What makes anything ethical, moral or just?

[Me-Ki-Gal]

He may, but there seems to be a tendency for the local teens to get hopped up on Xanax and then decide to go steal things for fun. And they aren't bright kids.
:shrug:
I don't get it either.



Still possibly torched.
If I get really nervous I might do the ghetto alternative: lug the car battery into the house every night.
ATM all the adjacent hoodlums have their own hoopty and don't need mine.
But it's a potential dilemma-car thief or catching a thief in my house... what do I do.
...And I suspect my anger would take over.

Shoot him, buy a gun . A 357 will work real good. Easy to shoot even for the Little darling. If it is a short snub nose one like the highway patrol have , get some good pistol grips as they can have a little bit of recoil . Long barrels are what I like. You can't even feel it fire hardly and the accuracy is a lot better. . The 45 is a little much though. It is a mans gun for the most part. Even some men can't handle it . Sorry ladies that shoot 45s I know you can . Don't shoot Me

 

[James R]

quadraphonics:

Maybe if you stop reading at Kant. Did antihumanism, perspectivism, relativism, structuralism, etc. never happen?

You didn't address the point I made. Most moral philosophers today describe themselves as moral realists. Maybe if they stop reading at Kant ??? :shrug:

Also, moral realism isn't the same as moral universalism. Maybe if you stop reading at Kant. :shrug:

There are many problems with moral relativism when it is taken beyond a certain point. For a start, it seems to be possible to be wrong about a moral decision.

? How is that a "problem," and anyway how would moral universalism address such? Or did you mean to write something like "it seems to be impossible to be wrong about a moral decision?"

I meant what I wrote.

I haven't mentioned moral universalism.

The problem is that if there is only "right for you" or "right for me", then nobody can ever be wrong about a moral judgment. All my moral judgments become "right for me". Understand?

 

[Rav]

You want to impose whatever consensus moral system world scrutiny would amount to (and implicitly assume that such matches your own, at least in this case).

Every person should be given the chance to reach their full potential; to explore the fullness of human existence, at least as much as is possible once practical considerations are taken into account. Any moral, ethical or legal system that allows the oppression of this basic freedom (except in cases where someone is acting in opposition to it) is fundamentally flawed. This basic idea represents the underlying mechanics of my moral compass.

Rape is a brutal violation of personal freedom and can have long lasting emotional and psychological consequences that severely impact upon a persons ability to reach their full potential. Even within a culture where the emotional consequences aren't quite as significant simply because of how common it is, it still negatively impacts on a persons sense of freedom and self-worth (unless you can find me some examples where this isn't the case).

In the end I'd feel completely justified in imposing a moral system designed to put an end to such violations and no amount of philosophizing about ethics and morality would distract me.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Which is to say, according to your own culturally-relative norms. There are cultures in which the brutal rape of girls is not criminal, particularly if said girl is from a particular section of society (or another society entirely).

If I'm going to punish a criminal via the courts for a criminal act he committed, I personally do not care what the criminal thinks about it and I feel no different about the criminal acts of a culture.

Which is to say that you're engaged in cultural imperialism. You want to impose whatever consensus moral system world scrutiny would amount to (and implicitly assume that such matches your own, at least in this case).

Well you can call it what you will, but I'd settle for a world legal system if there was one. I sense you don't agree with the things that are wrong in some cultures. However you are playing the devils advocate on this subject. What would you recommend?

Enough to make such a custom, by definition.

The leaders in a harsh brutal government don't have any problem forcing any custom they want on a population. By calling it a custom it would appear to have popular support, when in fact it doesn't.

It seems otherwise, in many instances. For example, progressive politicians in regressive religious cultures tend to face the threat of death when they challenge such mores.

Yeah! I'd sure hate to have to live with extremest terrorist that would kill me if I voice an opinion different from theirs. Maybe I should just pack up my stuff and move to a new country or if I can't do that just keep my mouth shut.

Moreover, the premise that cultural norms should be reevaluated democratically is itself a culturally-relative judgement. That cultural norms might be dictated and enforced by a power elite is itself considered "right" and "moral" in certain places, and so the masses in those cultures would have no particular basis for respecting democratic resistance to such (or even, producing any such resistance to begin with).

