Posted 4 years ago in the early evening by oso
Note: This post is continued from this one.
Like it or not there are some assumptions you have to make in life. Most, for example, assume that what you see out of your eyes is really there, not some Matrix inspired image created by a computer hooked up to your brain.
One of the assumptions that I decided a long time ago to make is that evolution is true; that all species have descended from one ancestral cell and evolved and mutated through a process of natural selection. That one assumption implies a lot and it is usually in the back of my head whenever I’m discussing philosophy.
It was when Laura and I were discussing whether or not a universal ethic exists while drinking our coffees and overlooking a brilliantly blue pacific ocean. Laura grew up in a devoutly Catholic family, attending a devoutly Catholic high school and university in a devoutly Catholic country.
Laura is also a much more intuitive person than I am. She can sense the slightest change in someone’s mood. She is perceptive to the energy of social situations or even entire cities. More so than I do, she feels a strong emotional connection with other people - a feeling like we all must be experiencing the same thing, walking down the same path.
So because of the way she was raised and her strong intuition, I was already 99% sure she believed in moral absoutism. She looked surprised that I even asked and returned the question with eyebrows that expected I’d say the same.
“Pues, la verdad es que he pensado mucho en eso, pero no se. Creo que nunca voy a saber .”
The truth is, if anything, I’d be leaning towards moral relativism. This is based on my travels, on reading history and anthropology books, and my own personal experiences trying (and often failing) to live a “moral” life. What makes more sense to me is that morality is utilitarian and that “right” and “wrong” are only arbitrary values that we use because it makes things easier.
In the past I have been on the edge of cheating on an ex-girlfriend. (I have also cheated on ex-girlfriends) This was my thought process:
- I shouldn’t do this, this is bad.
- What am I talking about … why is it bad?
- ‘Cause girlfriend would be hurt if she found out … and because, supposedly it’s a bad thing to do (at this point my hips are locked with this other girl and our lips are only inches away and you can practically see the yearning emanating between us)
- But she won’t find out, there’s no way
- Yeah, but you’ll know about it and you’ll keep it from her and that will make you feel bad
- What if it doesn’t? What if I get over it?
- You’ll only be repressing it, the guilt will still be there
So sometimes I did and most times I didn’t, but either way it was never a question of “right” or “wrong” as much as it was dictated by emotions, wanting to avoid bad emotions - jealousy on her part and guilt on my own. And that’s what I think really dictates ethics: emotions. Four specific emotions as a matter of fact: feeling good, feeling bad, jealousy, and guilt.
This is hard enough for me to try and explain in English and I could tell I was failing miserably at trying to explain it in my not-so-native Spanish. So I brought up the usual what-if scenarios. Is killing someone right or wrong? Well is capital punishment right or wrong? Is abortion right or wrong? Is sex before marriage right or wrong?
All these what-ifs do a good job illustrating how difficult it is to make a verdict, but I don’t think they really negate moral absolutism. I don’t think a universal ethic means that the lawbook is already written out. But can you even write the lawbook at all?
Law - whether it intends to or not - applies a moral code to society. The fact that killing and raping and stealing are illegal implies that killing and raping and stealing (yes, even those office supplies Moreno) are wrong. International Law, then, applies a moral code to humanity. Is that a step in the right direction or is it ethnocentrism?
As you will soon see - and as I will soon annouce - we’ll be talking about International Law a lot more ’round these parts in the future.
Laura and I agree that moral absolutism versus moral relativism is a damn hard question to answer - it’s difficult enough just discussing it. I was done with my coffee. I gave her a kiss on the forehead and went out for my swim.
That afternoon Kevin came over and we went to UCSD’s main gym to play some basketball. This particular afternoon there were only two other guys in there. A couple Pikes just shooting around. They asked if we wanted to play two on two.
We beat them two times to one and left them arguing with each other over who’s fault it was that they lost.
To be continued …
I hope you’re...
They were begging for it, we were happy to oblige.
