Right, they must have some form of agent’s relativism. This doesn’t mean relativism is bad or wrong, it simply focuses the debate more clearly.
I’m thinking relativism is about as flexible as you can get. Can you see a way to increase its flexibility without restricting the usefulness of moral systems?
Fewl: Consider that those posts arise from, or touch on, a conflict between two or more moral systems and involve a judgement being made on one or more of those systems from the implied assumption that the moral system from which the judgement is made is more valid than the one on which that judgement is being passed.
Well said.
I wasn’t supporting coercion in wearing the veil. I wish you had commented on how veil wearing is different in kind than top wearing for us. Maybe if our culture gets educated we’d give up our nudity taboos? I’m not arguing for it - I’m just curious what the difference is in your opinion.
I’ll argue for it… Any moral system that compels me to wear clothes when I don’t want to is flawed… It embraces an ill – coercion – without a counterbalancing benefit (I ain’t THAT ugly!)
Trinopus
A global agreement on morality would absolutely define what morality really is. After everyone agrees, who is left to disagree? Once we are all happy with an answer then the answer exists. This is kind of like utilitarianism right?
No, no, no!
Truth is not subject to humanity’s opinions: philosophy is not a popularity contest.
If we convinced everyone in the world that the Earth was a flat plane, would ships begin falling off the edge?
You’re confusing scientific truths with moral truths. Morality can be defined as the way people “should” act toward one another, not the way they “do” or “must” act. Morality is neither defined by nor bound to the laws of phsyics.
If everybody (and I do mean everybody) in the world agreed that property ownership was wrong and that it was perfectly all right to take whatever you want from your neighbor at any time, then this would become a de facto moral absolute. This is, of course, a straw man argument, however, since the moment one person disagreed it would no longer be absolute, and the likelihood of everybody in the world agreeing to anything is small enough so as to make no odds.
Barry
That’s not a truth: it’s merely a group opinion.
Why is it inappropriate for tigers to share territory, while humans seem innately predisposed to need social companionship?
Evolution is part of science, and it’s evolution that determines morality.
Then it’s okay for me to lay my eggs in your abdomen so that the larvae will have something to eat when they hatch?
No, no, my dear friend: evolution is absolutely amoral.
Perhaps you meant to say that moral systems themselves evolve? A moral system that is strongly contra-survival, for instance, would not likely long endure. And, in fact, many moral values – such as men protecting women, or the disdain for homosexuality – came out of the survival needs of primitive humanity.
I desperately hope that this was what you intended to say…
Trinopus
Yes, and morality can only be defined in terms of what is “best” for individuals, and that must necessarily be a subjective determination.
Take, for example, the case of cliterodectomy mentioned previuously in this thread. It is not considered immoral by “modern” society simply because it involves body mutilation. it is considered immoral because it is frequently done against ther wishes of the woman receiving the procedure and is based on what we consider to be an incorrect assumption (i.e. that sexual desire in women is a bad thing).
Now, what if every woman in a particular society thinks that cliterodectomy is a wonderful thing? What if they request it – not because of social pressure or coercion, but simply because they truly think they are better off having the procedure after reviewing all the facts. In that case, the process is no longer immoral because the group affected by the process has decided it is not immoral.
Of course, as I mentioned above, this is only if every member of the society so affected decided it was a good thing. As long as a single person is coerced into receiving the procedure, or does so out of ignorance of the consequences, then it is immoral, at least with regard to that person. I submit, though, that it is still perfectly moral with regard to other people who seek out the procedure willingly and do so with informed consent.
Bollucks. Evolution doesn’t determine morality – culture does. Catholics have a different set of moral standards than Jews, and I dare you to say that they are evolutionarily different. Jews all over the world may share the same moral standards, regardless of their enviroment or background – it’s a cultural decision to act in a certain way, not a biological impetus.
