Wouldn't that be obvious? — Terrapin Station
A serial killer carefully considers the ramifications of their preferred interpersonal behavior, but they do not extend "moral consideration". — VagabondSpectre
That I don't at all agree with. They reach a different "conclusion" than most people. That doesn't mean that they're not reaching moral stances. — Terrapin Station
Oh but we can. FGM is indeed erroneous... — VagabondSpectre
Oh but we can. FGM is indeed erroneous... — VagabondSpectre
The individuals being unwillingly extorted into carrying out FGM aren't who I'm calling stupid/immoral/unenlightened... — VagabondSpectre
I think we can safely say that removing clitorides doesn't have any reasonably foreseeable positive ramifications which could sufficiently outweigh the pain (and deprivation) that it entails. — VagabondSpectre
It's not clear at all that you agree FGM is morally errant. Why else would you object so profusely when I condemn the practice? — VagabondSpectre
When did I say that the west is perfect? The west is "enlightened" in that we know better than to practice or tolerate FGM. From our vantage point, we can see why FGM is not good. — VagabondSpectre
The idea that god exists and has some intentions about how we ought behave is an empirical claim, and it can be tested with empirical science and evidence based reasoning — VagabondSpectre
Virtue ethics is really only good so far as it is useful to the people who wield it. — VagabondSpectre
Ah Ah Ah, you said virtue ethics wasn't utilitarian! Where's the contrast? You've just described utilitarianism by intuitive guesswork. — VagabondSpectre
Consider how instinctively you leapt to the defense of genital mutilators and anti-vax parents (although the latter might be a bad example if you're ignorant of the science). You know FGM is wrong, but you won't allow yourself to cast judgment upon the practice because it's not universally "true" that FGM is immoral, 'cause subjective preference. Wouldn't it be better (morally, even) if you had an argument that could persuade the perpetrators of FGM that it is wrong? (Let's say, a utility-inclusive argument?) — VagabondSpectre
FGM is not a maths sum — Isaac
They must either be cruel and want to damage their own children, or they are stupid and can't work out that the damage does not outweigh the gain. Yet you just said that you are not calling the people extorted into carrying it out stupid or immoral. — Isaac
That's irrelevant to morality. Whether it's immoral is what's relevant. You'd have to connect the two, but there's no necessary connection, and to say that this is an example where something is immoral because it is erroneous (according to some standard) is just to make a moral judgement founded in moral feeling. That we share the same judgement is not that we're correct in any kind of transcendent sense.
You've said a lot, but it isn't really doing anything. The same basic problems remain. — S
FGM is not a maths sum, it cannot be erroneous. A person committing it could be in error in thinking that doing so will lead to an outcome they desire/value, but the only way to check that would be to wait until the end of their life (including any afterlife, if they believe in such a thing) and tot up the total effect of the action. We can, and do, of course make predictions about the likely result of this calculus, but as with all predictions in complex systems they will vary depending on the model used. (and just pre-emting a possible "but some models are better than others" retort, just re-read this paragraph, my response would be the same. We can't possibly tell until the end of all time when we do the final count). — Isaac
There you go undoing exactly what you just said. So if removing clitorises "doesn't have any reasonably foreseeable positive ramifications which could sufficiently outweigh the pain (and deprivation) that it entails.", then which is true of the actual people who do it - are they stupid, immoral, or unenlightened? They must be one of those three because they are carrying out a practice where the damage does not outweigh the gain. They must either be cruel and want to damage their own children, or they are stupid and can't work out that the damage does not outweigh the gain. Yet you just said that you are not calling the people extorted into carrying it out stupid or immoral. — Isaac
Your claim is that it objectively causes more harm than good, even if we share values about what 'harm' and 'good' are. I'm saying that such calculations are not so simple in complex societies where a lot of things would have to change all at once to make that true for any given individual. — Isaac
What exactly do you think our 'vantage point' is? What data have we found out that we could provide to women who want their daughters to undergo fgm, that they, in their less advantageous position, are lacking? That it hurts? I suspect they already know that. That it's risky? Do you think they just hadn't noticed the infections and deaths? That it interferes will a woman's sex life? I think in many cases, that's the point. So, what bit of data do you think they're lacking that our enlightened culture has discovered? — Isaac
