An Amoral Manifesto (Part II)

[chaz wyman]

IN France they have banned them in public, on the grounds that they are counter to French notions of freedom - we'll have to see how that works. The danger is that some Muslims families will stop their women leaving the house, or women would feel unable to leave the home - that would be a disgusting consequence tantamount to imprisonment.

Hi Chaz,

I am glad we are in agreement on most issues.

The true danger of this ban is loss of freedom. If a government bans the right for women to decide what they are going to wear, then how can they expect others to also not to respect the ability for women to make any decision for themselves? If a government deems a woman does not have the intelligence, morality, judgment to do something as simple as clothing themselves what on earth thinks that anyone will respect the more complex judgments as to when to leave the house, take care of children, vote, etc.?

This ban on clothing is unreasonable. If a woman wants to wear a burhka shouldn't it be assumed she is capable of making that decision on her own? Shouldn't the law be reserved for anyone trying to take away that basic human right to decide what to put on their own bodies? It seems pretty cut and dry. If it is not clear....then France should also place a ban on the pope wearing a robe and silly hat in their country or any other religious type attire and see how that goes over first.

The counter argument is that the ban gives women the excuse to leave the burkha at home, should they want to. But this seems a faulty argument as any woman that was compelled by their family to wear it would also be likely to suffer from the consequence of being restricted to stay at home. In this case the woman effected would suffer even more.
I can understand the ban as I feel that it is inhuman to deprived a person of one of the main means of human communication; the face. However, the thought that this will lead to a single woman being shut up in the house is completely abhorrent.
In stead of banning to burkha it ought to be possible to ban one person compelling another to wear it. Thus any man that tries to compel a woman to wear it would be breaking the law. It cannot be the duty of the state to compel behaviour that is not injurious to others, but it ought to the the role of the state to stop people imposing their will upon others.

[artisticsolution]

In stead of banning to burkha it ought to be possible to ban one person compelling another to wear it. Thus any man that tries to compel a woman to wear it would be breaking the law. It cannot be the duty of the state to compel behaviour that is not injurious to others, but it ought to the the role of the state to stop people imposing their will upon others.

Thank you Chaz for putting it so simply. I agree. I thought this is what I said ...lol...I guess I didn't succeed!

[chaz wyman]

In stead of banning to burkha it ought to be possible to ban one person compelling another to wear it. Thus any man that tries to compel a woman to wear it would be breaking the law. It cannot be the duty of the state to compel behaviour that is not injurious to others, but it ought to the the role of the state to stop people imposing their will upon others.

Thank you Chaz for putting it so simply. I agree. I thought this is what I said ...lol...I guess I didn't succeed!

i suppose I was just agreeing with you

Mubarak OUT!

[Hermit Philosopher]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but from what I understand, J. Marks says that because rights and wrongs are matter of social construction (verified/falsified by individuals’ personal experiences of contextual interactions in everyday life), universal moral laws do not exist and their concept should be abandoned.

Yet, may it not instead be argued that what is socially constructed is not so much morality, as our ideas about how different contextual scenarios are likely to unfold? After all, when it comes to human interaction, what follows a certain conduct, rather much depends on what we collectively expect will follow.

Let’s say that Marks is taught to believe that when individual (A) bullies individual (B), individual (B) is negatively affected and, let’s say that Marks’ experience of similar situations so far, have verified this belief (he happens to live somewhere, where most people are taught that being bullied affects you negatively). Now, let’s say that Marks’ is not a sadist and so, he is at the very least, uncomfortable witnessing (A) bullying (B).

Here, Marks claims that we must accept that someone else may think differently in situation:
(A) bullies (B) and (B) is unaffected, or;
(A) bullies (B) and (B) is positively affected [e.g. strengthened], or;
(A) bullies (B), (B) is negatively affected and this is positive to/for lots of other people, or;
(A) bullies (B) and (A) simply enjoys doing so, or;
(A) bullies (B) and Marks enjoys it;
etc, etc.

But, what about this; could one morally defend that (A) bullies (B) and everybody [in long run, say], including (A) – and Marks as well – is negatively affected?

Actually, we can come up with ways of making this morally defensible too – after all, we are very creative and open-minded thinkers. But the thing is, we can never truly claim to know what (A)s bullying (B)will lead to [within a specific context]!
What I do think we may be able to agree on is that, generally speaking [and quite universally!], punching someone in the face, hurts.

Sincerely,
Hermit

Ps. No, no. I’ve not forgotten the existence of people with masochistic tendencies, to whom pain is pleasurable, but truthfully; general laws (of any kind) cannot be said to be based on such odd exceptions. This does not mean that generality and what applies to it, does not exist though, does it?

