posted
It occurs to me that I left out the entire point of my previous post. If small errors can lead to major changes in outcome, then axiomitic morality may not be possible even if there is an objective absolute morality external to humanity.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:IMO, "societal" and "social" don't mean exactly the same thing.
But certainly, afr, any perceived difference can't be enough to actually warrant using a word like "societal." I mean, come on. Just look at it. And then say it. Bleh.
Posts: 1068 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
1) We create precise axioms knowing full well that we are only striving to achieve them (a vision statement, so to speak), as KarlEd has said,
or
2) We create fuzzy axioms that are imprecise but cover more situations (and thus get "excepted" less often than the more precise axioms.
An example of the latter would be:
We should always select that choice which results in the greatest number of people having the greatest freedom for self-determination as possible.
I will offer a brief defense of this type of "axiom" knowing full well that it probably does not meet the apparent need for strongly worded moral statements that is usually implied by the term.
This type of axiom is, by design, less liable to accrue a mound of exceptions throughout its history of use than is the more rigid type of axiom.
The "fuzziness" of it leaves open the possibility of change or revision without, at the same stroke, running the risk of "destroying the moral fabric" of whatever society we've based on this rubric.
It is more practical. Morality is only important in the expression of it anyway. The goal of something like the sample statement is to provide some sort of practical guideline for action, not to support endless navel-gazing. To the extent that it becomes a matter for philosophical debate rather than a guide for action, it actually is weakened and made LESS valuable or important. As one who also takes this stuff to be important for the creation and application of laws, I personally value the practical outcomes, and not so much the philosophical discourse.
And, I can see at least one downside...just to be fair: There are always new challenges -- terra incognita -- to be dealt with. Building a rule that is practical (can be put into practice today) is not the same as having a true guiding morality (whether it is universal or simply the result of majority consensus). As a result, we will always have new rules. For example, were we to adopt the one stated previously, we would almost certainly, and almost immediately need one that talks about what to do when you can't tell which of "n" alternatives would be the right choice under the rule. Do you make no choice? Do you make provisional choices? Do you gather more data? Or do you just choose and hope for the best? All of these alternatives have real-world implications that would have to be considered. Having an over-arching belief system would be better in the sense that the "reason" for the ultimate unfairness of whichever course we took in times of uncertainty would be clear to everyone. We did that way because we hold THIS to be true...
That sort of salve to the inequities of life just isn't available to us if we don't have a commonly agreed upon set of axioms.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:afr: I think the point I'm getting at is that there's no fence-sitting. You're either supporting or subverting your society by your actions, public or private. Whatever you do has consequences one way or the other.
This might be true, but I think it is an academic distinction and also a completely subjective distinction. For instance, if a man picks up a woman in a bar and has sex with her, the majority of people here will agree that his actions are immoral (though I'm not one of them). However, his actions, in my opinion are not subverting society. He is doing what a significant portion of society does regularly.
If a man picks up a prostitute off the street and has sex with him/her, he has done something illegal and largely considered immoral. However, in a very real way, he is participating in society as it has been almost everywhere in almost every time. There is a reason they call it the world's oldest profession. Is he subverting society? I say, "no". He is participating in society as it is. He is very much maintaining the status quo. Whether that is good or bad is subjective. My point is: Society is what it is. Society is not one man's idea of it that is being subverted by everyone who doesn't hold to that ideal.
This brings up the idea that maybe morality isn't just about the way things are, but about the way things ought to be, or the way we feel they ought to be. (Or the way we feel God has told us things ought to be.)
For that matter, laws are probably also about the way we want things to be. We wouldn't be making them laws if current society didn't include those who would run counter to them.
So the question is, who's idea of society should we pursue? Perhaps "objective morality" is an oxymoron. Perhaps a better term would be "common morality" (using "common" not as "commonplace" but as "belonging equally to all"). So the point of this thread, then, is this: Is it possible for us to come up with a common morality in a pluralistic society? If so, should our laws be limited to the enforcing of this common morality?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Who's idea of society should we pursue?" is the wrong question, if we are talking about objective morality. The goal of an objective morality is to choose what is actually the right way, regardless of whether anyone believes it... much like the goal of an objective science is to determine how things actually work, whether anyone believes they work that way or not.
"Common morality" is just the subjective moral bias of the masses, not anything objective. Since there is no morality that seems universally agreed upon by everyone everywhere at all times, common morality is going to end up deciding right and wrong by majority vote - and often, especially in moral issues, the single individual understands the right thing to do better than the masses.
The trouble with objective morality, though, is that it is tough to prove. After all, we can't observe it objectively, or point to any physical evidence telling us what is right or wrong. We have no certain premises which we all agree upon that we can use to derive other conclusions. At best, we can only approach it in a circular fashion - we can attempt to say a certain axiom is right because it gives us the answers we think are right to moral problems, and then turn around and use that axiom to determine what is right in certain moral problems. But if we need to know the right answers to those problems in order to prove the axiom, why do we need the axiom to give us the answers to those same problems? For this reason, I think it's pretty much impossible to prove a moral axiom to someone who doesn't believe it. Instead, it's truth must simply be observed.