Not even going to give this any credence. How on earth would science test the theory that you will not get into heaven if you've been vaccinated? — Isaac
How can you possibly measure useful when some people's idea of use extends to future generations and even the afterlife? How on earth do you intend to measure that? Are you going to just pop to the end of the world and see how it all worked out? Don't forget to drop in to heaven, valhalla, the spirit world and Mount olympus on your way back. — Isaac
Yes. You've just answered your own question. Intuitive guesswork. I explained it perfectly clearly olin my last post. The consequences of any action are so complex to work out for anything but the immediate future that it is more important to feel right about your actions than it is to have calculated their consequences. It's not rocket science. — Isaac
Firstly, I haven't leapt to the defense of anyone or anything. I'm saying that data is not sufficient to produce a moral duty even in a situation of shared moral values because data is inevitably limited. One cannot simply present the 'scientifically approved way' of getting x from y and then demand that everyone who wants to get x from y follow it. — Isaac
You're treating really complex social and psychological issues as if they were maths equations. If a company wanted to build a bridge, they'd consult an engineer, but even in such a simple situation as bridge-building, they wouldn't necessarily just take the engineer's advice. They might need to think about the cost effectiveness, their business model, the advertising, whether the materials meet their sustainability policy, whether there's uncertainty about the design, whether their insurance will cover the risk. And that's just a bridge. You're suggesting the whole complex of social interaction and individual choice can be handed over to a few experts. — Isaac
A difficult question for sure, but I think that one would have to balance the advantages of people being more likely to be right about stuff, with the disadvantages of the power that authorities would then wield to manipulate events. In most areas of science, we have mechanisms in place to prevent such a misuse of power, mainly having a large enough number of people involved and an uncensored publishing industry, but that is only a pragmatic issue. If we start saying that the mere pragmatism of being able to trust our experts (because we have good safety measures in place) becomes a moral obligation to do so (which is what I was arguing against) then we run the risk of it becoming enculturated and we can't by any means guarantee the continued good functioning of our system. — Isaac
In theory, yes. But I don't see how either of those 'if's are ever going to be the case. — Isaac
True, but this presumes the law-makers are not also so afflicted, and the law-makers are just people. If society is morally bankrupt, then surely law-makers, scientists, experts in general, who are drawn from that society will be morally bankrupt too? — Isaac
He's got you there, VagabondSpectre. I think your biggest problem is in not recognising the amoral as amoral, because your feelings get in the way of impartial judgement. That's why you seem to be misjudging others as condoning FGM. But they're not, they're just recognising that there's FGM, and there's relative standards of "correct" and "incorrect", there are related factual and statistical matters, and then there's our moral feelings and judgement. There's no necessary connection linking them all together. There's no inherent moral quality in FGM, or relative standards of "correct" and "incorrect", or in related factual or statistical matters. You seem trapped into thinking that it's somehow more than what it is, without realising that you're projecting. — S
I think that you're making this much more complicated than it needs to be. It seems obvious to me that you're just making the same sort of classic mistake which is more apparent in saying that it's objectively immoral not to brush your teeth every day, because not brushing your teeth every day increases the risk to your dental health. There's nothing objective in the morality of that. — S
Will this truth stand against the destructive tendencies of relativism? I do not think so, but neither will anything else.
— tim wood
First it was "mere" and "nothing". Now it is "destructive".
These are clear examples of loaded language. Maybe try to be more reasonable and less emotional. — S
We're talking about your notion that those statements are about meeting some specific criteria, no? It's like all of a sudden you forgot the specific idea at issue, even though you brought it up and we'd been going back and forth about it for a few posts.
The orange in question might taste good, look good, be good.
