Social science is about human behavior, not value judgments of what’s right and wrong.
Yes, at least to some degree. Laws have to be rational.
Marley, it’s your opinion that every man for himself is not a good thing, but back to Nazism they were “every man for himself” and still because of one unifying thought, they were a very powerful cohesive organization. When a Nazi party member wanted to become the leader of a local group, a mayor or such, it was not uncommon during the later 30s for them to just kill the current leader.
It’s not that I disagree with you, but that it seems more to be an opinion rather than an actual proof that can be supported through analysis, because how we want our society to be is more crucial in determining what we think is most “efficient”.
You’re completely contradicting yourself. The Nazis didn’t believe in every man for himself, they believed in fighting and killing for the greater glory of the Aryan race.
Rational self-interest would be a great reason to outlaw murder. Suppose a group of people are forming a society more or less from scratch. It would be in everyone’s self-interest to encode the illegality of murder into that society’s norms (or laws or whatever you want to call it). I promise not to kill you as long you promise not to kill me, and we will impose a heavy penality on whoever breakes this rule. That frees me up from expending massive amounts of energy on protecting myself from wanton, murderous behavior.
In fact, I would argue that a society could not exist if it did not place sanctions on murder-- ie, if it allowed indescriminant murder to occur unpunished. I still challenge to you produce the society where there is no saction against murder.
BTW, the burden is on you to deomonstrate that the Vikings allowed murder by anyone at anytime to go unpunished. You brought that up as a fact, and need to prove it. No one is going to argue that Viking society (and most societies of that time) were not violent. But it does not follow that because their society was more violent than our own (if indeed it actually was) that there were no rules about when that violence was acceptable, and when it would be met with punishment.
These two paragraphs seem to contradict one another. In the first one, you seem to say that you can’t think of examples of anyone arguing for a moral position based on a positivist method. (My multiple “seems” are because I’m still having a great deal of difficulty parsing your sentences).
But in the second paragraph, you seem to say that you see people trying to get answers to moral questions through the scientific method.
Frankly, I think you got it right the first time. I don’t recall ever hearing anyone argue an ethical position based purely on a logical positivist philosophy, and I’ve certainly not encountered any such arguments on this board. What I HAVE seen is people argue ethical positions based on secular philosophies such as social contractarianism, utilitarianism, rights theory, etc., and use scientific facts and theories to bolster their arguments.
For example, somebody might work from the philosophy that (roughly speaking), “As long as it ain’t hurting anybody, you ought to be able to do whatever you want.” They might confront an argument against gay marriage by saying, “It doesn’t hurt anybody!”
Their opponent might counter by claiming that children raised by a same-sex couple suffer psychological trauma. The pro-gay-marriage debater might then, and only then, bring in the science: “What proof,” they might ask, “do you have that the kids suffer psychological trauma? Show me the studies!”
If you don’t read closely, it might look as if they’re arguing for gay marriage based on a positivist position. But that’s not what they’re doing: they’re basing their argument on a version of the Golden Rule, basing it on a secular moral code of “If it ain’t hurting anybody, you ought to be able to do whatever you want.” They’re then using science to argue that gay marriage ain’t hurting anybody.
Do you see what I’m saying? There’s a subtle but essential distinction between using science to bolster a philosophical argument (in my opinion this is absolutely necessary), and basing a philosophical argument purely on the scientific method (in my opinion this is utter nonsense).
Daniel
I would say, rather, that ‘morals’ are an outgrowth of earlier behaviors that had an impact on our survival and the propagation of the species. Marriage is just such a thing. You can’t have an effective ‘society’ if you can’t delimit sexual access, because this would cause all kinds of tensions and fights among the very people who HAD to cooperate to survive. Thus, you have a behavior (i.e. ‘marriage’) that is codefied or moralized over time. ‘Murder’ is the same thing. So, this answers your surface question…there ARE non-religious reasons for non-sanctioned ‘murder’. And if you buy my arguement that morals basically have their root in survival oriented behavior of our early ancestors, then it knocks that out as well, as morals themselves come from these behaviors.
No idea what you are getting at here to be honest. All I can say is ‘morals’ change over time, just as societies do. Trying to hold back such change, and stick with earlier ‘morals’ is always a losing proposition. Time moves on and societies that are successful change over time, adapting their ‘morals’ to fit the changing times and changing attitudes. ‘Morals’ themselves (or cultural mores) though…they will ALWAYS be with us. They will also always be in a state of flux. Not sure if this addresses your point as I’m not sure what you were saying to be honest.
Well, not sure if we’d agree generally or not on things…thats to be seen. We haven’t agreed very well so far, but there is always hope. 
Yes, I see societies as variable with reguards to ‘morals’, ‘culture’, ‘mores’, etc…basic human nature, that. Definitely whats ‘right’ for one society need not be ‘right’ for all…and in fact, usually it is not. Sometimes the differences are subtle…sometimes profound. And yes, I believe that, generally, for ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ the victor sets the rules.
Not going to get into the whole ‘Postivist method’ arguement…I’ve already layed out my position generally speaking on the surface question of “non-religious/moral objections to killing”.
