Beastie's fear

[_beastie]

Wade,

I have no intention of getting into a discussion of the origins of morality with you, because it is irrelevant to this discussion. Regardless of the origins of morality, the point is that you, and other True Believers, are willing to abandon your own sense of morality if "God" commands it. That inclination has, throughout history, resulted in horrific acts of violence against others.

Certainly religion is not the only dogma that is capable of inciting human beings to abandon their own sense of morality, with devastating consequences.

[Guest]

Neither Nazis nor Stalinists nor Maoists, which is what I presume you are referring to, were moral relativists.

Utter nonsense. They were all nihilists

Nihilism and moral relativism are completely opposed. Nihilists assert that moral truth does not exist. Relativists assert that it is does, however it is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a
person or group of people.

You have no idea what you are talking about, and again, asserting your ignorance is not much of an argument. Stalinism, for one, was not morally relativist at all. You can pick that up from the mere fact that it saw its social structure as morally superior to others in an objective sense and was chiefly motivated by this perception. You are just throwing around these terms in a loose way to as a means of demeaning that which disagrees with your moral views. Further, something isn't "relativist" if its moral views come from "thin air." Presumably, that is a way of saying arbitrarily derived, which is ironic, given that this is an accurate criticism of divine command. Sadly, as I pointed out above, being arbitrary doesn't make a ethical system relativist. To be a moral relativist, you need to think that moral statements and sensibilities express truth-evaluable notions, and those notions can be true relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of some group of people. There are a few relativist Marxists out there, humanities academics with a fuzzy understanding of "postmodern" philosophy mostly, so it's no trouble to point to them if we need some actual examples. Moral relativism is quite uncommon.

Basing moral truth relative to whatever the will of a randomly picked subject happens to be is quite arbitrary. You might counter that God is not random, he is morally perfect. But that simply begs the question, as you are defining whatever his will is as morally perfect. The same trick could be done with me. We could define morality in terms of my will, either because my will determines morality or because I have exclusive access to the realm of moral facts and can dictate them to others. It wouldn't be moral relativism because my will would provide moral prescriptions universally, but it would be morally arbitrary. There'd be no reason why why moral facts are this way instead of that besides tying them to my will for no good reason. It's not a compelling way to bootstrap moral facts. And it would do no good to point out that I'm morally perfect, because in this system that is a tautology. You can't buy your absolutism by fiat and escape the arbitrariness problem.


http://www.philosophyofreligion.information/arbitrariness.html

[_wenglund]

Wade,

I have no intention of getting into a discussion of the origins of morality with you, because it is irrelevant to this discussion. Regardless of the origins of morality, the point is that you, and other True Believers, are willing to abandon your own sense of morality if "God" commands it. That inclination has, throughout history, resulted in horrific acts of violence against others.

Certainly religion is not the only dogma that is capable of inciting human beings to abandon their own sense of morality, with devastating consequences.

Okay, So you refuse to answer the one question I asked about the origins of morality. But, are you refusing to answer my other questions (which speak to the influence of religion on morality, and are thus germane to your stated belief above)?

By the way, I made no mention of "dogma", so I am not sure where that is coming from. And, I am not sure why you consider it "abandonment" where there is a single modification to a single aspect of one's morality (such as with your hypothetical). Please explain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

I'm not interested in a long conversation about the origins of morality when it isn't relevant to the topic. If you are curious, you can do some reading about the evolution of tit-for-tat or reciprocal altruism. I believe that our innate moral system developed because this was the pattern of behavior that was most conducive to the survival of the species. Game theory has demonstrated that to be true, as well. Google any of those terms ("tit-for-tat", "reciprocal altruism", "game theory + tit-for-tat") and you'll get lots of hits.

If one previously believed that adult men having sex with children is wrong and abhorrent, to relinquish that belief because God said so is the equivalent of abandoning that moral belief. Your protest against the use of this term makes no sense.

I will come back tomorrow and review your questions, but I believe I already satisfactorily answered whatever is relevant. Just because I don't always quote your question above my answer does not mean I didn't provide an answer.

I'm just not interested in endless rabbit trails. The issue is very simple, and there really is not much to be said on the subject.