As for why humans are different than tigers, I’d say it has to do with the fact that humans are sentient, able to make choices not based on instinct, and aware of the laws of causality (not to mention of their own mortality).
Barry
**
Desert wasps certainly think so. Bees don’t have any problems when rivals queens fight to the death. Wolves often engage in extremely dangerous fights to determine pack standing, but when the loser mimics pup behaviors, the victor stops fighting and lets it live. Do they do this because they have an abstract interest in mercy, or because they’ve evolved that way?
** No – although this is a related point.
Trinopus, old friend, I commend to you the lessons taught by Tit for Tat. I recommend The Evolution of Co-operation, by Robert Axelrod.
Lao Tzu
I find it highly dubious that evolution exclusively determines morality.
Well, I’m sure that TVAA will return to address my comments as soon as he can. I’ll admit I didn’t quite catch the relevance of the Lao Tzu quote…
Barry
… or maybe not 
I win! WOO-HOO!!!
Barry
Nice try, Barry.
Where the moral systems come from is almost immaterial. What’s important is that their correctness doesn’t depend on how many people hold them – there are objective ways to evaluate them.
If you can’t find The Evolution of Co-operation, Discover magazine had an article on the subject several years ago that is quite illuminating.
It’s an excellent example of how evolution gives rise to morality.
If I’m reading TVAA correctly, he is saying that we have built-in drives and emotions resulting from evolution, which play a big part in determining our morality.
E.g. We feel affection for children and take satisfaction in watching them grow and develop. This causes us to believe that harming children is immoral.
However, we feel that way about children because we only have a few of them, they are born helpless, and they require considerable nurturing to become able to survive in their own right. Our basic feelings towards children have evolved because our resulting behaviour is necessary for species survival.
If we laid a coupla thousand little baby eggs at once, and they could go make their way in the world as soon as they hatched out, things would be different.
Similar arguments may be made for our ability to emphathise, and to enjoy each others company, our territoriality, our jealousy and our xenophobia. All promote behaviour that reinforces our survival strategy as a co-operative species.
If we were photosynthesizing beings that reproduced asexually, our morality might be very different.
I haven’t read The Evolution of Cooperation, but Matt Ridley’s The Origins of Virtue is another interesting book on the subject.
Even if TVAA is right, that still doesn’t mean an objective moral system exists. Objective means it can stand outside of everything and still be true. Whether our morality is derived from drives and imperatives we got from evolution or cultural taboos derived from challenges, its still subjective. Were we subject to different drives and imperatives, we would have a different morality.
I’ll go along with that. I’m not even sure how large a role our drives and imperatives play compared to our various cultures.
However, the drives and imperatives do provide a background standard of morality, upon which the effects of culture are overlaid. In that sense, our morality cannot be said to be fully subjective. I would expect that humans brought up with no moral guidance would still form bonds and friendships, function in cooperative groups, and be protective of their young. We are not born as moral blank slates.
A totally objective morality, that applied equally well to men and molluscs, is clearly nonsensical.
I know you keep saying that, but for the life of me I can’t see how you can justify such a statement. To say morality derives from “evolution” seems as arbitrary as saying it derives from “God”.
Morality is nothing more or less than an accepted code of conduct between individuals, and is therefore defined by what is generally “accepted.” Yes, evolutionary factors may play a part in what behaviors are accepted, but they are not determinative.
Man evolved to be an omnivore, capable of eating both meat and plants. If, however, a society decides it is immoral to eat meat, then that group decision trumps evolution.
I do think, as I’ve said before, that it is possible to come up with some general moral principles that should apply to all people (allowing for certain need-based exceptions), but these principles derive from logic and reason, not evolution. In fact, I would argue that “evolution” leads man to be immoral (perpetuating one’s bloodline is the paramount concern; loving one’s neighbor as oneself be damned), and that it is only through logic and reason that man can truly become moral.
Religion can provide moral princples, but without logic and reason they become too rigid, misapplied, and sometimes just plain wrong.
Barry