And for those that DO chose to ignore god completely for whatever reasons, its THEIR choice. I was in that thread as well, so you know my position on that. No one was saying science makes your opinion less valid…they were just saying there is no objective proof that there is a god, so therefor THEY don’t believe in His/Her/Its existance.
I think again you are mixing apples and oranges here. Science isn’t a justification for ANYTHING, and as far as I know, no one claims it is…its simply a method of exploring and understanding our universe, which, due to its nature is fairly accurate and also self correcting…and most importantly its a dynamic system, always changing, adapting and expanding our knowledge. Religion is not…its a totally different system. Personally I don’t think you’ve shown by this question anything with reguards to science OR religion. Maybe I’m just missing something here.
-XT
TBC, are you suggesting that laws should require no rational basis? it seems to me that you are suggesting that the existence of morals is enough alone to justify their existence.
for murder, then, it’s wrong because people think it’s wrong. for the most part, that is probably true. for gay marriage, you can’t really say the same thing. because i don’t think it’s wrong. and i can’t see why anyone else would. so i feel fair asking for a rational justification of it.
as it were, i think we’ve given plenty of rational justifications as to why murder is wrong.
Marley I’m not contradicting myself, Hitler preached “Survival of the fittest” and the Nazis practiced it, I even gave an example.
While they may have ALL agreed on killing Jews and other non-aryans or undesirables, they also were quite often involved in bumping eachother off to gain political advantage. Just because no one dared kill Hitler to take his spot does not mean they were a very “unified” order that did not kill anyone within its organization.
And John, I’ll continue to look for that edda I was talking about but the conversation did move away from that a bit as we revised specifically what was being asked.
Even towards the tope though marley, Nazism wasn’t very respectful of other Nazis, only when it benefited Hitler’s agenda was it absolutely untouched…otherwise party infighting took at it.
I think you’re confusing two different things. Nazism as an ideology was very big on unity. The Nazis themselves, like all people, often fought amongst themselves for political advantage and other things. I don’t think that means they believed in the survival of the fittest. They thought the Aryan race was fittest and that their duty was to get rid of just about everybody else.
Left handed that isn’t a contradiction.
I do see that people more often try to use the scientific method to do what I feel can’t be done…that’s what I think I was saying in those two paragraphs.
And I see it wrong and the opinion won’t change…which would lead to another thread, but this is involved in helping me understand “thought”. How people come to conclusions…for me I just came to them, certain things I apply a lot of science that I can to them, and others I don’t, but I see nothing wrong with just coming to a conclusion. Unless it is one where it involves say the world being flat, which obviously by science has been proven wrong.
Well I agreed with that but people had to bitch at my analogy which I think was a damn good example of just how there is no proof nor way of proving or disproving God’s existance.
Back to Left Hand … I see what you’re saying by the “if it isn’t hurting anyone why not?” But, just what I get as a feeling, is that if you say, “Well it may not hurt anyone but we still don’t want it.” Then that for some reason is an irrational or “dumb” argument. I fail to see how in that sense.
Also just a side note, but it seems we’ve expanded far beyond the original post, which is good though because this was a deeper thing than what was just initially implied…heh.
You may be right Marely, but I will hold to the belief I am more right on what Nazism was in its lower ranks, until I find that extra bit of evidence that says otherwise.
I remember from somewhere that local party politics was very violent and Hitler encouraged that. That means I heard it from somewhere…where exactly I can’t figure out, but I’m gonna keep looking. It could end up that the source is not a good one, but at least then I’ll know
Until then though I’m still pretty sure I heard it well and from a good enough source as I don’t just thumb through garbage…though I may be a selective reader I don’t know…heh.
I never thought you’d do any different. But “every man for himself” isn’t an ideology, and it’s not what Nazism was built around- which was a combination of anti-Semitism and Hitler’s own personal madness.
i see nothing wrong with asking people to justify their conclusions.
and since this is great debates, and that’s what we’re all about here…
i’d like to hear why you feel it’s ok to feel things without being able to say why you feel them.
Ah, I think I see what you’re getting at…does your question boil down to how one can evaluate one philosophical code as compared to another?
I suggest that a moral philosophy must have the following traits (and I base this loosely on the arguments of Thomas Reagan, a philosopher most noted for his animal-rights work; it is not, I believe, a set of criteria original to him):
- It must cover a wide range of situations. The philosophy, “Macintosh Computers are the ultimate evil!” is inadequate, since it doesn’t help us resolve very many ethical dilemmas.
- It must be internally consistent. A philosophical code that tells you both to respect absolutely the individual’s right not to be killed and to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number is inconsistent: what do you do when killing one person results in a tremendous advantage for a huge number of people?
- It must have few basic principles. This is actually related to the item above: the fewer basic principles the philosophy has, the likelier it is not to contain fatal inconsistencies. It’s also easier to remember :).
- It must not rely on false information. The philosophy, “Aryans are smarter and stronger than all other races and so should rule the world,” fails on this account.
- It must conform to our considered intuitive moral judgments.