But just because an objective moral axiom is unprovable doesn't mean it's not useful or true or objective.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, can you take that one step further into something less academic and more practical. You say it isn't provable. If it isn't provable, how is it useful in the context of discovering (or building) and objective morality? How would you use an axiom you can't prove if by nature of being unprovable it can't really be shown to be objective?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think "who's idea of society should we pursue?" is the wrong question. I just think the answer is "ours". Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Tres, I disagree that "common morality" must necessarily end up deciding right and wrong by majority vote. By "common morality" I mean the morality that we (all of us) hold. For instance, if homosexuals as a group do not believe non-marital sex is morally wrong that tenet cannot be part of the common morality of any society which includes homosexuals. Even if Mormons are the majority and vote that non-marital sex is wrong and enact laws against it, those laws are not based on the common morality. They are based on Mormon morality. In fact any law (or concept of right/wrong) decided by majority vote is by definition not based on common morality, but on majority morality.
The first step in deciding on a common morality, I guess is deciding who "us" is. This could conceivably be decided by majority vote, giving some (but incomplete, in my opinion) validity to what you said above. Also, who "us" is can change, so common morality would be subject to that change. I'm not sure this is a bad thing though.
In America, we've agreed that "us" will not be restricted by religious belief. Therefore, I think it is untenable as an American to expect that laws should be formed to enforce morality that one can only justify because of his religious beliefs. Granted, there are other opinions, I guess. Maybe it depends on how you view America. Is it an attempt to create a diverse, pluralistic society where we can all live in freedom and peace, or is it a test chamber where we try to convince enough people of our philosophy to sieze control and force the rest to live according to our morality? I believe it is the former, but a lot of people seem to believe it is the latter.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: We should always select that choice which results in the greatest number of people having the greatest freedom for self-determination as possible.
I'd go even farther back than that, Bob, since we first need to establish that the greater good can be measured numerically, and that self-determination is empirically a good.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it isn't provable, how is it useful in the context of discovering (or building) and objective morality? How would you use an axiom you can't prove if by nature of being unprovable it can't really be shown to be objective?
Let me put it this way: I can't prove murder is wrong. But I can believe it is wrong. I can even believe it is objectively wrong, which I do. And I can choose not to murder people in accordance with that belief, and encourage others to do the same.
When it comes to belief, all that really matters in a practical sense is what seems to be true, not what is proven to be true. Even if you can't prove something, you're still going to believe it as long as it still seems true.
quote:By "common morality" I mean the morality that we (all of us) hold. For instance, if homosexuals as a group do not believe non-marital sex is morally wrong that tenet cannot be part of the common morality of any society which includes homosexuals.
What's the value of figuring out "common morality" though? For one thing, the number of things we ALL agree upon is extremely small. I'm not sure there's anything we all agree upon. I'm fairly certain it won't allow us to answer any practical moral conundrums - because any moral situation that is even the least bit tricky is going to entail disagreements from different segments of our society. "Common morality" would only cover situations we already all think we know the answers to.
More importantly, even if we all agree upon it, it could still be wrong. So, you couldn't call common morality unbiased or objective in any sense. A cult living in isolation may have a common morality that entails eating their young - that doesn't mean it really is right for them to eat their young. Any society is going to be shaped by common biases (that's part of what makes a society a society) and those biases are going to skew any moral reasoning members of that society agree upon.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, The point of this discussion, for me, is to define the moral basis of a legal system in a pluralistic society. I stated in the first place that I believe that all law is the imposition of some specific morality. I'm trying to develop the idea that justice demands that the moral basis of law in a pluralistic society not be based on the narrow moral code of a subset of that society. If not the moral code of only one subset of society, then what moral code?
I'm coming to the conclusion that an objective moral code is an oxymoron as even something as obviously correct (to me) as "murder is wrong" is fraught with differing ideas of what constitutes "murder", or even if you consider all killing murder, then is all killing wrong? Based on the conversation so far, and my own thinking outside this thread, I am reaching the conclusion that there are no moral axioms that will be accepted by any significantly diverse poplulation, or at least that our language is terminally ambiguous as far as elucidating such axioms goes.
Therefore, I'm testing the concept of "common morality" - taking the axioms or moral tenets of the various participants of a pluralistic society and seeing which things we hold in common. (So, you see, I'm switching on you here. I'm not trying to call "common morality" "objective" in any sense. ) My ultimate goal is to determine if a pluralistic society can come up with a common morality (from scratch) upon which they could base a legal system.
I think we, (the US) are moving toward a common morality, but I'm not sure that was our starting point. Maybe it was, I don't know enough history at this point and haven't studied the philosophy behind our legal system to make an educated determination. I do think our system is among the best in the world for dealing with a changing and pluralistic society. But we seem to have a lot of conflict, especially between those who think all morality comes from their god and those who think religion should not determine the codes that must be followed by those not of that religion. I'm just trying to see if there might be some better way, at least theoretically, that a pluralistic society could minimize such conflicts from the start.
Does that make any sense?
{Edit to add that I'm not discounting the value of anything you've posted thus far. I just think that maybe we're having two separate discussions or somewhat tangential discussions around the same subject.}
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: But Karl, then it becomes a numbers game. After all we have murders and theives and the dishonest in our society right now many don't consider their actions wrong. Therefore even the right to live or freedom cannot be considered a commonly held moral. Where do you say these peoples opinions matter, and those don't?