[_Gadianton]

Wade,

The problem is your average home teacher hurries and makes phone calls 10 minutes before the end of the month. So no, most believers aren't going to fly airplanes into buildings when they cringe from giving talks on Sunday and justify R rated movies. That is, thanks to something called the prosperity cycle, in Mormon terms, we don't have a lot to worry about. Because we do pretty well overall with money and education, because of the things the lone and dreary world offers, we don't have to worry. BUT, supposidly, God won't tolerate such slack commitment indefinitely. He's going to send us tough times as a wake up call. Terrorism, natural disasters, all kinds of stuff until we're so afraid we rely on him rather than the arm of flesh. Obedience is the first law of heaven, Wade. And when the Saints have been tithed, and the strong remain, we'll see what they do. They'll have the faith of Abraham, they will be ready to stab their kids to death at his command. If there ever is a time where the saints are close to perfection, then THAT'S when we need to worry. Because yeah, they'll fly planes into buildings with smiles on their faces at that point.

[_Coggins7]

Nihilism and moral relativism are completely opposed. Nihilists assert that moral truth does not exist. Relativists assert that it is does, however it is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a person or group of people.

This may be your idiosyncratic definitions of these terms, but the analysis is far to shallow and simplistic to do justice to either.

Nihilism and relativism are hardly opposed philosophical templates. Indeed, the one is derivative of the other. Nihilists assert, it is true, that moral truth does not exist, but so do relativists, only in a circumlocutious manner. To say that all morality is relative to the convictions, practices, and norms of a group of persons, or a single individual, is to say that there are no intrinsic, underlying moral standards in the universe that are universally applicable and can be known to be so. Value relativism (such as the "situational morality" of the sixties, especially as applied to sexual matters) then, really doesn't just say that morality is relative, but says that it is arbitrary and subjective, grounded only in human preference. But to say this is, at the same time, to engage in nihilism, since if morality is grounded only in perception and preference, then morality does not exist in any essential or existential sense, outside of and beyond subjective human preference and expediency. To say that morality is relative is to say that there is no such essential thing, but a vast plethora of moralities, each of which exists at the behest of its creators. Nihilism is simply taking the next logical step and admitting that none of this matters at all.

Stalinism, for one, was not morally relativist at all. You can pick that up from the mere fact that it saw its social structure as morally superior to others in an objective sense and was chiefly motivated by this perception.

Apparently you didn't even read and digest my arguments here. Communism, National Socialism, and all forms of Fascism, are nihilistic because they ultimately consume and destroy all values, including their own. These are all dogmatic, absolutist ideologies, it is true, but as I already pointed out, when their practice is extracted from the head-in-the-clouds-social theorizing of the intellectuals who conceive and gestate such ideologies, none of them are really about anything else then the unbridled, naked, unlimited wielding of power. This is the message of 1984, and is applicable to all forms of 20th century collectivism. The truth changes every day. Reality changes every day. The law changes every day, according to the needs of the revolution. That is a rigid, absolutist ideology used in the service of a nihilistic program of social reconstruction.

You are just throwing around these terms in a loose way to as a means of demeaning that which disagrees with your moral views.

This is a classic statement of a kind traditionally used by the relativist, and its really just a debate stopping tactic, not an argument. All moral "views" are relative, and hence, substantive argument regarding them is really impossible since all we're ever talking about is personal preference, not existential standards that stand outside personal preference and to which we are accountable.

Further, something isn't "relativist" if its moral views come from "thin air."

Yes it is, by your own admittance:

however it is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a person or group of people.

In other words, "morality" does not exist, only numerous preferences, predilections, and interpretations of it. There is more philosophical clarity to be had if we, I think, understand Nihilism to be a kind of "strong" relativism and relativism to be a "soft" nihilism. The relativist doesn't believe in intrinsic, inherent value standards in the universe, but believes that he may construct his own. He accepts morality as a concept but only in the sense that he accepts some need to make sense of his own behavior. The nihilist simply takes this to its logical conclusion and says "who cares?". Nietzsche moved from relativism to nihilism and then made the next logical leap into the will to power. Once God is dead and all values are seen to be relative to time, situation, and culture (such as Christian slave morality), we see that values don't really exist at all in any essential, universal way. We are then left with nothing...the abyss.

To be a moral relativist, you need to think that moral statements and sensibilities express truth-evaluable notions, and those notions can be true relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of some group of people.

This is becoming somewhat of an exercises in sophistry. You are making distinctions here with very little difference. If I think that moral statements "express truth-evaluable notions", but then say that these are relative to the subjective preferences of groups or single individuals, then I have just claimed that morality is both subjective and arbitrary, there being, potentially as many moralities as there are psychologies, personalities, and preferences.

There are a few relativist Marxists out there, humanities academics with a fuzzy understanding of "postmodern" philosophy mostly, so it's no trouble to point to them if we need some actual examples. Moral relativism is quite uncommon.