This last one is the most controversial – isn’t the entire point of a rational moral philosophy that it doesn’t require us to make decisions based on impulse and emotion? However, I think it’s a useful benchmark to some degree. If a moral philosophy is consistent, elegant, wide-ranging, and based on true data, yet it results in situations in which torturing innocent children to death is allowable, then we must seriously reconsider the philosophy. Perhaps we’ll conclude that yes, torturing children isn’t as bad as we first thought; more likely we’ll conclude that a philosophy that allows such behavior is fundamentally flawed.
The more egregious the behavior the philosophy permits, or the more innocuous behavior the philosophy forbids, the more skepticism with which we must treat the philosophy.
Does that make sense?
It’s not based on supernatural edict, sure - but it’s also not just an anything-goes environment. Some secular philosophical codes meet these criteria far better than others.
As an aside, I reject (to some degree) the idea that an activity may be moral in one society but not in another. I believe that depending on how we define morality, an act is either moral or it is immoral; further, I believe that definitions of morality may be better or worse than other definitions of morality. It is never moral to maim a small child for profit, for example; it is never moral to throw one’s wife onto a cooking fire because one is unsatisfied with her; it is never moral to throw people in prison for using a drug they’re addicted to. (Please don’t argue about the legitimacy of these specific points; they’re examples, not arguments). Therefore, though Nazis considered certain activities to be moral which we no longer consider to be moral, I believe they were horrifically mistaken, that they had an objectively flawed moral system.
Daniel
i find that the last one isn’t necessary, and could be replaced with a more objective standard. i suggest “it must be subjectively attractive to its adherents”. based on the previous principles, one could come up with a moral philsophy that allows for the arbitrary murder of one’s best friend. however, one is generally not inclined to murder his best friend (perhaps one’s self - suicide - would be a better example, even), because one places a great deal of subjective value on having that friend. any ethical philosophy worth following should attempt to encourage the happiness of its followers. indeed, that should be its goal.
i don’t think one can say a moral system is objectively flawed. in fact, i think the value one places on the mentioned “rules” depend on their subjective value. that is to say, if a person does not care about internal consistency, that is a subjective premise, and you can’t say their philosophy is objectively flawed for not following that premise.
i guess my denial of an objective reality has a lot to do with that.
i think, using my moral system as a set of rules, their system was objectively flawed. i recognize, though, that the choice to use my moral system is a subjective one. so anyone can say his system is better than another system (indeed, why would he follow it if it wasn’t?), but he must realize that he feels that way for subjective reasons.
Hey, thanks for that set of criteria. I’m happy and proud to say that my moral code, which I’ve developed and polished for my whole adult life, lives up to the standards you outlined pretty well.
My moral code, in its entirety, for your perusal and amusement:
Try not to hurt people.
Ramanujan I could try to debate why I feel that not everything needs justification, but that’ll take me time to prepare “logcially” 
Indeed, it is kinda odd to even try and conceive the attempt to try and rationalize the idea of thinking irrationally isn’t it?
I wouldn’t so much call it irrational though, what I propose. It’s just I don’t think it is possible for everyone to think the same, so you will have differing opinions, and so the goal or force in a government or society shouldn’t be to get rid of all opinions that don’t fit some criteria, but to make a system that allows them all to be incorporated partially or at least in thought.
I think America hit that on the head…while we’ve had racism and all sorts of injustices, we haven’t had to go through a revolution to change each thing now regarded an injustice, it just changed that way. And while say with Gay Marriage I’m on the conservative side, that doesn’t mean I won’t yeild if the majority of my State should be on the liberal side. I’ll still hold to my opinion though.
It follows those lines, it’s when someone attempts to break that system that I get pretty aggressive.
And good post Left Hand.
I’d just like to marvel at that statement a while.
Wow.
TBC, you really think that women just got voting rights one day out of the blue? That black people didn’t have to fight for decades to be recognized as equal to whites under the law? That people didn’t oppose these movements, and quote Bible passages supporting their position, and argue for racism and sexism with the same incoherent vehemence you’re using now?
you know, when i read your first sentence, i was thinking that exact same thing.
but as i said, this is great debates…it’s what we do here…
by the way, it seems like we’ve got ourselves an actual intelligent discussion, and i’m happy to see you’re learning how things work here. though i might miss seeing the occasional list of things that liberals are currently raping…
The_Broken_Column, until you do a little more reading about how Viking society in both the context of history and their literature, I’d appreciate it if you would not misrepresent the culture of my ancestors. (With your vision of Viking society, I wouldn’t be surprised if you hadn’t understood the French/Arab relations that were part of the plot of Camus’ L’etranger to the point of just assuming that the court convicted him only on the killing of an Arab.) Furthermore, when you do make reference to a text, it would be appreciated if you could also include a cite linked that others who are less familiar with the exact text that you speak of can read and interpret for themselves. It makes it easier for the rest of us to try to relate to what point you’re attempting to make, even if it is convoluted.
As to the topic of murder, there are sanctioned and unsanctioned forms of killing in every culture, all of which have a specific purpose and set of guidelines as to what falls under which category. Personally, there are such a thing as justified/sanctioned killings for a greater majority of society, and they vary among the masses. Any sort of change within the structure of society has caused an upheaval within the society; often enough, these upheavals are noted as being a revolution in the society.