Morality is a man made tool that functions much the same way as law, albeit on a more informal level. The mere fact that morality evolves with people and their societal needs seems to point to the idea of moral relativism, not to mention the diversity of morality across cultural divides. I personally don’t see international law as an imposition of morality, though some would no doubt like it to funtion as such. I see it much more as a framework for the interaction of nations and of people and organizations across national lines. As nations are man-made institutions I see no reason why man-made rules should not suffice to govern them. On the other hand, when laws are manipulated, expoited and ignored at the whim of certain global powers then you have a case for ethno/national centrism.
How either one of our girlfriends puts up with our nihilistic tendencies is far beyond me.
Trying to draw up principles to live by is tough, as is judging the morality of any action. A wise man once said “would you want somebody doing that to you?” and that seems to be the best principle for living a ‘good’ life.
it’s too bad those guys took winning on two on two to such importance that they argued with themselves after losing. I played on an intramural team like that once when we kept getting creamed and the guys yelled at each other and me. so not fun and kind of embarrassing.
ahora comprendo un poco mejor. besos.
Kevin,
I think it’s obvious I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but how can you be so sure that “morality is a man made tool”? Just because ethics and customs change across time and cultures doesn’t mean that there isn’t some sort of protocol (think algorithm) that defines the limits of it all. I mean, how do you even know where all those little thoughts in our heads come from? I sure as hell don’t – and I wish they’d be a little more consistent.
What’s not to say that every genome carries with it the same mathematical formula that expresses itself as morality, as that feeling you get when pointing a gun at somebody or watching a man hit his wife. And what’s not to say that the formula comes straight from god?
As far as international law goes, defining it as “a framework for the interaction of nations and of people and organizations across national lines” is ideal, but it’s also idealist.
What else is the ICC except an international attempt to create a transnational code of morals?
Take Milosevic’s case. (Which incidentally is scheduled to recommence in one week) He’s being charged for crimes against humanity - crimes that were committed within one single nation. That seems to be something other than a framework for the interaction of nations.
Josh,
I think that’s probably the best definition of utilitarian ethics out there. Yeah Confucious, the guy knew what was going on.
Elena,
Bueno. Pero creo que yo estoy mas confundido.
Devil’s Advocate: “but how can you be so sure that ‘morality is a man made tool’”?”
Me: How can you make a rational and/or logical argument that it is anything but?
Devil’s Advocate: “the formula comes straight from god.”
Every definition that I can find of morality involves “judgment of”, “teaching of” or “conforming to” standards - standards which are inevitably set by society, not God, despite what Christians, Confucians, Muslims, Jews and every one else in the world with an agenda claims. Utilitarianism is the ultimate man-made ideal created to facilitate harmony. An ideal that I very much agree with, but one that is also very man-made.
I think that it should be similarly obvious that I am taking your words a bit out of context, but I don’t think one can argue that morality is not a man made tool without invoking the Almighty - which I tend to see as the basis for any absolutist (and fundamentalist) position. Since I have long ago rejected such beliefs I feel “sure” that moral absolutism, as well as the other tangents that emanate from such assumptions, are false.
Devil’s Advocate: “You can’t prove that.”
Me: Correct-a-mundo.
The conclusion (or lack thereof) of such discussions, as with so many, seems to be based on one’s position on the existence of a higher power - a position that is unfalsifiable as far as I am concerned.
So, while I whole-heartedly support such discussions and the questions which arise from them, I do not think that people disagreeing on the fundamental issues underlying them will ever come to terms. Call me a pessimist, or call me…El Abogado.
El Pessimist Abogado,
What about murder? And let us compare morality and to something you will have to possible deal with in law school…ethics.
Where does Murder fall? And if we say that it is immoral to murder (under moral relativism) does that make it come from religous mind?
Also, if someone does murder and is “just” in terms of moral relativism, then this has nothing to do wtih ethics.
I guess my question is when do ethics come into play? Yes, I realize there is a rather large distinction between the two, but I want to know, do you think they ever can co-exisit and not be part of a religious influenced culture? Is there a culture without religious influence?
