I think religion deeply plays into what we're discussing, but to call it specifically "Christian" would make it seem like only Christians care about imposing some sort of universal law, and that people of other faiths have no such desire.
This presents a good opportunity to point out something which I think this thread has not yet appreciated. The
very concept of “moral absolutism” and “moral relativism,” as we know it, is a construction of Christianity in the affluent West. Other places do have similar ideas, but those ideas are not important to those peoples on the scale that this idea is important to us, and they do not come from the same sources and they are not played out in the same ways. Our discussion here is not an Islamic one, nor is it a third-world one. It is a Christian one, because our discussion has turned on morality, and, regardless of the fact that many other peoples have their own systems of morality, the system we have been referencing here in this discussion was created by Christian to advance Christian thinking. We can legitimately say that other cultures (and other religions) also care about “imposing some sort of universal law,” and it would have been very easy for me to agree with you that this focus on the Christian factor can be misleading, but ultimately I think it gets closer to the heart of what we're trying to grasp in this thread if I use this opportunity to point out that what we have been talking about
is specifically a Christian problem.
This is a point worth dwelling upon, because if we fail to appreciate the relationship between the object world, the concepts we use to interpret it, and the origins and reasons whence these concepts arose, then we are unknowingly shackling ourselves to the boundaries laid out by these concepts. I offered in my previous post that I reject the aforementioned not only the dichotomy between absolute and relative morality, but even the authority of morality itself. However, for whatever reasons, no one went along with me on those ideas. Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly. Perhaps I was simply not persuasive. Perhaps it was not central enough to the discussion. But it could also be that others were not critical enough in their thinking.
But I have a sneaking suspicion that … religion, inasmuch as it is a cultural construct, reflects a deeply rooted desire to find some universal law and thereby eliminate all injustice universally.
You needn't sneakily suspect. You are very close to the truth. The word “injustice” is mine; I think I was the one who brought it into the discussion. Many people wouldn't invoke the concept of justice if it wasn't suggested to them, and wouldn't be warranted in doing so even if they did, because much of what many people desire is unjust. “Good and Evil” is a more accessible catch-all, as is morality itself (which usually appeals to Good and Evil). But, yes, whatever concept the people invoke, it is a part of the human condition for us to recognize, establish, and be affirmed in, some universal system of judgment and behavior. That is, at least, a relic of our tribal heritage, which itself is a function of our sociable nature as a species. It could also be deeper than any of that, running far into our animal past, but I'm not qualified to say.
But it seems to me that the quest to free human minds from religion, just as much as the quest to proselytize, reflects a fundamental concern for spreading ethical modes of action to others; this suggests that moral relativism is not okay to a certain extent.
Very astute! Or, less charitably, I might say: “Well, duh!” =P
Seriously, though, what you're getting at is an important point. It is
very hard to justifiably take an aggressive action without the support of a line of reasoning or faith which tells one that it is okay and perhaps even desirable for them to commit the action. “Moral relativism” when practiced consistently is a doctrine of passive interaction except in the case of defense. We in America are extremely poorly suited to that kind of worldview. We have always been exceptionalists. (And in large part we owe that quality in our national character not to Islam but to Christianity.) Some of it can be laid at the feet of our species itself, as per my comments earlier in this post, but, for the most part, the fact that you keenly
want to come up with an effective universal law to impose on others is a testament to the culture into which you were raised.
On a personal note, if anything, I am even more repulsed by moral relativism than by moral absolutism. At least moral absolutism can occasionally be right.
The question, for me, is what that extent is; it might be evil to foment conflict for the sake of destroying female genital mutilation...or would it?
Define “evil” and you'll have your answer. By my definition, no, it wouldn't be evil.
Not that I would ever advocate solving moral disagreements through conflict; a pseudo-economic analysis would suggest in more cases than not the costs would be greater than the net benefit to humanity. But it could sure make for rich thematic material in literature, eh?
Aye.
Did you mean Kafka? Actually, it would be interesting for someone to roleplay Kefka in this conversation and see where we end up, hahaha! What a riot. I'm going to be embarrassed if I just need to brush up on my FF6...not that I don't need to brush up on Kafka...
Nope. I meant Kefka. Let the embarrassment commence. =)
Although it sounds absolutely silly on its face, I realize for sake of consistency (if the goal is to indeed find a fully self-consistent morality) that I should be prepared to label nature not only amoral, but immoral, for foisting upon living things the duty of destroying and inflicting pain upon other living things.
