Philosophy Now Forum

PhilosophyNow wrote: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

chaz wyman wrote:

PhilosophyNow wrote: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

I have enjoyed the latest issue's articles on the death of morality.
Of course this relies on a very narrow idea that morality has to be universal and absolute.
Whilst this definition is insisted upon the articles are exposed to a performative self-criticism as the insist that Morality needs to be tempered with Relativism - this would be fine except in the use if the phrase Moral Relativism which, by the original definition, is nothing more than a contradiction in terms. Helpfully the tome of the magazine proceeds with varying species of Amoral Ethicism, to save the day.
The main trust of the articles have invited me to consider whether I can imagine any moral suggestion that is not susceptible to a relative understanding - not even "punching babies" is amenable to assert an absolute moral code. Paradoxically this is a great thing. It forces us to make clear all of our emotional and culturally conditioned ethical positions. This provides a clearer understanding of different cultures and an oft neglected respect for practices in them, and in our own past that we may now find repugnant.

Arising_uk wrote:When the baby is covered in napalm and you have no morphine.

tbieter wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

PhilosophyNow wrote: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

I have enjoyed the latest issue's articles on the death of morality.
Of course this relies on a very narrow idea that morality has to be universal and absolute.
Whilst this definition is insisted upon the articles are exposed to a performative self-criticism as the insist that Morality needs to be tempered with Relativism - this would be fine except in the use if the phrase Moral Relativism which, by the original definition, is nothing more than a contradiction in terms. Helpfully the tome of the magazine proceeds with varying species of Amoral Ethicism, to save the day.
The main trust of the articles have invited me to consider whether I can imagine any moral suggestion that is not susceptible to a relative understanding - not even "punching babies" is amenable to assert an absolute moral code. Paradoxically this is a great thing. It forces us to make clear all of our emotional and culturally conditioned ethical positions. This provides a clearer understanding of different cultures and an oft neglected respect for practices in them, and in our own past that we may now find repugnant.

Regarding "punching babies," I challenge you (or anyone else) give me an example where punching a baby would be justified in reason.

chaz wyman wrote:
Clearly in extreme case there are issues that can twang the heart strings due to the most base of human instincts. But human society has examples of being able to overcome even the most strong emotional and instinctive reaction.
Ask yourself if you could spend $10 a week to ensure that a baby was not punched would you do it? And if not is this any different from punching the baby yourself? Because you have the power to stop a baby being punched right now by sending $10 a week to the RSPCC.
Thus we are all complicit in baby punching.
There are many anthropological examples of morally justifiable infanticide.

So whilst I would never punch a baby - I know that this is not an absolute universal moral principle.

artisticsolution wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
Clearly in extreme case there are issues that can twang the heart strings due to the most base of human instincts. But human society has examples of being able to overcome even the most strong emotional and instinctive reaction.
Ask yourself if you could spend $10 a week to ensure that a baby was not punched would you do it? And if not is this any different from punching the baby yourself? Because you have the power to stop a baby being punched right now by sending $10 a week to the RSPCC.
Thus we are all complicit in baby punching.
There are many anthropological examples of morally justifiable infanticide.

So whilst I would never punch a baby - I know that this is not an absolute universal moral principle.

Okay, point made. There is moral relativism. You would never punch a baby...even if it were suffering.

I can't imagine being able to punch a baby in any circumstances. This is an emotional fact - I don't pretend it is a moral position.

However, in your hypothetical situation, where we could pay $10 to ensure a baby was not punched would mean that a few babies would probably be punched if everyone didn't contribute.

NO, what makes you say that? Very odd.

In that case, I opt for punching anyone who extorted money from individuals who wanted to prevent baby punching...

So when a member of the RSPCC rings your door bell and asks you for a contribution, you would punch them in the face? Have I got that right?


or any individual who actually punched a baby.

SO you are saying that punching a baby is morally equivalent to getting money out of people to prevent baby punching? Have you made some typing error here?


And since there is not an absolute universal moral code in your hypothetical, should I be free in doing so if it is what I want to do?

An absolute moral code is of no relevance as such a thing does not exist.
But if you want to punch a baby and it is in my personal power to stop you I'd drop down on you like a sack of shit, and would support any law that would punish you for trying to punch a baby.

The absence of moral absolutes is no licence to behave as you see fit. I'm a bit puzzled why you think so.

PS. Please review your last post in detail I think you have made an error in meaning.

artisticsolution wrote:Chaz,

I don't understand a word you have said here except that you would never punch a baby. Here is my dilemma.

Your dilemma is that you need to read it through carefully, as you have made a statement that does not cohere with your previous views and is confused. I can't understand where exactly you have made the error. Do you know what I mean by RSPCC?
I don't want to snipe, its just that you said you would punch a person trying to extort money to save a child. That is out of character.


Obviously, I am having problems communicating with you. I admit I have a problem with language so you have me there. So since you are the more intelligent of the 2 of us, I would appreciate if you would bring your means of communicating down to my level, since it is obvious it is impossible to being mine up to yours if I don't have the IQ. It should not be a problem for you however.

The point I am trying to make is...if the entire world forgot about absolute moralism and instead all followed a "morally relative" position. Would you see the laws being basically the same as they are now? Or would there be no laws? Or would we just not mention the word "morality?"

I see what you are saying. But the problem is that a moral absolutism has been tried for centuries and has led to some of the worse horrors in human history. Victorians believed that they were morally superior and ti was their duty to civilise savages. This led to the destruction of 100s of native cultures. Much the same can be said of the expansion of the USA west to California.

Moral relativism is nothing more than accepting with humility that the ethical constrains we place on ourselves are okay for us as long as there is consent, but we also need to understand that other rules are allowed to apply in other countries without us imposing our world view on those countries.
Further to that it is my position that I be allowed to follow my own path, and that others be allowed to follow theirs. That means that others are not hurt by my actions as that would be preventing others from doing their thing. This is a position that is close to but not identical with Kant's categorical Imperative - more on the lines of John Stuart Mill I think (not sure).
For me, like Mill, this means resisting those that would attempt to stop me doing my thing. If I want to kill myself, take drugs, drink, or have sex with any other consenting adult I need to be allowed to do this where such action would not hurt another person. In turn I agree to allow others to think and act as they see fit as long as they don't try to impose themselves on me.
Whilst I think most people would agree with this position, there is along way to go for me to achieve my ideal ethical society - I can be thrown in Gaol for attempted suicide, taking drugs and until recently sleeping with a same sex partner - these are crimes - victimless crimes. such things are not deserving of punishment.
As for Christians that want to force me to behave like them and Nazis that want to punish Jews and other minorities - they deserve to be resisted.

As for the word morality - I am using it as it has appeared in the Latest ed of Philosophy Now - in the sense of a universal ethical code. I think it is accurate to use the term this way due to its common usage; eg when Westerners talk about the Burkha they say it is immoral, in system that is sensitive to relativism it cannot be characterised thus.




I am asking you very nicely to explain what your position so that I may understand.

Arising_uk wrote:I could have just said a parent driven to extremes in trying circumstances. I've not done it but I've felt the flash of rage from tiredness, fear and helplessness.

Arising_uk wrote:I could have just said a parent driven to extremes in trying circumstances. I've not done it but I've felt the flash of rage from tiredness, fear and helplessness.

artisticsolution wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:I could have just said a parent driven to extremes in trying circumstances. I've not done it but I've felt the flash of rage from tiredness, fear and helplessness.

See...now I have more questions about language. That is sure a justification Arising...but I thought the challenge was to find an example where punching a baby would be justified in reason.

Isn't there a difference between having a justification and being justified?