Does "dictatorship of relativism" exist?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I deny that it is moral reasoning of any sort. Simply follow the leader.

What about those that do not follow the leader when the leader is leading them to act in a way that they reason to be immoral?

[grumbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I deny that it is moral reasoning of any sort. Simply follow the leader.

But if they believe in their leader, then following their leader is the "rational" thing to do. You cannot simply define "reasoning' as what you yourself believe and retain credibility. Not every human action is the result of reasoning, for sure, but i can assure you that my catholic family members can explain why they believe as they do using reason as well as faith. I do not follow either their reasoning or their faith, but I acknowledge that both exist.

Or rather, they knew it would be seen as bad by those judging them, so they changed their tune.

But they acted to surpress their findings at the very height of their power, so they wer not motivated by what "those judging them" might think - in fact, they thought they would be thanked by future generations for having the guts to tackle the "jewish problem" head on.

You know, there is no evidence whatever that Hitler himself knew of the real "final solution to the Jewish problem" that the Wannsee Conference came up with. "Arbeit Mach Frei" was the sign above the gates at Auschwitz. Whom do you think it was designed to fool?

[Agathon]

And that it's unknowable. At which point it's like saying "You can't prove god exists, but you can't prove he doesn't either, so THERE!"

But it's clearly different. You should be more accurate. Relativism is not a sceptical thesis.

This is blindingly obvious. Different people and groups find different moral codes acceptable.

This is a poor argument. For one, it does not entail relativism. Secondly, it ignores the fact that people agree more than they differ. In fact almost everyone agrees about most things. Differences arise in difficult cases or in cases where some other non-moral belief has consequences for moral beliefs.

And did you just learn about the empirical/a priori distinction? You should read Quine's Two Dogmas paper and get a bit more up to speed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What about those that do not follow the leader when the leader is leading them to act in a way that they reason to be immoral?

Then they are reasoning.

But if they believe in their leader, then following their leader is the "rational" thing to do.

What if believing in the leader isn't rational? After all, Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion is the antithesis of reason - faith is the important thing.

But they acted to surpress their findings at the very height of their power, so they wer not motivated by what "those judging them" might think - in fact, they thought they would be thanked by future generations for having the guts to tackle the "jewish problem" head on.

You've answered your statement. I'm sure they didn't think the current generation would agree so much.

[grumbler]

Originally posted by Kidicious
It's a response to the intolerance for alternative ideas within the church I think. It's just a way fo saying he is traditional and that he's not going to entertain any divergence from the traditional views of the church. It's a slap in the face really to anyone in the catholic church who disagrees with him.

I agree. The message there was not for the Europeans (who, alas for the poor Church, have been abandoning it in droves since education became widespread) but for the Africans and South Americans who swallow anti-European anti-intellectualism* and love it.

*Not that all anti-intellectualism is bad ("I love Caris" is an anti-intelectualk sentiment) - just that anti-intellectualism is bad when aplied to more than one person at a time.

[grumbler]

Originally posted by Agathon
[Relativism is not a sceptical thesis.

A point that cannot be made too strongly.

[Agathon]

Anyway, if moral rules are subject to scepticism, then so are mathematical ones.

[grumbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You've answered your statement. I'm sure they didn't think the current generation would agree so much.

Exactly. Because they were reasoning using OTHER than moral reasoning. If they had thought their actions moral, they would have trumpeted them. And that is my counter-argument to those who say "why, if there are universal human morals, do not people behave according to a universal human moral code?"

Because morality is just part of human motivation. And the fact that people can disagree about how to act does not disprove what is, in essence, a universal human moral code at the highest level of moral reasoning.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Then they are reasoning.

I don't think a moral judgement is correct just because reason was used to come to the conclusion. The point is that we use reasoning to come to moral judgements for the same reason that we use reasoning to arive at objective truths, because there is a correct answer. If there wasn't a correct answer then why would we bother?

[grumbler]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I don't think a moral judgement is correct just because reason was used to come to the conclusion. The point is that we use reasoning to come to moral judgements for the same reason that we use reasoning to arive at objective truths, because there is a correct answer. If there wasn't a correct answer then why would we bother?

I do not think we can use reason to arrive at "objective truths" can we? We can use observations to arrive at what are to all appearances objective truths, but reason only tells us where to look for more observations to support conclusions that are not objective truths.

But maybe I have the scientific method down wrong, and you can provide objective truths not based on observation, but on pure reasoning.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because they were reasoning using OTHER than moral reasoning. If they had thought their actions moral, they would have trumpeted them.

Um no... just because you think you are morally right doesn't mean your trumpet them if you think it will not be accepted by the society writ large. You may think future generations will validate you later and thus believe you are moral, but the world is not yet ready for it.

What other reasoning were they using for the Final Solution anyway? A reading of Nazi propaganda and liturature seems to show a moral belief that the Jews are inferior and its a short jump to the idea that they should be terminated.

And the fact that people can disagree about how to act does not disprove what is, in essence, a universal human moral code

Um... doesn't disagreement about acting morally disprove any universal human moral code?

I don't think a moral judgement is correct just because reason was used to come to the conclusion. The point is that we use reasoning to come to moral judgements for the same reason that we use reasoning to arive at objective truths, because there is a correct answer. If there wasn't a correct answer then why would we bother?

So what is the 'correct answer' when there are 5 different views on morality, for example? We reason to decide which way we want to live... doesn't mean we have to think it's better than how anyone else wants to live.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by grumbler
I do not think we can use reason to arrive at "objective truths" can we?

We can use observations to arrive at what are to all appearances objective truths, but reason only tells us where to look for more observations to support conclusions that are not objective truths.

But maybe I have the scientific method down wrong, and you can provide objective truths not based on observation, but on pure reasoning.

Essentially what you are saying is that observations are objective truths. There's a mental process that we go through to identify objective truths from our observations. That's what I'm calling reason (to think logically).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So what is the 'correct answer' when there are 5 different views on morality, for example? We reason to decide which way we want to live... doesn't mean we have to think it's better than how anyone else wants to live.

What does having the correct answer have to do with it. Perhaps non of them have the correct answer.

Imagine that 5 people take a test. Does it matter what answers they get when you are trying to determine if there is a correct answer? Is that what you would do as a professor? If everyone got different answers would you say that there is no correct answer?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Agathon
Anyway, if moral rules are subject to scepticism, then so are mathematical ones.

Why not? Both are artificial human constructs.

The sole grounding of morality to any absolute is the fact that human beings by biological nature are social animals. Hence any human morality, to function, must enforce and maintain social order. This is why certain values, such as prohibitions on murder and theft are universal.

But the list of universal tabboos is short, VERY short. Every other moral value, specially things like "tolerance" or "piety" are utterly relative, including something like "the golden rule".

A simple stroll down human history should more than adequately show this to be true empirically. Moral values have changed drastically, as they must given the changing conditions.

Our modern "Liberal Values" are a creation of our long history of moral philosophy and such, as well as a a reaction to the scientific revolution and the massive growth in population and density, which put brand new pressures on human groups.

BUt the basic truth is this-there is no absolute moral code out there, that would, for example, condemn the Aztecs and their religion of human sacrifice.

[Agathon]

But the list of universal tabboos is short, VERY short. Every other moral value, specially things like "tolerance" or "piety" are utterly relative, including something like "the golden rule".

I've heard this all before. It still doesn't show that morality is relative. In fact a lot of things that people will think are moral principles differ only because they aren't in fact principles, but adaptations of principles to the environment.

The fact we can make the moral codes of others intelligible to ourselves as moral codes in the vast majority of cases speaks against relativism.