We all know that purposely causing pain and suffering in others is wrong. Now if that same girl was allowed to grow to an adult and then make the decision to be castrated, I would be okay with her making that choice. I don't think any culture is sacred and should be protected at all cost, some just need changing or they need to go the way of the dinosaurs.

 

[chimpkin]

Shoot him, buy a gun

The two we have would do, thanks...
But I'm wanting a pump-action 12-gauge because my hands shake when freaked out, and because the racking in of a shell *may* prevent pulling the trigger.
I think part of the reason I'm willing to be so violent with a thief is because I see that the police don't seem to care-I've had my place robbed before.

I therefore don't see that I have any institutional protection for my property-that I work very hard to get.

Maybe this is because I'm poor, maybe middle/upper class people get a better police response to property crimes...

Every person should be given the chance to reach their full potential; to explore the fullness of human existence, at least as much as is possible once practical considerations are taken into account. Any moral, ethical or legal system that allows the oppression of this basic freedom (except in cases where someone is acting in opposition to it) is fundamentally flawed.

Agreed...and that neatly encapsulates my problem with cultural relativism(although when I'm metaphorically in someone else's house)....but I don't think I live in such an ideal society myself.

Do you believe you do?

 

[quadraphonics]

You didn't address the point I made. Most moral philosophers today describe themselves as moral realists. Maybe if they stop reading at Kant ??? :shrug:

I'm fairly sure I addressed exactly that in the material immediately following the stuff you quoted. So, please try to read/quote a bit less selectively before issuing such complaints.

Also, moral realism isn't the same as moral universalism.

I suppose, but is there some relevant difference, here?

I meant what I wrote..

To go by your subsequent expansion, it seems that you meant to write what I suggested you might have meant to write:

The problem is that if there is only "right for you" or "right for me", then nobody can ever be wrong about a moral judgment. All my moral judgments become "right for me". Understand?

Sure - but, again, why is that a problem? That's only a problem if you start from the position that moral universalism must be correct. If you start from the position that morals are simply projections of biases and interests, then that sort of outcome is no issue at all; it's exactly what you expect to see. And so such doesn't make much of an argument for favoring moral realism over the alternatives - it's barely more than a tautology.

But I'd add that the relativity in question is typically salient at the cultural level. At the individual level, you end up with something like solipsism. People within a common culture tend to agree on what is and is not moral (mostly) - it's the attempts to apply one group's standards to another that generate the real conflicts and hard questions. And I'd further suggest that it's the immersion of most individuals in like-minded cultures that gives rise to the common conviction that morals are real, universal entities, and that their imposition on anyone and everyone is thereby justified.

 

[quadraphonics]

Every person should be given the chance to reach their full potential; to explore the fullness of human existence, at least as much as is possible once practical considerations are taken into account. Any moral, ethical or legal system that allows the oppression of this basic freedom (except in cases where someone is acting in opposition to it) is fundamentally flawed. This basic idea represents the underlying mechanics of my moral compass.

That's great. What is the basis for imposing such premises on anyone else? Specifically, on people who do not accept its tenets?

In the end I'd feel completely justified in imposing a moral system designed to put an end to such violations and no amount of philosophizing about ethics and morality would distract me.

Indeed you would - that people derive self-righteousness and justifications for imposing on others from their moral reasoning is one of the features of ethics. But the question is whether those you'd impose upon would feel that you are similarly justified. And for that, you'll need some philosophizing. To be content to simply impose your morals by force is hardly to dispute any of my points about morals being projections of bias and interest, no?

 

[quadraphonics]

If I'm going to punish a criminal via the courts for a criminal act he committed, I personally do not care what the criminal thinks about it and I feel no different about the criminal acts of a culture.

Ah, but those are not comparable situations. In the former, you're operating within a shared cultural context - that criminal is violating the ethical norms of a society that he has some stake in, and influence over (however small). The latter is about you imposing your own set of ethical norms in the place of some other set of ethical norms, generated by some other society that you do not have a stake in. It is imperialism, plain and simple.

