argue that this renders their definition of the word "liberty" incorrect, and the right to liberty is an all-encompassing freedom that gives one the right to do anything (so long as another's rights are not infringed upon, of course).

The point, though, is that if people are honest with themselves, everyone believes in objective truth and morality in some way, and that absolute relativism is silly. If we can at least agree to that, we're making progress.

The majority, so again over 500 million, believe in Sharia, the codification of Islamic law many centuries ago. They believe it IS moral to punish an adulteress/adulterer, often stoning them to death, and because of the witness requirements most of the people receiving this punishment are going to be female. If you do not believe this includes a large amount of people, you have large areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, northern Nigeria, parts of Indonesia, large areas of the Middle East, and Iran depending on if the religious police get you. I'll let the reader total the numbers.

These people aren't being consistent, and in my opinion, inconsistency (and a refusal to correct this inconsistency) renders a person's belief system logically invalid and irrelevant. Hence, I do not care what these people say they believe, because it is inconsistent with what they actually believe (that is, it would be wrong for these actions to happen to themselves).

This is why I am a social libetarian.

Interestingly enough, I am too. Yet Libertarian beliefes tend to gravitate towards objective truth/morality rather than relativism. This objective truth is the presence of natural rights, and this objective morality is the belief that it is wrong to infringe upon natural rights. Libertarians don't tend to care about people's personal decisions, and in that sense, morals can be relative - but to me, and I imagine most Libertarians, it's irrelevant if a person is homosexual, or a compulsive gambler, or a drug addict, so long as this person isn't infringing upon the rights of another.

What I'm saying, basically, is that I'm not using the term "absolute morals" in the way fundamentalist Christians do (although, again, interestingly enough, I am a Christian), and that you shouldn't confuse my usage with the average, inconsistent/illogical fundie usage.

My definition of left and right wing in the United States is that each group attempts to coerce solely personal behaviour they disappove of via the legistative process, while protecting those behaviours they approve of. When either group complains about the result - legalized abortion or passing laws to elimnate all gun ownership, for example - they get on their moral high ground, and if the opposing issue is brought up, well, "that's different."

That's exactly right, and that's why neither of them can be correct - they are both inconsistent with their own underlying beliefs.

MtG,

David. Are you talking "rights" like "civil rights" or right as in "right and wrong?"

Is there a difference? To me, individual rights and right and wrong from a moral perspective are linked.

Social convention now makes the gassing of the Kurds wrong (by both Iranians and Iraqis) and the Holocaust too

This implies that gassing the Kurds and the Jews was once right. I seriously doubt you could find a Kurd or a Jew who was being gassed to say that, nor could you find an Iraqi/Iranian or a Nazi who was doing the gassing to say that it would be OK to gas them.

Social convention in the past (say the Roman empire) considered slavery to be A-OK, and genocide was quite appropriate if the barbarians continued to pester a la Carthage.

All this means is that a majority of power-wielding individuals felt it was OK, not that it was actually OK.

Why change the word, when it's accurate?

Clearly because it isn't accurate.

If you want to argue "natural rights" or rights as "facts" - then do so while in a cage with a hungry tiger, and see who wins.

That's stupid. For one thing, you're allowing a tiger to use all of it's natural advantages (specifically, strength/ferocity) while not allowing me to take advantage of any of mine (specifically, intelligence/ingenuity/inventiveness). For another, you are bringing in an irrelevant element. Animals have nothing to do with rights - rights only involve humans and interactions between humans. Sure, a tiger can kill me, but that's not a violation of my rights. Thirdly, you are implying that might makes right, so I'll ask you this question again: If a man with a gun decides you don't have the right to your life, and shoots you, does that mean that you actually did not have a right to your life, or does it simply mean that your right to life was violated?

Can you imagine a Jew in the holocaust successfully arguing with the SS that "We have basic rights and you can't do this to us?"

Certainly I can imagine a successful argument, from the standpoint that the Jew is arguing from the moral high ground and the logically consistent position. I can't imagine objective truth changing anything in this situation, but that's simply because one party is determined to behave immorally, not because there is no objective truth or absolute morals.

My finding such things morally repugnant has nothing to do with a presence or absence of some "right" on the part of the people affected.

You finding such things morally wrong means that you agree with the concept of absolute right and wrong, which was my original point.