Any worldview which sets up the wind and the waves as your enemy is probably a foolish one. Against nature there is no victory to be won other than the destruction of wildness. Morality itself, along with the very premise of war, as well as those of lesser deliberate conflicts, requires a home in the minds of sapient creatures. War is a device of the civilized, despite its tendency to savagery. Morality is a function of reason, despite its tendency to illogic. Other animals cannot conceive of either, to say nothing of lesser species and inanimate objects. It would make no sense to use a word like “immoral” where the recipient is incapable of retaining the description. Is
rain ever moral?
It's not necessarily the cessation of life processes that gets me, but rather the screams of the poor animals being devoured live. And it's not the fact that I don't like to hear animals scream, but the fact that I don't want to feel pain myself - an empathetic concern - that gives this position at least a semblance of basis in reason.
Ah. I mentioned people such as yourself in an earlier post in this thread...although in an unflattering way, so you may not want to go back and reread it. =)
If your own discomfort as an observer is worse to you than the actual suffering and death of the animal, then I would suggest your perspective is unsatisfactory. The issue here is whether the manner of the rabbit's death constituted
animal cruelty...not FaustWolf cruelty. If your own discomfort is your biggest objection, then you should simply not observe these kinds of things...and I'm sure you can see the problem presented by such a solution.
Obviously there are flaws in using empathy as a universal basis for moral decisionmaking...
Empathy is important, but to establish it as a “universal basis” for decision-making would be idiotic. From engineering to law, empathy-based decisions would undermine our civilization. Far more appropriate to affect empathy in order to better understand that which is then to be judged using other, more reasonable measurements.
This is also an opportunity for me to point out, once again, my problem with morality. In our culture it is quite popular these days to hold up “empathy” as the loftiest of lofties in human character, which is silly because there is so much else that is also important in determining character. Yet moral systems have given extra life to this foolish notion, and so there is always another person who thinks empathy is the one-word solution to all the world's problems. (An even more common variation on the same idea is “love.” Ugh.)
Damn, I just can't...fathom the brutality of nature.
Ah, then Illumination will elude you.
Trying to make sense of the concept of moral absolutism is just about enough to make my head spin. While I have to agree with J that there is absolutely no way to pin down any moral absolute, issues like female genital mutilation make me want to try even harder to do just that! Everything inside me wants to find that universal law, that natural constant that says, "That is never okay!"
I would encourage you, then, to look outside morality and outside this false dichotomy of relativism and absolutism. You can go a long way toward opposing injustice simply by remarking that many of these injustices willfully deprive people of that which, by human nature, would enable them to enjoy a higher material quality of life or a higher satisfaction with life. You can use the human conditions itself, our genes and our characteristics, to reinforce yourself as you ask villains and abetters the question: “What is the benefit of that which we now undertake?” Usually, their answer is rubbish. Many injustices could be defeated without appealing to any universal law, simply by forcing villains to justify their undertakings.
At the same time, savage as it may be for life to face violent death, or death at all, it's what has driven natural selection to produce amazing animals such as ourselves and those around us.
That is an excellent addition to this discussion.
J, can you expound more on these characteristic absolutes, or is there a body of philosophical works you're drawing from that the rest of us could look up?
Heh. Thank you. All of my philosophy, all of my economic theories, all of my politics, are homemade. People sometimes ask me questions like this. I consider it very flattering that they would think my thinking is drawn from higher learning, because I've done it all myself.
It is a bit frustrating, though, that people seem to
expect that our intellectual thinking must necessarily be an expansion pack build onto someone else's work. I had a friend who independently conceived of the derivative, before ever taking calculus. I myself recreated significant swaths of classical Greek philosophy before ever learning about it formally. Of course, we all benefit from the contributions of those who came before us. The education and experiences which enabled me to create some of this stuff on my own, were obviously not my own doing. Yet, there is an important difference between creating a theory from first principles versus building upon the highly particular work of specific philosophers, economists, politicians, scientists, engineers, et cetera.
People should do more original intellectual work, I say!
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.When J says his system is "better", I take it to mean that others should try it out and see the benefits.
My system is better because it works as advertised and isn't filled with nearly as much rubbish and nonsense.