The fact that we have justifications for, and catagorizations of, murder in our society tells me that it is not inherently immoral. Abortion and capital punnishment are both legal in America which is one of the most religious countries in the world as far a nearly unanimous belief (95-98% dependng ont he polls) in a higher power goes. I can’t say that murder is immoral using the tennets of moral relativism. Even moral absolutists would have a hard time finding evidence that murder is always, unequivocalling wrong. The Bible, and most other similar books, are full of vengeful smiting and holy wars. Basically, I find it hard to argue from any position that murder is immoral without having exceptions and caveats and that to me means that it is fundamentally a subjective determination.
As far as your question regarding ethics, I think I will have to get back to you on that one, but I’d love to hear any opinions you have on the subject.
And now off to: “An Introduction to Professional Responsibility and Legal Ethics”, where they will twist my mind in to an ethical ptetzel.
Oso:
Good points both. To be more accurate I should have added “and at some times within nations” to my description, but how often are we trying dictators? Sure they are high profile cases, but I would imagine 99.9% of international law is law that you don’t see: trade law, IP law et al. Of course laws are influenced by the mores of the society or societies that create them but the incredible diversity of these moral standards makes it difficult to determine what is accepted in all but the most extreme circumstances. And still there are myriad arguments as to the legitimacy of the ICC and the codes they enforce. I still believe that these laws are as much a utilitarian tool as a moral one. Milosevic started a blood bath in the backyard of Europe…not very good for business. How long did it take to intervene in Rwanda? Timor? Cambodia? If the UN and it’s members acted morally and altruistically those places may not have had to suffer for so long, but they had no direct consequence to the western world. Anyway, I’m getting off the point, basically I’m just trying to say that while laws may be tentatively based on ideas of morality their enforcement is based more on utilitarian factors.
Damn Kevin, you single and Irish?
English Translation: (Original Spanish text is below)
Part of the necessary coursework to graduate at my university (independent of what major you choose), you had to take and 8 class series called “Integration” that had names like: Introduction to the Problem of Man, Morality and Sexuality (my favorite!), Labor Ethics and others; a lovely gamut of applied Catholic consultations to the world of work and human relations.
Today I found some notes from my Ethics class where a reknowned Jesuit (who is a lawyer with a Ph.D. and everything else) said:
Speaking of Morality without Basing it on God
Many persons today believe that God is, in the best of cases, unnecessary, and that they can establish their own rules with which to live by. We live in a world obsessed by personal values. That which individuals do depends on their personal values, but because the values of each person are distinct, their doesn’t appear to be a standard according to which we can all live together.
The idea that bases our morality in our own values means that we have accepted a system of moral relativism. The personal values have replaced the value of virtue as the foundation of ethical thought. The virtues speak of some objective realities, but the personal values speak only of subjective decisions by our own will.
Basing our ethical decisions on personal values is problematic. For example: “Things are good because we like them or we like them because they are good?” The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzche would have told us something is good because we like it. According to Nietzche, the individual is the point of reference, universal and absolute, for all his life. “God is dead,” he declared believing that this liberation of the demands of any metaphysical reality was an opportunity to develop one’s own ethical system based on one’s own knowledge.
Since the time of the Greeks, many philosophers have tried to demonstrate that it is possible to have a universal morality without God. They have presented many arguments in support of this position and, in theory, they could be right. They said that all that is missing is a consensus of what to consider correct or incorrect comportment.
Another argument, also based in scientific naturalism sustains that it is immoral to have a belief for which there is no evidence. The problem is that those whom sustain this theory are naturalists and, of course, automatically limit all evidence to that which is naturalist. That is, that which can be proven scientifically. But for some people, to put trust in the metaphysical is a necessity.
Thanks to our Christian perspective we are interested not only in the physical evidence, but also the metaphysical evidence. For example, we have this book that’s called the Holy Bible. Obviously, it is of physical nature because we can carry it, feel it, and read it. But is their valid evidence that this book contains a message from God? Yes, in fact there are countless other books that affirm that ther is, in the pages of the Bible, a metaphysical message of the Creator of the universe. The historic testimony of the ages gives us a satisfactory confimation that this book is actual communication from God, intended for us. Could we verify it with scientific experiments? No. But we have investigated countless testimonials and other evidence that this book is more than just physical in nature.