The fact that I feel it is immoral does nothing to change the objective conditions which existed

Again, if a person is determined to behave immorally, and has superior force backing them up, then you are correct - being in the right, morally, will probably not change the outcome. That doesn't negate the fact that the stronger party is still behaving immorally, though.

Then it's meaningless

No it isn't - it means that the other party is behaving immorally, which is always relevant.

Might and military power ARE objective truths. Rights and morality are abstract concepts.

Obviously you don't believe that, because you already stated that gassing the Kurds was wrong. If you believed morality was simply an abstract concept, and only power was relevant, then you should rephrase yourself to say that gassing the Kurds is only wrong if they prove stronger than you. And you should also state that murder is only wrong if you get caught.

[Mr. Harley]

I wasn't saying that everyone believes in the same objective truth - just that everyone believes SOME objective truth exists.

Okay, let's get straight it there. Most people believe in THEIR objective truth. This is not a good start. The most commonly believed objective truth concerns morality, and the basis is the word of god(s). This is why morality does not necessarily need to be bothered with the concept of consistency (as seen by outsiders) - everything stems from the basis of absolute truth concerning sacred texts. This is one of the reasons the bloodiest conflicts in human history concern heresy, i.e. a disagreement over the fundamental truth of the same set of religious texts.

Here is one example of how these differing views of consistency cause morality and ethics to diverge. Let's look at the golden rule, which occurs in multiple variations accross various sacred texts. "Treat others as you would have them treat you." The religious fundamentalist will read this as "Impose the sacred and moral laws of my texts on everyone, including myself." The ethicist will disagree, stating that the actual application would be "Have others impose their sacred and moral laws on me (in which I do not believe)." The religious fundamentalist, would, and does, always scream "but that's different" hence my litmus test in the earlier posts. The religious fundamentalist already KNOWS his beliefs are righteous, it's called faith. I've learned not to argue matters of faith, it's pointless

There are many attempts in the moral world to attempt to apply the internal logic Mr. Floyd speaks of, and they result in melding of morality and ethics. But more often than not, morality results from interptation of sacred texts, i.e. God says... This maybe logically inconsistant, but if they have power (objective means) and use this to impose that belief on others, those on the receiving end will hardly find it irrelevant. Ask the Baha in Iran, the Christians in East Timor, or the animists in the Sudan, all suffering under Sharia.

... nor could you find an Iraqi/Iranian or a Nazi who was doing the gassing to say that it would be OK to gas them

Again, obviously they did find people who thought it was okay, and carried out the atrocities. Unfortunately, most societies have at one time or another subscribed to exactly that belief as long as it was "those people". Look at a map of the Native American reservations in California. They are all pretty small.

This is because, in addition to the toll taken by disease and starvation, one popular activity in American California (vs. Spanish, they accomplished genocide via forced labor under hideous conditions) was going Indian hunting. You'd assemble a posse on horseback and they would engage in the joys of hunting poor agricultural or hunter/gatherer villagers, often taking trophies afterwards. Most American high school history texts don't talk about this, just like Japanese high school history tests do not discuss the rape of Nanking. "My country right or wrong."

We have had a pretty good discussion going on abstract versus concrete, and absolute vs. relative. They represent different, though interacting (heavily, in this thread ) concepts. Morality and ethics are ABSTRACT, period. The real argument is whether the are absolute or relative, which we've attempted to deal with earlier in this and other posts. Mankind has been arguing this for millenia.

Power, like all concepts, is abstract. However, the tools of power such as armies, police, concentration camps, and extermination are all concrete. Most concentrations of concrete power, the Roman and Persian Empires, the Third Reich, and the British empire, to name a few, are gone. Concrete power is always transitory in the vast tapestry of history, though its long-term effects often are not.

"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away. - Shelley

Abstract concepts can change the entire course of human history. Look at Hamurabi's code. The effects can be either negative or positive, or sometimes a hideous mix, for example British common law both bringing with it the CONCEPT of impartial courts (mabye not always the practice) but also land ownership imposed on various collectivist village/substinence based cultures, often with horrendous results to those peoples.