Do you believe that the average murderer believes that murder is OK? I don't. Do you believe that the average thief believes that stealing is OK? I don't. I believe that most criminals know that what they have done is wrong. At any rate, I find it extremely hard to believe that among a group of people trying to formulate a common morality you would have anyone arguing for the right to kill, rape, or steal at will. That is partly why I believe there must be a "common morality" if not an actual "objective morality".
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm coming to the conclusion that an objective moral code is an oxymoron as even something as obviously correct (to me) as "murder is wrong" is fraught with differing ideas of what constitutes "murder", or even if you consider all killing murder, then is all killing wrong? Based on the conversation so far, and my own thinking outside this thread, I am reaching the conclusion that there are no moral axioms that will be accepted by any significantly diverse poplulation, or at least that our language is terminally ambiguous as far as elucidating such axioms goes.
Doesn't that conclusion just eliminate the possibility of a common morality, while leaving the possibility of an objective morality?
A common morality is "the morality that we (all of us) hold", thus if "there are no moral axioms that will be accepted by any significantly diverse poplulation" then it seems like a common morality is impossible.
An objective morality, as you suggested, is one that treats and deals with morality "without distortion by personal feelings or prejudices", thus it is not prevented by diverse populations or an inability to agree upon it. Even if no other segment of society agrees with you, it is still possible for you, by yourself, to deal with morality without distortion by personal feelings and prejudices.
I don't think we should attempt to base the law on common morality, even if a common morality could be found. Instead, the law should be based on the correct morality - the one that is true no matter what people think is true. In a practical sense, this means that if I am voting for a law, I should vote according to what I think is actually right, rather than according to what I think is commonly agreed upon as right.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you believe that the average murderer believes that murder is OK?
But the problem is that if even one individual does believe it's OK to murder, "Murder is wrong" can no longer be a common morality (as you've defined it) for any group that includes that individual. All it takes is one outlier to undo any significant consensus if 100% commonality is required.
<edit> I didn't read your post completely (I apologize). I see now that in the latter half of your post you say that no one would actually argue that murder is OK. I disagree, though. I think U.S. society alone is diverse enough that such a viewpoint could, and sometimes will, exist </edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Jefferson seems to present an objective morality that he believes is also a common morality. The truths (objective) are self-evident (common).
The power of the statement lies in the ambiguity of the components. "All men are created equal." Well, not really. In fact no two men are truly equal, in a genetic sense. But on another level I believe this is true. And my sense of how it is true might be different from yours, but we can probably both agree it is true on some level. Commonality through ambiguity.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
100% might not be possible. If common morality were to be used as a basis for law, then what percentage would you think should be reached. I believe it should be well over 50%, so I'd reject a simple majority arguement. And in a population as large as the US discounting the opinions of a group as large as 1 percent seems callous.
So there are problems with a common morality and with an objective morality. Still, I can't believe that morality thrust upon us by an apparently capricious God (in that he apparently doesn't reveal the same morality to all) is the way to go, either.
Any other suggestions? Dag? Have I confused the issue so far beyond any sense that you've given up commenting here? Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Here's a thought, perhaps off topic:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Jefferson seems to present an objective morality that he believes is also a common morality. The truths (objective) are self-evident (common).
The power of the statement lies in the ambiguity of the components. "All men are created equal." Well, not really. In fact no two men are truly equal, in a genetic sense. But on another level I believe this is true. And my sense of how it is true might be different from yours, but we can probably both agree it is true on some level. Commonality through ambiguity.
I've been thinking along these line a little, too. As I said, I think the system we have is pretty brilliant, though I also suspect it is far from perfect. And it is certainly slow in some respects. (Sometimes that can be good, and sometimes that can be bad.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you believe that the average murderer believes that murder is OK? I don't. Do you believe that the average thief believes that stealing is OK?
I think that many of them probably manage to convince themselves that what they do is okay for them and in that situation .
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you believe that the average murderer believes that murder is OK? I don't. Do you believe that the average thief believes that stealing is OK?
The state does both of these things all the time. The people that do them are proud to do them. Of course, when the state does it, it calls it something else. But isn't that the way of justifying something?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that if we talk about morality as a "majority vote" or products of intention, then we are inherently giving up on an objective morality. Any morality that is made (even by God) is subjective (to the person who made it) so for an objective morality to exist it must be independent of a subject. In other words, one of the necessary conditions of a true objective morality is that is discoverable. Now, whether or not that can be done is up for debate, but because there is good reason (I think) to believe that we have not yet found said objective morality, we must look at morality from a strictly pragmatic and social sense. Thus, morality must be a product of society where absolutes are not explored. The successful society is one who basically tries to get it as correct as they can and then achieves a balance between survival and ethics. Of course, this may sound like a bastardized version of social contract theory and of course, you would be correct.
I dont think there are such things as absolutes but morality is an essential part of society. The problem with this relativistic look at morality is that we cannot say things like the holocaust where absolutely wrong, but the thing is, philosophically speaking, while we may want to say so (I do, holocaust=horrible) we have no solid basis from this standpoint to make such a claim.
