Norsefire:
One useful approach to the supposed "relativity" of morals can be found in John Rawl's theory of justice, which explains the social contract process.
Imagine this. You get everybody together in a room to hash out the rules that will govern the society. Proposed rules may include anything, including "All Jews must be exterminated", or "All sadists must be allowed to torture people" or "Gay marriage should be legal", or whatever. The people around the table must agree on which of the rules they want for their society. Then, when they leave the room, all those rules they agreed on will apply.
Here's the catch: until they leave the room, nobody in the room knows whether in the society he will be Jewish, homosexual, a sadist, or whatever. So, on leaving the room, you might suddenly find that you're a gay Jewish woman, say.
Now, suppose we put a bunch of people into the room and they are asked to come up with a policy on the treatment of Jews in Germany in 1938, for example. Then, when they leave the room, one person finds that he is Hitler, while another finds that he is a Jew. Suppose you're one of the people in the room. Would you advocate a policy of extermination of the Jews? Remember, when you leave the room, you could well find that you're Jewish.
I don't like this method of moral deliberation although I'll explain why in the next bit
Now, the argument is that no group of people in such a room would ever vote to have a policy of extermination of the Jews, or a policy that murder or rape is legal, or whatever. Most likely, they will also decide to legalise gay marriage, just in case they turn out to be gay themselves.
I disagree; also, even if what you say is true then morality is only a utility, and "righteousness" as you propose becomes meaningless since morals are only good if they are useful to the individual, which is entirely what I was saying in the first place.
Further, this sort of deliberation leaves society powerless to take action in molding society according to a specific image; it forces us to be tolerant. Although there's nothing wrong with being tolerant, it renders us unable to take radical action for true human change, for instance the Holocaust or human society as conveyed in Brave New World.
Also if morality is an absolute, then what you are talking about doesn't apply. There are homosexuals that find homosexuality to be a sin, because they view morality as an absolute; therefore if there is true right and true wrong, then people will make decisions even if they fear they might be at the receiving end.
This method, then, gives us a way to decide which actions are moral and which are not.
It is only one method, though, and it renders society powerless
As an individual in the room, you might well believe that all Jews are scum who ought to be exterminated, but would you vote for such a rule of extermination, knowing that when you left the room you might randomly be assigned as a Jew yourself?
Yes; after all, who would want to be scum?
Note: I am not suggesting Jews are scum, I'm only responding to your question from that certain perspective
What would the people in room vote for? Would they approve of a principle that self-defence is morally ok? Remember, once they leave the room they may find that they have killed somebody and are to be tried for murder. Or, they might be the victim. Or they might be a family member of the victim. Or whatever.
As I said, this means morality is only a utility and you are only supporting my point that good is the beneficial.
That's just a form of egoism. It assumes that the aim is not a moral society, but satisfaction of selfish interests.
Yes, and it obviously is. Why do we work and co operate? In order to pursue our own selfish interests.
A moral society for the sake of being a moral society is similar to a theist society.
Put your egoists in the room and see what they'd vote for. Would they vote for a socially just society, or an "efficient", fascist one? Bear in mind that they may go out of the room and find themselves a dictator or the poorest worker.
It depends; they might vote for the former out of a self interest for happiness; they might vote for the latter in the interest of the well being of the collective.
Actually, happiness and efficiency can both exist, and tolerance is obsolete....under a specific circumstance which I will explain in my "Civilization has nothing to do with freedom or tolerance" thread, if you're interested.
No no no!
Government exists only if it is supported by people, but not a government. Particular governments can be corrupt or otherwise imperfect.
Indeed but this isn't to say a fascist government must be corrupt or imperfect; this is why I say fascism has the greatest potential: if you have a good leader, which is unrealistic yes, but if you have a good leader that is truly benevolent then fascism becomes the best form of government.
We only choose democracy out of a desire for a safeguard against corruption, not because it is actually any sort of efficient system.
Take the government of North Korea or Nazi Germany. Do you really think that the people support Kim Jong Il freely and with full knowledge of the relevant facts? If they had been put in a room, would they have voted for a country where money is siphoned off to build expensive palaces for the President, while the people go hungry?
Don't compare N. Korea and Nazi Germany. Kim Jong Il doesn't care about the collective; Hitler did, albeit only a specific group of Germans.
The problem is that rulers often have a near exclusive monopoly of the use of force. They can use that to oppress their citizens. You cannot assume that the people agree with their leaders. If they are oppressed, they may well not agree.
True but in the case of Saudi Arabia I do think they largely agree on the subject of homosexualty, and thus they even create a law for it. Although this isn't the case everywhere; as far as I'm aware there is no law against homosexuality in Syria, the worse you will face is being shunned by the community.
Also it is precisely because of this, of the monopoly on force, that I suggest libertarianism is the best bet. And yet you don't.
Really? Put yourself in the room. When you leave, you may find you have Down's syndrome, say. Are you going to vote for the elimination of all foetuses that are diagnosed as having Down's syndrome?
Don't let emotion blind you in this case; be rational, what practical purpose is served by the existence of such people? What do they contribute?
Although I
genuinly feel sorry for them because this just as easily could've been me, it is precisely because of this reason that we ought not to let people suffer.......although if choice is such a relevant issue for you, then we can make it the choice of the parent.
Although regardless eugenics seeks to eliminate such things altogether, combined with cloning and genetic engineering, disability, diversity, and unhappiness can be a thing of the past.
It depends. If they are free to speak out without fear of being killed or sanctioned in some other way, they should certainly do so. They may be able to change minds. Perhaps they can act in other ways to demonstrate the rightness of their position, too.
Although the other, larger group will also attempt to demonstrate the rightness of
their position. Therefore it only comes down to who can better enforce it.
A position that can have no argument made for it is worthless, wouldn't you say? If nobody can give an argument for a moral view, what use is morality at all? And yet, people do think that morality is useful. So, what does that suggest to you?
I'm not saying that morality is useless, only that it can change, so we shouldn't burden ourselves unnecessarily.
Although here is a relevant point: even when we are able to agree on what is wrong and what is right.......
Look at it this way: you and I can both agree that theft is wrong, correct? According to this principle, I find taxation to be wrong as I find it to be a form of theft.
However, you find that taxation is justified; you aren't necessarily saying theft is ok, though, you just don't find taxation to be theft. You still think theft is wrong, though.
Similarly, the cleric likely does find murder to be wrong. However, he doesn't view the stoning of homosexuals to be murder.