When man is permitted to see (sense) only like an animal, controlled by innate and adquired instincts, he transforms into a person centered on consent and ability. Everything becomes a question of ability to be that which he wants to be and we are left with two options: we either search to create our own reality and purpose in life, like an existentialist would do, or we fall into the despair of the post-modernist that says nothing makes any difference and in reality it doesn’t matter what we do.
Intellectuals like Nietzche, Spinoza, and Tillich; and many others that have followed have tried to create a society without God, a free society to create our own ethics system without the limitations mandated by God.
An interesting example could be the history of the medical profession in Germany during the Nazi regime. One supposes that the purpose of the profession is to protect the human life. The Hypocratic Oath, which dates back to the Egyptians, points out the most elevated standards of confidence for those who dedicate themselves to this honorable profession.
How did it become that the German medical profession transformed into nothing more than an instrument of death in the hand of the Nazis? First, the perspective that one has of human nature must change from spiritual to purely phsyical, without any values more than what society assigns to the individual. Throughout the years of attacking the moral tradition and biblical truths, the German town began to see humanity through the eyes of German philosophers like Nietzche and Heidegger. These men saw humanity strictly based on flesh and blood, only different from animals in our progression, not in our basic human nature.
The Nazi Holocaust began with a subtle displacement of attitude that judged the value of a person based solely on his/her cost/benefit relation for the state. First it began with sterilization and euthanasia of those persons with severe psychiatric diseases. Soon everyone who had chronic diseases were being exterminated. It wasn’t long until all patients that had abeen sick for five or more years or were medically unable to work and with little chance of rehabilitation were transported to extermination centers. What began as “compassionate death” in rare cases of extreme mental sickness soon broadened into a mass extermination on a scale without parallel.
It all began with the idea that human beings belong to society and the state. According to this point of view, if a person is a burden for society and the state, it’s logical to conclude that his/her life is not worth living.
If we do not believe that we were created by God, but are simply highly evolved animals and if we believe that we should only yield to society, we therefore have no limit to the depravation we will find in our search to justify our actions. The moral corrosion begins in microscopic proportions but if it is not controlled by an external norm, that corrosion will continue until the very fundamental basis of our lives disappears and we find ourselves sinking in a sea of relativism.
– These were my thoughts in those years (not so long ago). Now I can only say that I have my period and that, for sure, hormones can change in a single day my morals and ethics.
Parte de las materias necesarias para terminar la universidad (independientemente de que carrera escogieras) tenias que cursar 8 materias llamadas “de integracion”, tales como: “introduccion al problema del hombre”, “Moral y sexualidad” (mi favorita!), “Etica Laboral” y asi una hermosa gama de sesiones catolicas aplicadas al mundo del trabajo y relaciones humanas.
Hoy encontre algunas notas de mi clase de ETICA, donde un reconocido jesuita (quien tiene es abogado, con doctorados y cha lala, nos decia esto):
Hablando de la moralidad sin basarse en un Dios-
Muchas personas hoy creen que Dios es, en el mejor de los casos, innecesario, y, pueden establecer sus propias reglas para la vida. Vivimos en un mundo obsesionado por los valores personales. Lo que las personas hacen depende de sus valores personales pero, como los valores de cada persona son distintos, no parece haber ningún patrón según el cual podamos vivir todos. La idea misma de basar nuestra moralidad en nuestros valores significa que hemos aceptado la idea de un sistema de ética relativista. Los valores personales han reemplazado el valor de la virtud como el fundamento para el pensamiento ético. Las virtudes hablan de algunas realidades objetivas, pero los valores personales hablan solo de decisiones subjetivas de nuestra voluntad.
Basar nuestras decisiones éticas en los valores personales es problemático. Por ejemplo, ¿las cosas son buenas porque nos gustan o nos gustan porque son buenas? El filósofo alemán Friedrich Nietzche nos diría que algo es bueno porque nos gusta. Según Nietzche, el hombre mismo es el punto de referencia universal y absoluto para toda su vida. “Dios está muerto”, declaró, creyendo que esta liberación de las demandas de cualquier realidad metafísica era una oportunidad para desarrollar su propio sistema de ética basado en su propio conocimiento.