Think of it this way: we are presented with a moral situation and we want to know what the morally correct action would be. Now there will always be two ways to look at the problem (at least), and those two ways will usually fight for the titles of "right" and "wrong". How then, are we to place the products of our choice into these categories? In other words, what makes one thing right and the other alternative wrong? To make the situation even more complicated, say that the alternatives in our scenario are placed exactly opposite of the way you would choose to place them. The best example I can give is the case of abortion and pro-life vs pro-choice. Obviously, each group will argue for what is right much differently, but how are we to determine which camp is correct? Without an objective morality, we cannot do so unless we embrace the pragmatic and social components of morality. Thus, while our choice may not be absolutely correct, we are basically doing what we think is best.
In essence, I am arguing for a social contruction of a relative morality because there is no such thing as an objective morality. Of course, that last bit is quite up for debate, but I believe that until we can come upon an objective or absolute morality (if it does exist) this is our best bet.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can I make a proposition for some MORAL POSTULATES (as a basis for a MORAL CODE, to be developed next)? 1)All “individuals”, given equal circumstances, have equal right to live. 2)All “individuals” have the right to equal opportunity. 3)All “individuals” have equal right to be educated and have equal right to access available information/knowledge. 4)Any other rights are to be earned by each “individual” separately.
Of course, there is a definition needed:
“Individual” = human being that is capable of expressing herself/himself, from the first cry of a newborn to the contents of his/hers will when speech might be too hard to accomplish due to advanced age.
Note: by this definition, the embryo/fetus/unborn baby is not an “individual” but merely a part of his/hers mother’s body.
Of course, I’ll come back with details (if needed) and comments, but I’m curious what do you (all) think of this postulates, “simply” stated above
A.
PS: I've read all the comments on this thread so far, and they are not to be ignored in future comments. (That is why I didn't start a new topic).
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:1)All “individuals”, given equal circumstances, have equal right to live. 2)All “individuals” have the right to equal opportunity. 3)All “individuals” have equal right to be educated and have equal right to access available information/knowledge. 4)Any other rights are to be earned by each “individual” separately.
I don't think that any of those can be considered postulates. I'd be very surprised if any statement about rights is a first principle - rights (assuming objective rights exist) would seem to be the result of more basic principles, from which these postulates could be proved.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, would using "equally deserve" instead of "have equal right" make it better?
For me a postulate is something that doesn't need "proof". I proposed these postulates, as such. It might suppose a change of paradigm, of how people “define” the concept of “having the right to”. But hey, any revolution starts with a change of paradigm
A.
PS: Remember the 2nd postulate of the Theory of Relativity, the one about the speed of light?
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: 1)All “individuals”, given equal circumstances, have equal right to live. 2)All “individuals” have the right to equal opportunity. 3)All “individuals” have equal right to be educated and have equal right to access available information/knowledge. 4)Any other rights are to be earned by each “individual” separately.
I have a hard time thinking that any of these are basic 'rights.' 1) The point of equal right to life is moot because no one has equal circumstances. 2) What defines opportunity? I suspect my idea of an opportunity may be quite different from yours. 3) Educated in what? By whom? To what extent? Who decides what knowledge is available? How available does it have to be? 4) Rights can be earned? How?
My point is not to be deliberately obtuse. These are honest questions that would need to be answered. I think Karl's idea in starting this thread was starting much simpler, almost with an axiomatic approach and building from there.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. That was a pretty dense read. I'm not sure I fully understand what everyone has said so far, but I'll throw my two cents in anyway because who knows how long that could take.
It seems to me that some Nussbaum might be useful here. She talked about Aristotelian* spheres of experience that were common to people and argued that humans, in virtue of the kinds of beings we are, will have certain experiences that are common to everyone. That is to say, because we are a) biological organisms, b) rational entities, and c) social creatures, the same (or at least very similar) problems will arise everywhere for everyone.
It seems to me that a good (or at least valid) way to procede towards an objective morality would be to: 1. Identify the most common spheres of experience. 2. Determine the most effective response to each sphere.
This approach makes quite a bit of sense to me because it begins by laying out a problem, or goal, if you will. Once we have that goal isolated, the problem is empirically solvable.
*Aristotle, If I remember phil 101 correctly, argued that for each sphere of experience, there is a corresponding virtue. For example, all people will have concerns/experiences regulating their bodily appetites, and the virtuous response, according to Aristotle, is moderation.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I have a hard time thinking that any of these are basic 'rights.' 1) The point of equal right to life is moot because no one has equal circumstances. 2) What defines opportunity? I suspect my idea of an opportunity may be quite different from yours. 3) Educated in what? By whom? To what extent? Who decides what knowledge is available? How available does it have to be? 4) Rights can be earned? How?
Good questions Here you go:
1) Valid observation, “(perfectly) equal circumstances” are not attainable, so postulate #1 simply states that “equal right to live” is also unattainable, so each case has to be judged separately. [The closest case of “equal circumstances” would be for the newborn babies that get born in the same hospital/room at the same hour. But that is just anecdotic ] The reason behind the existence of the postulate #1 is to grant from the start the right to live for every individual (even if it would never be perfectly equal.)