Abstract concepts that meet the criteria of internal logic and consistency, while attempting to meet that oft disputed concept of being universal, usually stand the test of time, and slowly but surely become accepted by human civilization. That is why we see Hitler's genocide as wrong, while less than a hundred years before that, in the United States, the genocide of Native Americans was seen as acceptable, even desirable by many if not a majority (read the writings of the time). Sharia as currently practiced may become irrelevant, as is now the burning of witches in Christiandom.

wrt States and disenfranchisement, this was essentially universal, not specific to the secessionist south

That's why I carefully notes states, not southern states when I made the comment about senatorial elections, and have made multiple comments about Republics vs. Democracies. The reason I've stressed the south is because of the common misconception (I am also a transplanted Yankee in a border state) the the common people succeeded from the Union. It's also why I commented on Lincoln like I did.

Also, you will find that district apportionment did take into account slaves, depending on the state and the level of direct control the planters exercised in the state. Thus lowland areas were often massively overrepresented in the state legislatures based on white male potential voters. Of course these areas were almost always the seat of power in the antebellum south, just as the major metropolitan areas and the seats of state government had become the nexus of power in the North.

Reference your point on earlier rebellions in American history, it makes a synthesis point for both your and Mr. Floyd. The abstract concept of true majority rule has slowly been working it's way through American history, resulting in concrete changes like universal sufferage (more or less), and the direct election of Senators. Of course without concrete military power, the country would have fragmented multiple times, so that aspect cannot be ignored either. It took both, concrete military power, and abstract concepts as light as spider silk, yet stronger than steel cable (I know I'm misquoting somebody) to create the nation we have today. It's not perfect, but it's one of the better attempts.

edited for two grammatical errors

[David Floyd]

Okay, let's get straight it there. Most people believe in THEIR objective truth. This is not a good start.

Actually, it's a great start. If someone admits to believing in an objective truth, you can then ask them basic questions involving the consistency of their position. Once you make them look like an inconsistent fool (which is pretty common), you've shown that what they believe is objective truth is wrong. However, they've already admitted to believing in some objective truth. Any reasonable person won't go back on that belief just because you show them that their other related belief is wrong - that is, the fact that their belief about what truth IS should not change their belief that truth EXISTS. If their basic belief does change, then you have again shown them to be a fool, and you can probably stop debating with them.

The point is this. If a person admits to believing in objective truth, they've made a pretty big admission that isn't easy to go back on, at least not on the basis of your refutation of another belief. If you want to refute the existence of objective truth, that's fine and you're welcome to try, but that brings us back to the position of forcing you to admit that the the Holocaust, slavery, slaughtering Indians, burning heretics, etc., might actually have been morally OK. And if someone wants to admit to that, you can again attack that person's consistency by asking them if it would be OK for 51% of people with power to burn THEM at the stake. Good luck getting someone to concede that to you.

This is why morality does not necessarily need to be bothered with the concept of consistency

Sure it does. If one's vision of absolute truth is inconsistent with itself, then it obviously cannot be correct. Unless, again, someone wants to take the position that it's OK to gas Jews, but it wouldn't be OK for someone to gas you.

Here is one example of how these differing views of consistency cause morality and ethics to diverge. Let's look at the golden rule, which occurs in multiple variations accross various sacred texts. "Treat others as you would have them treat you." The religious fundamentalist will read this as "Impose the sacred and moral laws of my texts on everyone, including myself."

But the fundamentalist would not be being logical. Treating others as you would have them treat yourself involves letting others do things in their personal life that you might not agree with. The golden rule basically says that those who adhere to it should treat homosexuals, for example, no different than a fundamentalist Baptist. But if the fundamentalist Baptist doesn't take that position, he or she obviously has problems - either they can't read the English language, or they don't consistently believe in their own set of beliefs.

The religious fundamentalist already KNOWS his beliefs are righteous, it's called faith.

Right, but that's irrelevant. The golden rule, if one adheres to it, forces those to treat people perceived to be sinners no differently than you would treat someone perceived to be a saint.

But more often than not, morality results from interptation of sacred texts,

More often than not, people define morality as what they believe their deity says - sure, I'll agree with that. Doesn't make them right.

This maybe logically inconsistant, but if they have power (objective means) and use this to impose that belief on others, those on the receiving end will hardly find it irrelevant.

But again, all you are saying is that those with power can behave as immorally as they want to behave. That's generally correct, but it doesn't change the objective truth, nor does it change the fact that they SHOULD behave morally.