In reality, much of what has happened during the 20th century is directly related to its acceptance, either as part of an ideology, or as the practice of an ideology. The Dionysian sixties and seventies were philosophically predicated upon the idea.

Marxists accept the theory of base and superstructure, a dogmatic, rigidly defined critique of the nature of values that claims all values to be arbitrary and relative to the dynamics of economic relations between classes.

Is Leftism schizophrenic? Yes, and some of the best conservative and libertarian minds of the last century have pointed this out. Multiculturalism is fascist, but its ideology pretends otherwise, within its theoretical frame of reference.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". The relativist accommodates his moral preferences to his conduct. The nihilist could care less about convincing you of anything philosophically as he breaks your head. A Maoist, Leninist, or Nazi would uproot and destroy all existing values to replace them with another set. An Anarchist would uproot and destroy all existing values simply for that purpose alone, because values as values are meaningless, delimiting restraints on the pure will.

[_EAllusion]

This may be your idiosyncratic definitions of these terms, but the analysis is far to shallow and simplistic to do justice to either.

My definitions are the standard ones in philosophy of ethics, and are the ones that will be taught at any reputable university and be used in reputable journals. Yours are fuzzy, imprecise understandings found primarily in nonacademic settings among conservative religious apologists. Nihilism is a form of cognitivism that asserts that moral statements express propositions, but all such statements are false. In other words, it denies the existence of moral truths while arguing that moral statements are trying to express things that can be true or false. Moral relativism accepts the existence of moral truths, but holds them relative to in-group or out-group norms.

I'll gladly quote formal sources if you like. In the meantime, read the standford encyclopedia of philosophy:

www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/moral-relativism/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/

Gee, my "idiosyncratic" definitions are found there. If you care to pursue this line, we can move on to textbooks used in basic phil of ethics classes.

Nihilism and relativism are hardly opposed philosophical templates. Indeed, the one is derivative of the other.

Relativists, the few that exist anyway, don't not accept that relativism collapses into nihilism. That's why they are relativists.

Stalinism, for one, was not morally relativist at all. You can pick that up from the mere fact that it saw its social structure as morally superior to others in an objective sense and was chiefly motivated by this perception.

Apparently you didn't even read and digest my arguments here.

Yes I did. That is why I was able to conclude you have no idea about what you are talking about.

In other words, "morality" does not exist,

This isn't saying morality doesn't exist. It is describing a theory, one generally thought poorly of, about how it exists. It's a theory about what our moral statements mean that very much asserts that moral truth is real. Philosophers, even non-cognitivists and nihilists who deny moral truth, aren't in the business of denying basic facts. They're trying to understand them. They all accept that moral thought, morality, exists. They are giving competing accounts of its nature and the ontological constitution of its aims. Moral relativists argue that moral statements are expressing information about the standards, convictions, traditions, (etc.) of person or group of people who is talking (more common) or being talked about (less common). If you can't tell the difference, maybe you should read a book or two. One of my personal favorites is the Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. It will explain this to you in detail.

This is becoming somewhat of an exercises in sophistry. You are making distinctions here with very little difference. If I think that moral statements "express truth-evaluable notions", but then say that these are relative to the subjective preferences of groups or single individuals, then I have just claimed that morality is both subjective and arbitrary

The view you express, divine command theory, is obviously susceptible to the arbitrariness objection. It also is a form of 3rd party subjectivism. It determines moral truth by holding it relative to the subjective states of a 3rd party - God or a being described as God in particular. The irony isn't lost on me. Happily, this doesn't mean the distinction between it and nihilism is meaningless. It's actually quite useful, as both ideas are arguing very different things. A nihilist does not think moral facts exist. A relativist does. That is a stark, glaring distinction. You can't be both. And Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russian, and Maoist China aren't aptly described as either. Indeed, the idea that Stalinist Russia was motivated by relativist metaethics is laughable. They just held morally dubious views and engaged in acts properly regarded as contemptible. The real problem here is that you think rejecting divine command (not that the nazis were areligious) is accepting nihilism and relativism altogether in one ball of amorality. This is just plain wrong.

[_wenglund]

I'm not interested in a long conversation about the origins of morality when it isn't relevant to the topic. If you are curious, you can do some reading about the evolution of tit-for-tat or reciprocal altruism. I believe that our innate moral system developed because this was the pattern of behavior that was most conducive to the survival of the species. Game theory has demonstrated that to be true, as well. Google any of those terms ("tit-for-tat", "reciprocal altruism", "game theory + tit-for-tat") and you'll get lots of hits.