2) With “opportunity” I mean that for any “position/job” there is to fill, anybody could apply. There would be a test and the best according to some previous established criteria is the one to get that position/job. What is opportunity for you?
3) Educated in everything that is available, guided by the student’s choice as the education goes along. You know, you start with (at least) one language, basic math, basic science, art, philosophy etc, and the student follows in depth whatever appeals to him/her best. The education is to be assured by those who earned previously the right to be teachers. There would be no “limit” to the extent of education. All knowledge should be available. Completely available. Of course, there is no way to “get all knowledge at once”. Therefore there should be “a list of priorities”. It’s no use to learn about Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity before learning about the “simpler” (i.e. basic) Newtonian mechanics.
4) Any other right (except the ones in the first 3 postulates) is to be earned by a “proof of worthiness”. The same way [i.e. concept] one earns the right to drive a car nowadays. So you’ll have to get educated and then pass a test to become a politician, to become a parent, to become a jet pilot etc.
quote:I think Karl's idea in starting this thread was starting much simpler, almost with an axiomatic approach and building from there.
I understand that, and it is the exact same thing I’m proposing (thus reviving this very thread). Postulates and axioms are the same thing for a formal system. As for any formal system, if the postulates/axioms are “invalidated” then anything that was “built” on them is also “invalid”. The idea is to start with a minimum number of postulates, and build something that is consistent (within the given “axiomatic basis”), to a maximum extent possible.
Therefore I proposed the postulates. I propose to debate their “validity” and then build on them a “moral system”. I am sure that the “repercussions” of those postulates are far more deep than anyone (myself included) can imagine at first glance, but that is the beauty “rational thought”
A.
PS: If KarlEd says that this is not in the spirit of his thread, I’ll start a new one. I know where the “New topic” button is. Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: It seems to me that a good (or at least valid) way to procede towards an objective morality would be to: 1. Identify the most common spheres of experience. 2. Determine the most effective response to each sphere.
This approach makes quite a bit of sense to me because it begins by laying out a problem, or goal, if you will. Once we have that goal isolated, the problem is empirically solvable.
I agree that this would be a valid way to proceed towards a (rational) goal. What I propose is quite different, but I think it is also valid.
When we analyse different parts of our “Universe” (or spheres of experience) and come with a “partial solution” for each of them, we might get to a point where we see that our solutions are not compatible with each other on a “large scale”. So instead of "patching the system", I propose to “build the system from scratch” and see what solutions come as a result for each particular (i.e. partial) problem that presents itself .
quote:PS: If KarlEd says that this is not in the spirit of his thread, I’ll start a new one. I know where the “New topic” button is.
This is totally in the spirit of this thread. I'm glad someone thinks it's worth reviving. Go for it! Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get how people can at the same time try to justify gay marriage as equal because the participants should have equal rights as people under the law, and then keep, say, plural marriage, illegal.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. Plus I'm likely one the most objective here since U.S. law doesn't apply to me. Homosexuals argue for equal treatment as hetereosexuals in marriage laws. So why not push for plural marriages equal treatment under the law at the same time? And I don't know if I've missed any types that are illegal, but if there's more than them too.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So why not push for plural marriages equal treatment under the law at the same time?
Because, by definition, recognizing plural marriage wouldn't be "equal treatment." It's different, in appreciable ways related to the distinguishing factor. See p. 7 of the thread on the amendment for more detail.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: 1) Valid observation, “(perfectly) equal circumstances” are not attainable, so postulate #1 simply states that “equal right to live” is also unattainable, so each case has to be judged separately. [The closest case of “equal circumstances” would be for the newborn babies that get born in the same hospital/room at the same hour. But that is just anecdotic ] The reason behind the existence of the postulate #1 is to grant from the start the right to live for every individual (even if it would never be perfectly equal.)
2) With “opportunity” I mean that for any “position/job” there is to fill, anybody could apply. There would be a test and the best according to some previous established criteria is the one to get that position/job. What is opportunity for you?
3) Educated in everything that is available, guided by the student’s choice as the education goes along. You know, you start with (at least) one language, basic math, basic science, art, philosophy etc, and the student follows in depth whatever appeals to him/her best. The education is to be assured by those who earned previously the right to be teachers. There would be no “limit” to the extent of education. All knowledge should be available. Completely available. Of course, there is no way to “get all knowledge at once”. Therefore there should be “a list of priorities”. It’s no use to learn about Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity before learning about the “simpler” (i.e. basic) Newtonian mechanics.
4) Any other right (except the ones in the first 3 postulates) is to be earned by a “proof of worthiness”. The same way [i.e. concept] one earns the right to drive a car nowadays. So you’ll have to get educated and then pass a test to become a politician, to become a parent, to become a jet pilot etc.
I apologize, I'm not trying to suggest that what you're doing isn't in the spirit of the thread- it's very much on topic. It just seemed to me that there were more basic rights than the ones you listed. I'm not saying what you listed aren't rights, I just think that they may not be foundational.
3) As an example of what I was talking about above, wouldn't the right to an education necessarily be founded on the right to freedom of speech (both for the student and teacher)? 4) What you are using as right, I think of as privilege. To me, most things that you must earn qualify as a privilege rather than a right. 1) That's more what I'm thinking about as far as basic rights. The right to life. I know this was debated earlier in the thread, but if someone doesn't even have the right to not be killed, then most other rights don't mean much. 2) With opportunities to apply to work in places outside the home, how could they apply without a basic travel right?