Desde el tiempo de los griegos, muchos filósofos han intentado demostrar que es posible tener una moralidad universal sin Dios. Se han presentado muchos argumentos en apoyo de esta posición y, en teoría, podrían tener razón, según lo que uno quiere decir con la palabra universal. Ellos dirían que todo lo que hace falta es un consenso de lo que se considera comportamiento correcto e incorrecto.
Otro argumento, también basado en el naturalismo científico, sostiene que es inmoral tener una creencia para la que uno no tiene ninguna evidencia. El problema es que los que sostienen esta teoría son naturalistas y, por lo tanto, limitan automáticamente toda evidencia a lo que es naturalista, es decir, lo que puede ser probado científicamente. Para tales personas, poner alguna confianza en lo metafísico es una necedad.
Gracias a nuestra perspectiva cristiana, nos interesan no solo las evidencias físicas de las realidades de la vida sino también las evidencias metafísicas. Por ejemplo, tenemos este libro que se llama la Sagrada Biblia. Obviamente, es de naturaleza física, porque podemos sostenerlo, sentirlo y leerlo. Pero, ¿hay evidencia válida de que este libro contiene un mensaje de Dios? Sí; de hecho, hay incontables otros libros escritos que afirman que hay, en las páginas de la Biblia, un mensaje metafísico del Creador del universo. El testimonio histórico de las edades nos da una confirmación que nos satisface de que este libro es la comunicación misma de Dios para nosotros. ¿Podemos comprobarlo con experimentos científicos? No. Pero hemos experimentado incontables testimonios y evidencias de que este libro es más que solo físico en su naturaleza.
Cuando al hombre se le permite verse solo como un animal, controlado por instintos innatos o adquiridos, se convierte en una persona centrada en sí y en el poder. Todo se convierte en una cuestión de poder para ser lo que quiere ser, y nos quedan dos opciones: o buscamos crear nuestra propia realidad y propósito en la vida, como lo haría un existencialista, o caemos en la desesperanza del posmodernista, que dice que nada hace ninguna diferencia, y en realidad no importa lo que hagamos.
Intelectuales como Nietzche, Spinoza y Tillich, y muchos otros que los han seguido, han intentado crear una sociedad sin Dios, una sociedad libre para crear su propio sistema ético, sin las limitaciones de los mandatos dados por Dios.
Un ejemplo interesante podría ser la historia de la profesión médica en Alemania durante el régimen nazi. Se supone que esta profesión es protectora de la vida humana. El Juramento Hipocrático, que data de los egipcios, fija las normas más elevadas de confianza para quienes se dedican a esta profesión honorable.
¿Cómo llegó a convertirse la profesión médica de Alemania en nada más que un instrumento de muerte en manos de los nazis? Primero, la perspectiva que uno tiene de la naturaleza del hombre tuvo que cambiar de la de un ser espiritual a la de un ser puramente físico, sin ningún valor más allá del que la sociedad le asigna a un individuo. A través de años de atacar la moral tradicional y las verdades bíblicas, el pueblo alemán comenzó a ver a la humanidad por los ojos de filósofos alemanes como Nietzche y Heidegger. Estos hombres veían a la humanidad estrictamente como carne y sangre, solo diferentes de los animales en su progresión, y no en su naturaleza básica.
El holocausto nazi comenzó con un desplazamiento sutil de actitud que juzgaba el valor de las personas basándose en su relación costo/beneficio para el estado. Primero, comenzó con la esterilización y la eutanasia de las personas con severas enfermedades psiquiátricas. Pronto todos los que tenían enfermedades crónicas estaban siendo exterminados. No pasó mucho tiempo antes que todos los pacientes que habían estado enfermos por cinco o más años o eran incapaces médicamente de trabajar y con pocas probabilidades de recuperarse fueran transportados a centros de exterminio. Lo que comenzó como “muertes piadosas” en raros casos de enfermedad mental extrema pronto se amplió a una exterminación en masa en una escala sin precedentes. En poco tiempo, todos los que no podían trabajar y fueron evaluados médicamente como incapaces de ser rehabilitados fueron muertos.