Well you can call it what you will, but I'd settle for a world legal system if there was one.

Indeed, but the cultural relativity of the question of what sorts of ethical norms said legal system ought to enshrine is a central impediment to the formation of such a world legal system. This is another place where you can see how the relativity in question causes fundamental, possibly-intractable difficulties.

I sense you don't agree with the things that are wrong in some cultures.

Of course. I'm no more immune to the impulse to judge than anyone.

However you are playing the devils advocate on this subject. What would you recommend?

I recommend aknowledging that acting on such a cross-cultural moral imperative amounts to imperialism, and behaving accordingly. That doesn't mean you never do it. It just means that you take responsibility for the fact that doing such is imperialism, and so refrain from such when that cost would outweigh the expected benefits. What you don't do is pretend that you aren't engaged in imperialism, that your own culture's norms are self-evidently superior, or that you're acting in the name of some universal good and not the set of cultural interests and biases enshrined in the ethical code you're imposing. That's a recipe for hubris.

The leaders in a harsh brutal government don't have any problem forcing any custom they want on a population. By calling it a custom it would appear to have popular support, when in fact it doesn't.

Maybe you have some example of this? The FGM stuff you were talking about doesn't seem to fall into that category - rather the opposite, really.

We all know that purposely causing pain and suffering in others is wrong.

Do we? Really? I mean, sure, I personally agree with that, and you'll have no trouble finding others that feel the same. But we can also find people that will justify, as perfectly moral, the imposition of pain and suffering on others. There's no shortage of political ideologies on the face of the Earth that make explicit moral justifications for the infliction of pain and suffering on certain groups and individuals. Sure, we can say they're wrong for doing that - but how would you go about proving that to them?

I don't think any culture is sacred and should be protected at all cost, some just need changing or they need to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Indeed, and I applaud your honesty on that count. But such an impulse is exactly imperialism, no?

 

[KilljoyKlown]

@ quadraphonics

Okay you made your point, but that's why I am in favor of a world government with the power to back up it's laws, and yes I do realize it might not be everything I expected. But it might be the one best chance the human race has to survive and got off this planet so that all our eggs are not in one place. After all in the dozens of end all life on Earth scenarios we keep hearing it's not if they are going to happen, but when. They don't even talk about many of the very bad scenarios where the quality of life just degrades over thousands of years.

So in answer to “What makes anything ethical, moral or just” I would have to say getting past survival mode, because in survival mode anything goes and ethical, moral and just don't even enter the picture.

 

[chimpkin]

So in answer to “What makes anything ethical, moral or just” I would have to say getting past survival mode, because in survival mode anything goes and ethical, moral and just don't even enter the picture.

Meh, I dunno if I'd totally agree with that...

Have to think really hard about it, but I'm inclined to give the snap answer "Survival at what cost?"

In the case I gave with a thief, he (maybe she) is violating a cultural norm I endorse and the thief is aware of: namely, you don't invade someone's territory and take their stuff.
There is also a cultural norm in my region of dealing with home invaders with lethal force-such that we've recently passed the "castle doctrine" into state law...not true in every state, some states will charge you if you could have fled and did not.
Here you can kill someone breaking into your house and no charges get filed; it's your residence, you are allowed to use lethal force to defend it.

But that's not someone trying to win my help, that's someone trying to steal from me. Taking my needed resources, probably for nothing but amusement. Placing their want over my need.
I don't consider a person who would do that of much value.

If, say, I had one bag of rice and there were five other people who weren't trying to take it from me...but begging me for food...it would be very difficult to not cook us all up a big pot of rice.

And would I kill someone for their bag of rice? no. I'd end up starving first, while looking for alternatives to doing that.

(Although I do not buy into the fiction that a corporation is a person...so I might be willing to shoplift a corporate chain-store in desperate circumstances...but only desperate circumstances. )

I place value on respect for property, and for not violating a person's territory. I also value co-operation and mutual aid.