Again, I'm not disagreeing that what you are listing may be rights. My opinion is just that there are other more fundamental rights that must exist and be built on in order to enjoy the rights you listed.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: Yes. Plus I'm likely one the most objective here since U.S. law doesn't apply to me. Homosexuals argue for equal treatment as hetereosexuals in marriage laws. So why not push for plural marriages equal treatment under the law at the same time? And I don't know if I've missed any types that are illegal, but if there's more than them too.
Are you sure you're sure? I mean, the thread isn't about US law at all, per se. It's about finding a moral code that can be agreed upon through objective reasoning, so in that you would be no more objective than anyone else, at least not by virtue of your place of residence.
Another part of suminonA's confusion is also because of the specificity of your question. The discussion on this thread hasn't really gotten anywhere near questions of marriage law since we're still working on base-level axioms people can agree on, upon which a moral code might be built. Questions of marriage laws seem like they would come WAAAAAY down the line from where we are now.
But to address your question, I have no problem with either SSM or polygamous marriages. I think both could be a benefit to society at large in the long run.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question do people actually believe lying is wrong reminds me of the story of The Other Wise man. I don't wish to provide a long back story suffice to say the wise man is in Bethlehem when Herod is slaying all the babies in his madness to kill any future rivals to his throne. As the guards go door to door the wiseman goes to the door of the womans (who had a baby) house he was visiting and as the captain approaches he says
"There is not child in here and I have a ruby for the prudent captain who leaves this house in peace."
The captain takes the ruby and takes his men past the house.
In this situation the wiseman was lying, but certainly the captain knew the words the wiseman had uttered had very different implications then their literal meaning. Was this lying then in the truest sense of the word?
The wiseman in the story is grieved that he lied even to protect a child and alot of people wrote the author questioning the righteousness of this act.
I like KarlEd's attempt to find a few Axioms that all can accept. Finding a common foundation for morality is always interesting.
Might I suggest the axiom (I am totally ripping this off from John Stuart Mill):
"Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign"
and
"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection."
You can hash and define "self-protection" all you want, but its a principle I think can be worked off of. Also I am not including children yet in my question of morality as children complicate things. I consider children the responsibility of their parents until they are of age and as such do not have the same rights adults have until they come of age. (not interested in stating how old "of age" is.)
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: It just seemed to me that there were more basic rights than the ones you listed. I'm not saying what you listed aren't rights, I just think that they may not be foundational. […] Again, I'm not disagreeing that what you are listing may be rights. My opinion is just that there are other more fundamental rights that must exist and be built on in order to enjoy the rights you listed.
Ok, that is great. Could you come up with a list of such (fundamental) rights? The sharing of ideas is essential, as always
quote: 1) That's more what I'm thinking about as far as basic rights. The right to life. I know this was debated earlier in the thread, but if someone doesn't even have the right to not be killed, then most other rights don't mean much.
You mean that we agree on postulate/axiom #1 ?
quote: 2) With opportunities to apply to work in places outside the home, how could they apply without a basic travel right?
Very good point Here I think we enter the next “level”, that is services. If you want to use “common (i.e. for anyone) means of travel” you are asking for a (public) service. If your using a personal vehicle, you’re still going to use a “public space” (i.e. route, highway, railroad etc) so that also qualifies for a service. So access to a service should be regulated by some rules/laws. [I’m still avoiding the concept of selling/buying because that is a major point to be seen soon ] Therefore, in this specific case (applying to work outside the “home region”) I’d say there is no real problem. The opening of any position should me made public (see postulate #2). That means that the conditions are known, such as the latest date for applying (some jobs are “urgent” in nature). So, if someone who wants to apply cannot get “there” for the test in time (supposing that the testing cannot be done remotely – e.g. online) then that someone “loses” his/hers “right” to apply, by default. I mean, it is nobody’s fault that the opening is not available in the particular area accessible in a specific time frame to one potential candidate. There is inherent risk/chance in living. Oh, and if by “right to travel” you meant “right to cross the frontiers of any country”, then I’d like to note here that no concept of “country” has been yet defined in this system.
quote:3) As an example of what I was talking about above, wouldn't the right to an education necessarily be founded on the right to freedom of speech (both for the student and teacher)?
I see this as an analogue of “the right to live” as a “consequence” of the “right to breathe in and out”. As long as someone lives, breathing and expressing are inevitable (i.e. cannot be “stopped” by any kind of rule/law). I mean, anyone could get up in a movie theatre and yell “Fire! Fire!”. So postulate #3 is no talking about that. What postulate #3 actually says is that all individuals have the right to LISTEN to the teachers (and to look for themselves for any specific piece of information/knowledge). There is no implication as to how much they will actually understand/learn, obviously. As for the right of the teachers to be HEARD, that in turn has to be earned. In tone with my comment on the previous point, postulate #3 stipulates that “access to the teachings”(as a service) is a fundamental (basic if you will) right.
quote:4) What you are using as right, I think of as privilege. To me, most things that you must earn qualify as a privilege rather than a right.