Todo comenzó con la idea de que los seres humanos pertenecen a la sociedad y al estado. Según este punto de vista, si alguien es una carga para la sociedad y el estado, es lógico concluir que su vida no vale la pena ser vivida.
Si no creemos que fuimos creados por Dios, sino simplemente animales altamente evolucionados, y si creemos que solo debemos rendir cuentas a la sociedad, entonces no tiene límite la depravación a la que podemos llegar en nuestra búsqueda de justificar nuestras acciones. La corrosión de la moral comienza en proporciones microscópicas, pero si no es controlada por una norma externa a nosotros seguirá hasta que la corrosión haga desaparecer el fundamento mismo de nuestras vidas, y nos encontramos hundiéndonos en un mar de relativismo.
-Estos fueron mis pensamientos en aquellos años (no muchos aun soy joven) ahora, solo puedo decir que tengo mi periodo y en verdad, las hormonas pueden cambiar en un dia mi moral y mi etica!!!!!!!!
I’m waiting impatiently for that translation.
[...] ection, I was sure that I had it all figured out. Something had been bothering me about my post on moral absolutism versus moral relativism and finally I fig [...]
[...] door, turned off Oakenfold on my iPod, and was ready to start typing away. But then I read Laura’s incredible comment which was more or les [...]
“Nietzche is dead”
-God
“Nietzche is dead”
-God
No one saw that one coming!
I think I posted the exact same thing in a comment elsewhere but I’m too lazy to check…so yeah, I’ve come to the same conclusion Kevin’s come to. I’ve pondered and discussed the absolutism vs. relativism argument to death and decided that either side is as much a leap of faith as the other. There is no way to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God and thus impossible to prove or disprove any theory or argument that is directly contingent upon said existence or lack thereof. I personally believe in God and the idea of eternal truths, but it’s a faith on the level of the soul, not the mind, and hardly something I can convey with words nor convince someone of with the logic of the mind…you just feel it. At one point in my life, I would have considered myself an agnostic moral relativist, so I’m quite familiar with both ways of thinking. I found deeper enlightenment, however, in accepting the limitations of the mind and the shortcomings of truths based solely on sensory experience. That’s just what worked for me though, and I don’t expect to convince anyone I’m right…but don’t expect to convince me I’m wrong.
For me, I can not have a discussion on ethics without bringing up the concept of a higher power. If you believe that there is a higher power, then in almost all cases you believe someone has laid the laws for the way the world works - physics, gravity, magnetic fields, etc. Since everything else in this world works on a set playing field, it only makes sense to believe that a conscience is also part of that framework?
I was a follower of the above for many years. However, that perspective changed as I got older and began to seek out reasons for why things are. I believe in evolution. I see the world as a product of quick and dirty efficiency, the best fit with an existing framework. Every species has a crude from of normal social behaviors that (for the most part) has proven to be that particular species most efficient way to transfer DNA. These can be very different. In primates you have two extremes, chimpanzees and gibbons:
- Chimps are multi partner. Rape, killing (especially of infants), frequent power struggles, etc.
- Gibbons on the other hand, have taken a different method to ensure their DNA lives on. They have 2 adults support and raise their children. When they are grown, the children leave to create their own nuclear families.
I feel that the human conscience is simply a byproduct of they way our species evolved. We found that (for most of human society) the Monogamous Family Group style is simply the most efficient way to preserve our DNA.
Of course, this only looks at the core sensibilities of humans. Muslims certainly did not evolve to believe an uncovered head was a bad thing. But, we all have developed a sense to follow the customs of our society. Why are certain customs or taboos around? Well, that is a whole new post. I will say one thing though, being a relativist sure makes cultures other than my own make a lot more sense.
[...] cs Immigration — oso @ 12:38 am Before I forget, I just finished translating Laura’s comment from the moral relativism versus [...]
[...] cs Immigration — oso @ 12:38 am Before I forget, I just finished translating Laura’s comment from the moral relativism versus [...]
[...] 12; oso @ 9:48 am I thought this article was interesting and loosely related to our discussion: Justice After War By [...]
Relativism. End of discussion.