Such that they are incorporated into my self-definition...and to violate them would destroy my self esteem and sense of self so much that I'd most likely choose to die rather than break my own moral code.

Hmm.

And I thought this thread was going to blow chunks...

 

[KilljoyKlown]

Meh, I dunno if I'd totally agree with that...

Have to think really hard about it, but I'm inclined to give the snap answer "Survival at what cost?"

In the case I gave with a thief, he (maybe she) is violating a cultural norm I endorse and the thief is aware of: namely, you don't invade someone's territory and take their stuff.
There is also a cultural norm in my region of dealing with home invaders with lethal force-such that we've recently passed the "castle doctrine" into state law...not true in every state, some states will charge you if you could have fled and did not.
Here you can kill someone breaking into your house and no charges get filed; it's your residence, you are allowed to use lethal force to defend it.

But that's not someone trying to win my help, that's someone trying to steal from me. Taking my needed resources, probably for nothing but amusement. Placing their want over my need.
I don't consider a person who would do that of much value.

If, say, I had one bag of rice and there were five other people who weren't trying to take it from me...but begging me for food...it would be very difficult to not cook us all up a big pot of rice.

And would I kill someone for their bag of rice? no. I'd end up starving first, while looking for alternatives to doing that.

(Although I do not buy into the fiction that a corporation is a person...so I might be willing to shoplift a corporate chain-store in desperate circumstances...but only desperate circumstances. )

I place value on respect for property, and for not violating a person's territory. I also value co-operation and mutual aid.

Such that they are incorporated into my self-definition...and to violate them would destroy my self esteem and sense of self so much that I'd most likely choose to die rather than break my own moral code.

Hmm.

And I thought this thread was going to blow chunks...

Yes that is one of the forum perks, thinking one thing and getting a whole different result that you never imagined.

Back on subject. Have you ever been on verge of starving before and is that how you know that you wouldn't take food that didn't belong to you? I'm pretty sure I'd steel food to survive, however I'd like to think I would rather starve than eat human flesh. But never being put to the real test I may never know for sure. I do know how revolting that thought is to me.

Back to starving, I would reason that any decent human wouldn't let me starve to death if they had food to share and if they wouldn't share then they are not deserving of the respect that would normally prevent me from steeling from them. That sounds reasonable, but if that is the only food and not enough to share and if you take it the person you took it from is starving, that's not reasonable. Sometimes to survive you have to consider everything on a case by case basis.

 

[Rav]

That's great. What is the basis for imposing such premises on anyone else? Specifically, on people who do not accept its tenets?

Political freedom only imposes itself on those who have taken it away, or who want to take it away. Typically those who seek to oppress are only serving the needs of a few whereas political freedom gives everyone the power to serve their own needs as long they are not being oppressive themselves.

Again it's about giving everyone the chance to fulfill their own potential. Go ahead and think of it as "imposing freedom" if you like.

But the question is whether those you'd impose upon would feel that you are similarly justified. And for that, you'll need some philosophizing. To be content to simply impose your morals by force is hardly to dispute any of my points about morals being projections of bias and interest, no?

If we imposed political freedom on a culture that was essentially oppressive I am certain that there would be many people who would think it was unjustified. And not just people of power or influence either, but many who for whatever reason feel comfortable, secure and even happy living within such a culture. But political freedom doesn't force them to change (many people in the west choose to live in closed communities where certain behaviours are restricted and/or dictated), it simply provides the opportunity for those who feel that they are being oppressed to be free of those chains. Practical considerations such as the possible need for some kind of segregation so people are still free to live among like-minded individuals so as to retain the purity of the experience that they desire are probably for another discussion.

 

[quadraphonics]

Again it's about giving everyone the chance to fulfill their own potential.

Both the basic premise - that giving everyone a chance to fulfill their own potential is "good" - and the associated judgements about what constitutes "potential" and what constitutes unacceptable abridgement thereof, are culturally relative judgements in the first place. Other societies are not going to agree with various parts of that - and not just the elites in those societies: the masses that you consider "oppressed" may well not share your convictions. The insistence that you are representing their interests for them - indeed, arrogating the very power to define what their interests are and are not - is blatantly paternalistic and imperialistic.