Actually, I like a lot the term “privilege” in this context, therefore I’d be 100% for using it.
Here you have the new “improved” postulates: 1)All “individuals”, given equal circumstances, have equal right to live. 2)All “individuals” have the privilege of equal opportunity. 3)All “individuals” have equal privilege to be educated and have equal privilege to access available information/knowledge. 4)Any other privileges are to be earned by each “individual” separately.
I’m not sure if “being alive” is a privilege, some would say it is a “burden” or a “curse” …
"I'd appreciate any other ideas of axioms - i.e. things we can all agree are true."
The human condition is much too varied to have 'axioms' of agreement. One man's feast is another man's famine. Generalizing on morality is one sure way to impose what 'we' think is 'right' on 'them' who do not agree. Zero moralizing. Zero interferece. Roddenberry had it right. We need to follow the prime directive.
"1. All humans have equal rights."
Really? So rich people have the same rights as poor people? I don't think so.. "Rights" speaks of entitlements. The truth is we are all anarchic but few of us realize it.
"2. All humans are free within their personal domain."
I would expand that to all domains. Jailers and other folks who would take away your 'freedom', cannot ever really triumph because 'freedom' is an internal condition, not necessarily external. Again, the difference is between being 'empowered' and 'entitled'. We are all free to rob a bank. Not all of us will get away with it.
Posts: 379 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: Okay..
My take:
"I'd appreciate any other ideas of axioms - i.e. things we can all agree are true."
The human condition is much too varied to have 'axioms' of agreement. One man's feast is another man's famine. Generalizing on morality is one sure way to impose what 'we' think is 'right' on 'them' who do not agree. Zero moralizing. Zero interferece. Roddenberry had it right. We need to follow the prime directive.
"1. All humans have equal rights."
Really? So rich people have the same rights as poor people? I don't think so.. "Rights" speaks of entitlements. The truth is we are all anarchic but few of us realize it.
"2. All humans are free within their personal domain."
I would expand that to all domains. Jailers and other folks who would take away your 'freedom', cannot ever really triumph because 'freedom' is an internal condition, not necessarily external. Again, the difference is between being 'empowered' and 'entitled'. We are all free to rob a bank. Not all of us will get away with it.
Even if we compared humans to say numbers and every number was completely different from another (in reality they are in fact different, 1 is not 2 is not 3 is not 4, ad infinitum)
You could still say "all are numbers" or "one number cannot be another." Perhaps "Every number ought to be recognized as such." Those paticular statements though not neccesarily useful for humans, still show that in a universe of infinite differences there are still unifying statements that are true.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow - this thread sure has moved along since I last visited it.
A number of posters have been discussing objective morality as if it requires proof through observation, societal agreement or belief, or other such things. However, it's not apparent that moral truth requires this kind of proof. It could fall into the same epistemological category as logic and math, for instance.
Take the logical rule of modus ponens: 1) If A then B 2) A 3) Therefore, B
Now, you know this is true not through experimentation, observation, or testing. You don't need to know something about the world to know that this is true. Simply through your understanding of the meaning of A and B and the relationship of if-then, you understand this logical argument. If you were a mind in a bubble out in space, you could still grasp this principle, and realize that it's true.
Moral knowledge may also be similar to this, when you get down to its axiomatic tenets. If they're truly axioms, then they shouldn't require explanation - anyone who fully understands the relationship and ideas the words are expressing ought to also understand that the moral claim being presented is true.
It's for this reason that I don't think that we can call suminonA's rules axiomatic - they're still vulnerable to the question of "why?" Why is it that
quote:All “individuals”, given equal circumstances, have equal right to live.
is true? I'd suggest that it has something to do with the fact that we consider life a good thing. Life isn't an end in and of itself.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: The human condition is much too varied to have 'axioms' of agreement. One man's feast is another man's famine. Generalizing on morality is one sure way to impose what 'we' think is 'right' on 'them' who do not agree. Zero moralizing. Zero interferece.
Robin, the probleme is that objective moral truth isn't about agreement anymore than mathematics or (true) science is about agreement. You can say that 2+2=5 - heck a whole society could believe it if they wish to (although they'd have trouble engineering anything). But they'd be wrong. Same thing with moral truth - if it exists, then it's true whether you want it to be or not.
The search for moral truth isn't about generalizing the human condition. It could be that one small segment of the population (or none at all) has the whole morality thing right. If we can somehow come to know what, in fact, is moral truth, then it may be the moral thing to do to impose this truth on others who think differently.
Obviously, we're a long way from figuring it all out, so I'm not suggesting we actually go out and proclaim that we have the truth and everyone else is wrong.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Finding "objective morality" is what political groups do, and then, like Jhai has suggested, they do everything in their power to "impose this truth on others who think differently."
Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party is a pretty good example.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Attempting to find objective morality is also what (some) good philosophers do. I'm not sure you should put Kant, Mill, Aristotle, or any of the other philosophers working on this problem in the same catagory as the Nazis
(And there goes the thread, of course - corollary of Godwin's law.)