Again, obviously they did find people who thought it was okay, and carried out the atrocities.

Yes, but would Heinrich Himmler have thought it was OK for the Jews to gas HIM? I doubt it.

Abstract concepts that meet the criteria of internal logic and consistency, while attempting to meet that oft disputed concept of being universal, usually stand the test of time, and slowly but surely become accepted by human civilization.

Of course, 99% of all abstract concepts are NOT logical or consistent. Religion isn't. Nazism isn't. Communism isn't. Absolutism isn't. Democracy isn't. Or, at least, the people who adhere to those beliefs are not logical or consistent in applying them, which is the real point.

[Az]

More often than not, people define morality as what they believe their deity says - sure, I'll agree with that. Doesn't make them right.

I think that this is sort of where Morals and Ethics take their respective positions. While morality is an undefined set of things that feel right, or were told by others as right. While ethics use logical arguements to prove their point.

This objective truth is the presence of natural rights, and this objective morality is the belief that it is wrong to infringe upon natural rights.

I think a better first word would be "mine".

In any case, all the power to you, DF, for pushing people on their ethical inconsistency. Despite the facts our ethics differ in an un-bridgeable way, You're consistent in your philosophy.

[Mr. Harley]

Mr. Floyd did a great job of analyzing faith-based, inconsistant (there CAN BE consistant faith-based morality) morality. Except that, having watched his previous posts, he left out a critical part of my posts when quoting me.

This is why morality does not necessarily need to be bothered with the concept of consistency (as seen by outsiders) - everything stems from the basis of absolute truth concerning sacred texts.

Logic is based on a series of premises. The religious fundamentalist ONLY premise is based on the absolute truth of sacred texts, which they interpet as objective. Occasionally, from within that framework, you can get them to admit to a DIFFERENT interptation of THOSE SACRED TEXTS. It's extremely difficult, and often impossible. If any other premise disagrees with their core premise, that other premise is discarded. For example, their interptation of the golden rule will be that "god(s)'s words are divine" and that it is moral behaviour (as defined by "our" interptation of these words) is good. It is GOOD to impose this moral behaviour on everyone, and I have no problem, in fact want them imposed on me also. The ethicist reads the golden rule from the linguistic concept only, the religous fundamentalist brings an entire framework of basis beliefs to the interptation of EVERYTHING. That's why they see themselves as consistant, if they even bother with that. For them, there is no inconsistancy. If you instead confront them with the ethically interptation of the golden rule, "That's different..." We (the ethicists) are being unreasonable, not granting them their premise of divine absolute enlightenment.

I think that this is sort of where Morals and Ethics take their respective positions. While morality is an undefined set of things that feel right, or were told by others as right. While ethics use logical arguements to prove their point.

Ever try to argue logic with a person whose basis is feeling? The only way to deal with this is to deal with the feeling, often in an intuitive, non-rational way. This is why my wife is a successful therapist, and I am not. Ever try to argue with a dysfunctional adolescent successfully from logic and then have them act on that agreement? Plus, this technique takes months for one little change. That's why I gave up arguing logic versus faith. I'd rather have the people who have joined in this debate as friends, even when we disagree, at least we have an INTELLIGENT disagreement, and it's been suprisingly polite! Plus by making me defend my own beliefs, logically and consistantly, it helps me examine them for their ethical basis.

I agree with Mr. Floyd, the people with inconsistant moral beliefs are often fools, and in the vast tapestry of history "irrelevant." Here I suspect comes the core difference between Mr. Floyd and many of our other recent posters. The people with these inconsistant, wrong beliefs when in power are NOT irrelevant if you are on the receiving end, living under their authority and subject to the concrete institutions of power that they control. That is why voting in any kind of even vaguely democratic system is important, because as Nazi Germany proved, these irrelevant people can sieze control in a heartbeat, and do incalculable harm before they are removed.

I hope David's attempt to convert morally inconsistant people works, and I wish him every success. Maybe he can run for politics, we need more idealists instead of jaded realists like myself. I'll keep voting, and hoping

[Az]

Maybe he can run for politics

I applaud him for his consistency, but NOT for his philosophy.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
It was neighbor against neighbor. If you aren't willing to fight for your neighborhood property values, what are you willing to fight for?

And who could forget Shermans brutal march to the street, where the lines of troops wore a dusty path through the yard?