— tim wood
So you're saying that rather than being an utterance of preference, approval etc. "X is good" utterances imply meeting a criterion that . . . x is good??? Seriously? — Terrapin Station
Every prediction we make is within a complex system, and we have no absolute certainty. According to this argument humans cannot know anything whatsoever about the future, so any predictive model, including science, is useless. That renders science kind of incoherent. — VagabondSpectre
As you said, society ostracizes them, so we can apply or diffuse the pragmatic moral guilt upon those agents in society who wantonly contribute to its perpetuation. — VagabondSpectre
When a parent does carry out FGM because they believe it is best for their child, they've either made a factual error (and in this case a moral error, because it subverts their own primary values), OR, they're victims of an environment (an environment which includes pragmatically blameable others) which needlessly forced FGM upon them, which then becomes the pragmatically blameable party(s)). — VagabondSpectre
They lack data which gives them perspective on the factual inaccuracy of superstition, or data concerning the effects of sexual liberty in society. — VagabondSpectre
If someone believes that heaven exists, hence the utility of not picking up sticks on Sunday, but it can be shown that their portrayal of heaven or god is unlikely or incoherent (if they can be persuaded that heaven or god might not or probably does not exist, or is entirely unknowable to us), then their perception of utility would change accordingly. — VagabondSpectre
My point was that ultimately virtue ethics is subject to utilitarian selection by evolutionary forces. — VagabondSpectre
I'm saying that A) in a specific situation or context and specific goals, some actions are actually more/less productive than others, and that B) more data can help us better approximate which actions are more or less productive than others. — VagabondSpectre
What you don't seem to be getting is that when we make moral decisions from a consequentialist perspective (decisions based on our ability to predict outcomes) sometimes we can actually do so with reasonable confidence. When we don't ground our predictions in sound empirical inquiry, we get useless bridges. — VagabondSpectre
we think in terms of the rigid mechanistic paradigm we have inherited from the early modern and Enlightenment thinkers wherein there is just one right answer to every problem. I think what's needed is more a change of paradigm than a change of criteria within the existing paradigm, a new worldview rather than specific answers to specific problems that are part of the problematic of our whole current general approach. — Janus
What specific criteria? — tim wood
You say there is not even the chance for meaning. — tim wood
It's objectively true that brushing your teeth has moral utility if personal dental health is of moral value, and it's also true that not brushing your teeth has less moral utility. — VagabondSpectre
My point is that FGM is indeed morally erroneous per the fundamental moral values of the concerned victims and perpetrators. — VagabondSpectre
In societies where FGM is broadly enforced for reasons pertaining to well-being, I wouldn't consider it amoral because it's motivated by the moral value of human well-being (Yes, this may only hold true under a meta-ethical definition of morality as a strategy in service of human moral values, and an ethical definition of human well-being as a fundamental human moral value). — VagabondSpectre
It's objectively true that brushing your teeth has moral utility if personal dental health is of moral value, and it's also true that not brushing your teeth has less moral utility. — VagabondSpectre
If we can say that not brushing our teeth is objectively immoral per our values... — VagabondSpectre
Well, let me not be destructive, then. Perhaps a relativist reply to your comment. Here goes: what you think doesn't matter, because, after all it's all relative. — tim wood
What do you think? Was that a good and constructive reply? Or do you think it was just a might destructive, in that it was dismissive of your reasoning on a basis that simply ignores your thinking altogether as, well, just relative. — tim wood
But why would you care - why do you care? - as you're just a relativist anyway? — tim wood
That's a non sequitur. — S
Well, first off, it's obviously not a matter of personal preference. Moralities are systems of values associated with particular societies, traditions, and cultures. — T Clark
Apparently some things are and some things are not relative. I begin to wonder if S even knows what "relative" means. What, S, is an example of something that is not relative - I assume that for you all moral judgments are relative.I'm not a relativist, I'm a moral relativist. I haven't claimed that everything is relative. — S
If ↪tim wood
point was, why should we care about the opinion about morality - from a moral relativist, if he him/herself's core belief is the position only applies to them - than I don't see it as a non sequitur. — Rank Amateur
If ↪tim wood point was, why should we care about the opinion about morality - from a moral relativist, if he him/herself's core belief is the position only applies to them - than I don't see it as a non sequitur. — Rank Amateur
Well, first off, it's obviously not a matter of personal preference. Moralities are systems of values associated with particular societies, traditions, and cultures.
— T Clark
:up: And so we can conclude that morality is a matter of collective (social) preference, can't we? :chin: — Pattern-chaser
Why shouldn't we care? That's how morality is, and yet we do care. We care because we live as part of a society, and our respective moral views matter socially — S
The issue I was pointing to is not that the moral relativist shouldn't care, but why would he comment. — Rank Amateur
My understanding of moral relativism would be something like this " that action is different than my moral belief, oh well, guess his is different ". — Rank Amateur
I thought moral relativity encompasses an acceptance of the moral positions of others. — Rank Amateur
So what would be the moral relativists standing - in passing a moral judgement on others be ? In that case he is no longer a moral relativist, he just thinks his moral view is right. That is not my understanding of moral relativism - — Rank Amateur
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.