If we imposed political freedom on a culture that was essentially oppressive I am certain that there would be many people who would think it was unjustified. And not just people of power or influence either, but many who for whatever reason feel comfortable, secure and even happy living within such a culture.

Exactly - who are you to tell them that your value of political freedom outweighs their values of comfort, security and happiness? Let alone, impose such a preference by force?

But political freedom doesn't force them to change (many people in the west choose to live in closed communities where certain behaviours are restricted and/or dictated), it simply provides the opportunity for those who feel that they are being oppressed to be free of those chains.

Misses the point - the particulars of which freedoms and prerogatives are allowed to which people are themselves basic features of any politco-moral system of beliefs. You can't systematically alter that without impacting a culture's self-determination - they have to be free to do things to one another that you consider unjust, if they are to posess self-determination.

Practical considerations such as the possible need for some kind of segregation so people are still free to live among like-minded individuals so as to retain the purity of the experience that they desire are probably for another discussion.

No, they're for this one. It's not for you to decide how to split up some foreign society into variously-restricted political blocks, in order to satisfy your own, outsider moral perspective. Or, to the extent that it is, such is imperialism. Self-determination means that societies get to decide their own structure - all the way up to the top level - according to their own conceptions of ethics and morality.

 

[Rav]

Misses the point - the particulars of which freedoms and prerogatives are allowed to which people are themselves basic features of any politco-moral system of beliefs. You can't systematically alter that without impacting a culture's self-determination - they have to be free to do things to one another that you consider unjust, if they are to posess self-determination.

My comments were made with the question that the OP asked in mind: "what quality makes anything ethical, moral, or just?". I think that the idea of political freedom is the closest we've come to having some kind of enlightened ideal to measure everything against because under such a system each individual has the best chance to carve out the kind of existence that they want for themselves. It is only restrictive in the sense that it requires us to continue to provide each other with that freedom. I think we should impose this freedom on the entire world.

You can call me arrogant if you like, but in this case it's just not offensive, strangely enough.

 

[quadraphonics]

I think that the idea of political freedom is the closest we've come to having some kind of enlightened ideal to measure everything against because under such a system each individual has the best chance to carve out the kind of existence that they want for themselves.

Right. But there is considerable disagreement with that assertion - for example, various (major) religious ideologies favor ideals that are all about imposing specific sets of moral codes (including the way society and the state are structured), according to what they view as divine truth. They do not share your ideals, or notions of enlightenment, although they do share your conviction of righteousness.

It is only restrictive in the sense that it requires us to continue to provide each other with that freedom.

And in the sense that it is fundamentally incompatible with the ethico-political programs of various major cultures and political ideologies. Such a program requires that you directly, forcefully impede the political self-determination of any society that views things differently than you do (in the sense of valuing individual political freedom).

I think we should impose this freedom on the entire world.

If you have to impose it, is it still "freedom?" I.e., if political freedom is the highest value, how can you justify violating the political self-determination of some foreign culture? It seems that you are actually advocating individualism, rather than political freedom as such. The latter presents contradictions between political freedoms at different scales.

You can call me arrogant if you like, but in this case it's just not offensive, strangely enough.

I would not expect you to be offended - motivating and excusing such arrogance is one of the primary effects of systems of morals. They enable you to make moral judgements, and feel confident in acting forcefully upon them. That is their function.

But note that the social evolutionary advantage provided by that has little to do with absolute truth, and a lot to do with cultural solidarity and sustenance of political support for imperialism.

 

[Rav]

So what do you think would give the greatest number of people in the world the best chance to be as content as a person typically can be?

 

[quadraphonics]

So what do you think would give the greatest number of people in the world the best chance to be as content as a person typically can be?

Relevance?

My point is exactly that such a measure (most chance for contentment for the most people) is not one that is universally accepted. It's not even a question of imposing a specific scheme for approaching that ideal - it's the fact that various cultures and ideologies will reject that ideal as such.

 

[Rav]

But if you could impose a scheme, can you think of a better one?