[chaz wyman]

CASE 1
Perhaps I am mistaken, but from what I understand, J. Marks says that because rights and wrongs are matter of social construction (verified/falsified by individuals’ personal experiences of contextual interactions in everyday life), universal moral laws do not exist and their concept should be abandoned.
CASE 2
Yet, may it not instead be argued that what is socially constructed is not so much morality, as our ideas about how different contextual scenarios are likely to unfold? After all, when it comes to human interaction, what follows a certain conduct, rather much depends on what we collectively expect will follow.

Let’s say that Marks is taught to believe that when individual (A) bullies individual (B), individual (B) is negatively affected and, let’s say that Marks’ experience of similar situations so far, have verified this belief (he happens to live somewhere, where most people are taught that being bullied affects you negatively). Now, let’s say that Marks’ is not a sadist and so, he is at the very least, uncomfortable witnessing (A) bullying (B).

Here, Marks claims that we must accept that someone else may think differently in situation:
(A) bullies (B) and (B) is unaffected, or;
(A) bullies (B) and (B) is positively affected [e.g. strengthened], or;
(A) bullies (B), (B) is negatively affected and this is positive to/for lots of other people, or;
(A) bullies (B) and (A) simply enjoys doing so, or;
(A) bullies (B) and Marks enjoys it;
etc, etc.

But, what about this; could one morally defend that (A) bullies (B) and everybody [in long run, say], including (A) – and Marks as well – is negatively affected?

Actually, we can come up with ways of making this morally defensible too – after all, we are very creative and open-minded thinkers. But the thing is, we can never truly claim to know what (A)s bullying (B)will lead to [within a specific context]!
What I do think we may be able to agree on is that, generally speaking [and quite universally!], punching someone in the face, hurts.

Sincerely,
Hermit

Ps. No, no. I’ve not forgotten the existence of people with masochistic tendencies, to whom pain is pleasurable, but truthfully; general laws (of any kind) cannot be said to be based on such odd exceptions. This does not mean that generality and what applies to it, does not exist though, does it?

I'm a bit puzzled. You seem to start by stating Case 1, but offering as an alternative CASE 2. But nothing you follow it with seems to advance your case that 2 is more applicable than 1.

I think it is useful to distinguish in social terms between natural law and normative law; between natural tendencies; and conventional rules that humans evolve during the development of society.
Morality, with a capital M, belongs to those that have failed to make the distinction between the two and peddle the fallacy that there is no distinction, justified by religion. They hold that morality is a thing to be uncovered - simply found, usually by consulting God, or a book he is supposed to have written. Another set of fallacies that diminish this important distinction is the natural law theorists of the 17thC who sought to find moral lessons from the study of nature. In a sense this was a move to diminish the power of the failed Christian ideology and they sought to read 2 books; scripture and the Book of Nature.
We have come a long way, and I think progress in Ethical theory is the realisation that natural law is not guide to how we as humans ought to behave; racism, eugenics, anti-gay, anti-abortion all tend to focus on imposing the nature as law thesis.
So are their any useful generalities? Is there any point at all to build Ethical theory on this basis?

[John]

Thanks - yeah I think I've heard of him. Do you think he is wearing any clothes in this weather??
More power to him though.

Dunno, he's in Perth prison at the moment.

Just noticed that he's been rearrested within 60 seconds of being released from prison and sentenced to another 657 days for breach of the peace and contempt of court.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-t ... l-14649394

[chaz wyman]

Thanks - yeah I think I've heard of him. Do you think he is wearing any clothes in this weather??
More power to him though.

Dunno, he's in Perth prison at the moment.

Just noticed that he's been rearrested within 60 seconds of being released from prison and sentenced to another 657 days for breach of the peace and contempt of court.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-t ... l-14649394

We are really fucked up.

This is what they mean when they use the phrase breaking a butterfly on a wheel.

It was revealed today that the government has taken powers to tax British citizens' money held in Swiss banks. This could provide up to £6 billion per years, on revenue that has been evaded in a loop hole that has existed and hidden by the rich for 100s of years. But what other horrors are we seeing? 12 year olds getting 6 month in gaol for stealing water during the riots?

How is this not an insane world?

[tbieter]

Our longtime Moral Moments columnist Joel Marks concludes his special column explaining why he’s abandoning morality.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/81/An_A ... to_Part_II

Professor Marks, who now doesn't believe in morality or that any act is intrinsically right or wrong, certainly would not have any grounds to object to this mortician pleasuring himself with one of his clients. http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/03/19 ... d%3D144661 The client is merely a corrupting inanimate object, without any rights.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/necrophilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia

[chaz wyman]

Our longtime Moral Moments columnist Joel Marks concludes his special column explaining why he’s abandoning morality.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/81/An_A ... to_Part_II

Professor Marks, who now doesn't believe in morality or that any act is intrinsically right or wrong, certainly would not have any grounds to object to this mortician pleasuring himself with one of his clients. http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/03/19 ... d%3D144661 The client is merely a corrupting inanimate object, without any rights.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/necrophilia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia

The Harm Principle