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: It's for this reason that I don't think that we can call suminonA's rules axiomatic - they're still vulnerable to the question of "why?" Why is it that
quote:All “individuals”, given equal circumstances, have equal right to live.
is true? I'd suggest that it has something to do with the fact that we consider life a good thing. Life isn't an end in and of itself.
Are you familiar with Einstein’s Standard Theory of Relativity? It rests on (exactly) two postulates. You can still ask the question “why” on both of them, but if you don’t accept them as true (i.e. valid), all that follows from them is also invalid (for you). More even, if you can demonstrate (using the Scientific Method) that one of them is false (i.e. wrong), then all the theory based on that postulate is also wrong. Starting with postulates (even counterintuitive ones!) that DON’T require a demonstration is all that a THEORY is all about. You observe something, take it as true and start deducing more and more complex consequences from it. This is what we are trying to do in this thread And epistemologically speaking, it is a valid way (among others) of dealing with this world.
KarlEd’s idea in this thread is to look for some postulate/axioms for a Moral System that would be as Objective as possible. The ones that I proposed stand the “trial” of being valid or not. If we see that they (one, some or all) are invalid then we drop them and search for other postulates.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The human condition is much too varied to have 'axioms' of agreement. One man's feast is another man's famine. Generalizing on morality is one sure way to impose what 'we' think is 'right' on 'them' who do not agree. Zero moralizing. Zero interferece. Roddenberry had it right. We need to follow the prime directive.
It sounds like Robin would generalize the PD to something like 'do not interfere,' which puts Robin on the same page with Tres, who wrote:
quote:As for (2), I agree, except I'm not sure if there is any sphere of activity that does not intersect the domain of other people. Even the beliefs in your mind influence your behavior and thus influence others.
I would propose the following: (2b) All humans are free to do anything that is not wrong.
If (2b) is true and (2) is true then I think there is an interesting implication. If you are free to do anything that is not wrong AND anything that doesn't impact another human being, then we can conclude the following: (2c) An act can only be wrong if it impacts another human being.
And that, in turn, might suggest the following: (2d) The effects of an act on other human beings determine whether it is right or wrong.
quote:The Prime Directive dictates that there be no interference with the natural development of any primitive society, chiefly meaning that no primitive culture can be given or exposed to any information regarding advanced technology or alien races. It also forbids any effort to improve or change in any way the natural course of such a society, even if that change is well-intentioned and kept totally secret.
The Roddenberry model is interesting in that it sets up a super framework for a dramatic series. The fact is, each culture/society encountered by the Federation was presumably at some stage of determining the answers to the very questions we're debating here.
It was rather subversive TV. The 'Star Trek Ethic' had the effect of teleporting a Protestant fundamentalist to a planet that, say, killed babies in the womb, or allowed SSM (not real S-T examples), and forced them to confront what it meant to adhere to the Prime Directive. At the very least, this usually resulted in deferring action/interference, during which time the particular morality, axioms, circumstances, etc., of that culture could be understood and appreciated. Often things were not as they seemed.
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Are you familiar with Einstein’s Standard Theory of Relativity? It rests on (exactly) two postulates. You can still ask the question “why” on both of them, but if you don’t accept them as true (i.e. valid), all that follows from them is also invalid (for you). More even, if you can demonstrate (using the Scientific Method) that one of them is false (i.e. wrong), then all the theory based on that postulate is also wrong. Starting with postulates (even counterintuitive ones!) that DON’T require a demonstration is all that a THEORY is all about. You observe something, take it as true and start deducing more and more complex consequences from it. This is what we are trying to do in this thread And epistemologically speaking, it is a valid way (among others) of dealing with this world.
KarlEd’s idea in this thread is to look for some postulate/axioms for a Moral System that would be as Objective as possible. The ones that I proposed stand the “trial” of being valid or not. If we see that they (one, some or all) are invalid then we drop them and search for other postulates.
I'm not questioning whether they're valid or not - I'm questioning whether they can be counted as axioms - the building blocks of a moral system. Because they're vulnerable to the "Why?" question, just as the Theory of Relativity is, they aren't axiomatic.
When you're discussing philosophy, at least, the word axiom is defined as follows (third definition in the OED):
quote:‘A self-evident proposition, requiring no formal demonstration to prove its truth, but received and assented to as soon as mentioned’ (Hutton).
Neither your propositions, nor the theory of relativty fit this description, because they aren't immediately self-evident. If you believed that life was something bad, something that people didn't want to have, or that, say, a person's life didn't belong to him, but to his family, then it's very easy to question your premise that "All “individuals”, given equal circumstances, have equal right to live." To convince a person of these beliefs that your premise *is* true, you'd have to discuss why life is good and something all individuals should have a right to have control over. Once you start explaining - once it becomes clear that an explanation is required - you've automatically ruled out the possiblity that the premise you've presented is an axiom.
I'd also like to point out, that, as my earlier post suggests, there are very good reasons to believe that morality falls into a different epistemological catagory from the natural sciences, and thus comparisions between how we gain knowledge of the natural world (from the scientific method) and how we gain knowledge of morality are invalid. I doubt we can gain knowledege about morality from observing the world in the same way we can gain knowledge about physics by observing falling apples
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) My ultimate goal is to determine if a pluralistic society can come up with a common morality (from scratch) upon which they could base a legal system. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
