-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 10:13 PM
To: TIPS
Subject: Moral relativity: an evil debate
On Thu, 3 May 2001, I wrote:
>
> However, saying that what a person PERCEIVES as moral differs from person
to
> person is not the same as saying what IS moral differs from person to
> person. Bringing this back out of the realm of postmodern relativism,
> Kohlberg's solution to this problem, as I understand it, was to say that
> anyone, reasoning correctly would eventually come to the same conclusion
> about what is right and wrong (thus it is universal not because everyone
> believes it but because it can be logically derived as a principle on
which
> the universe operates.) This puts it in the class of things like gravity.
To which Stephen Black replied:
"No it doesn't. Gravity can't be derived from logic. It's a
generalization from empirical data, and its value depends on its
ability to make powerful predictions, which we can verify. If
balls flew up instead of down, if the space station failed to
stay in orbit, or if the tides refused to obey the pull of the
moon, we would chuck the concept in an eyeblink. The concept of
gravity is testable, and can be disproven."
I didn't say that gravity could be derived from speculation but from logic.
Logic is what we use to create theoretical generalizations from data.
Stephen continues:
"But there's no scientific test for morality. Neither, contrary to
what you claim for Kohlberg, can it be derived from logic.
Morality is a set of beliefs about how people should behave.
Different groups have different beliefs. They all believe them to
be the only valid ones. We _know_ that the Taliban are evil
because they oppress women and stone them to death, cut the hands
off thieves, and destroy cultural treasures. But the Taliban
equally know that _their_ morality is right, and they know they
are responding in accordance with the highest religious and moral
precepts. They know that _we're_ evil. Unfortunately, unlike
science, there is no test and no logical argument which will tell
us which morality is the true one."
My response:
So does that mean there is no true one or just that there is no scientific
test to ascertain it? What of a morality that sees science as ungodly? Is
that an equally valid morality even though we know science is good. It seems
that you have taken morality outside of the area of science. I agree with
that personally but, in speaking once again for the atheist moralists, I
don't think so. I myself disagree with the use of the word "know" unless
you are using it ironically and, of course, that would not support the point
you are making. In fact, how can anyone "know" something that has no basis
in fact. "Believe" would work but that wouldn't be strong enough to make
your point that each one is equally right.
I am certainly despairing for an atheistic moralist (or even an agnostic
moralist) to take up the standard here. I am not one, so my arguments on
their behalf are a little tenuous. In fact, maybe Stephen is arguing well
for my own belief that, if God did not create the moral law, there is no
absolute standard favoring a particular morality over any other. Lying is as
good as honesty, stealing is as good as giving and killing is as good as
nurturing (maybe better in all cases if it leads to your personal survival).
I do know moral atheists believe that a foundation for moral standards can
be found outside of theology. Although I am sure there are those who agree
that morality is what you make of it, I am equally sure there are those
humanists who believe that a standard of morality can be defined outside of
the need for theology. I know that these humanists believe in the morality
of war crimes trials and prosecuting those who were just doing what they
thought was right because it wasn't really right. I am sure many of them
would not be satisfied with a Nazi morality and a Jewish morality.
There are certainly observable outcomes to moral and immoral behaviors
judged by whatever standard of morality you want to use and, although you
may argue that that turns morality into pragmatics, in fact, few moralists
(and I use that in only the best sense of the word) will argue that morally
appropriate behavior has no positive outcomes. For example, lying leads to
no one believing you, cheating will lead you into circumstances for which
you are not prepared, helping others will lead to others helping you.
Stephen says:
"Postmodernism is a bad idea for science. But for morality, it's an accurate
description."
I say:
The problem with postmodernism in all cases is that it destroys its own
foundation. To say that each person constructs their own reality and there
is no external reality is clearly not supported by scientific test.
Believing something is true doesn't make it happen. To say that each person
constructs their own morality and for them it is right ignores the fact that
postmodernism has removed any meaning from the word "right". There is no
right or wrong only likes and dislikes.
Stephen speculates:
"A speculation: cultural beliefs must persist because they promote
the survival of the group that believes them. Beliefs harmful to
the group will lead instead to its extinction (e.g. the Shakers'
belief in celibacy; Heaven's Gate followers' belief in suicide).
So rather than evil, as the Lucifer Principle apparently claims,
it may be belief in a particular morality that has survival
value."
I retort:
So then there is a universal ethical principle that can be logically derived
from its survival value?
Stephen quotes a cartoon character (from my neck of the woods):
"Mammy Yokum (remember her?) said good is better than evil because
it's nicer. But good (or believing that it is good to act in a
particular way) may also be better than evil because it promotes
survival."
I reply:
Simply "believing that it is good to act in a particular way" promotes
survival didn't do much for Heaven's Gate followers (assuming they are not
actually on that asteroid right now) or the Quakers as you point out.
Rick