If one previously believed that adult men having sex with children is wrong and abhorrent, to relinquish that belief because God said so is the equivalent of abandoning that moral belief. Your protest against the use of this term makes no sense.

I will come back tomorrow and review your questions, but I believe I already satisfactorily answered whatever is relevant. Just because I don't always quote your question above my answer does not mean I didn't provide an answer.

I'm just not interested in endless rabbit trails. The issue is very simple, and there really is not much to be said on the subject.

I look forward to hearing your response(s) to whichever questions you don't refuse to answer.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade,

The problem is your average home teacher hurries and makes phone calls 10 minutes before the end of the month. So no, most believers aren't going to fly airplanes into buildings when they cringe from giving talks on Sunday and justify R rated movies. That is, thanks to something called the prosperity cycle, in Mormon terms, we don't have a lot to worry about. Because we do pretty well overall with money and education, because of the things the lone and dreary world offers, we don't have to worry. BUT, supposidly, God won't tolerate such slack commitment indefinitely. He's going to send us tough times as a wake up call. Terrorism, natural disasters, all kinds of stuff until we're so afraid we rely on him rather than the arm of flesh. Obedience is the first law of heaven, Wade. And when the Saints have been tithed, and the strong remain, we'll see what they do. They'll have the faith of Abraham, they will be ready to stab their kids to death at his command. If there ever is a time where the saints are close to perfection, then THAT'S when we need to worry. Because yeah, they'll fly planes into buildings with smiles on their faces at that point.

To my recollection, the last attempt by Church members at stabbing one's kids to death occured over four thousand years ago, and that attempt was stopped by God.

Yet, if one looks at the abortion rates (speaking of stabbing and ripping one's kids apart) among the godless, I am not sure your fears are sensibly directed even if rational in relation to the Church (which I am in the process of evaluating). ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Coggins7]

My definitions are the standard ones in philosophy of ethics,

I've studied ethics, and there are no standard definitions in anything like the settled, pat manner you are trying to foist here. Philosophy is about interpretation; it is about thinking and reflecting, not pat standard definitions that can be wielded against a philosophic opponent whom you cannot refute on the hoof using your own intellectual apparatus.

and are the ones that will be taught at any reputable university and be used in reputable journals. Yours are fuzzy, imprecise understandings found primarily in nonacademic settings among conservative religious apologists.

Since you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about here, I'll skip this. As I told you long ago E, at ZLMB, you wouldn't know a conservative if he reared up and bit you in both cheeks. Most people who hold views such as your own do not, their understandings of this tradition being primarily cartoon cutouts that are mostly the creations of their own prejudices.

Nihilism is a form of cognitivism that asserts that moral statements express propositions, but all such statements are false. In other words, it denies the existence of moral truths while arguing that moral statements are trying to express things that can be true or false. Moral relativism accepts the existence of moral truths, but holds them relative to in-group or out-group norms.

I can see why DCP gave up discussing things with you E. Let's remove the sugar bowl we're going around and discuss the philosophical implications of these ideas. Perhaps you're just not philosophically sophisticated enough to see the implications of your own claims here, so, let me parse this for you a second time (put down the encyclopedia E, were doing philosophy now...)

Moral relativists do not accept the existence of moral truths. A truth is not relative but absolute (unless "truth" is defined and understood as nothing more than individual perception of what is true). Relativists accept the existence of moral contingencies, expediencies, and boundary conditions, but not truths. Once you accept the existence of truth, then you run into the problem of the categorical imperative. But relativism (and its popularity, especially in the sexual revolution context) denies that any particular morality can be extended, or is valid, for any other individual other than the one for whom his particular "morality" is justifiable. Now, while this is not nihilism, in a textbook sense, it is nihilistic in the sense that it denies the existence of standards and values as inherent in the universe and to which human beings must ultimately conform irrespective of their own beliefs and value preferences. Hence, it denies that there is, or can be, knowledge of absolute, transcendent values, and accepts only the relative and arbitrary cultural artifacts that can be created by human beings. In that sense, relativism is nihilistic. Nihilism must logically accept all values as relative to preference and culture, but goes to the next level, and declares all values valueless.

I'll gladly quote formal sources...

Go right ahead. I'd rather ague the merits of the case.

Relativists, the few that exist anyway, don't not accept that relativism collapses into nihilism. That's why they are relativists.

And that self serving intellectual blind spot also explains why so many relativists are inevitably leftists, and why leftism so often collapses into totalitarianism.

The view you express, divine command theory,

"Divine command theory" is not the view I express nor is it the view expressed by the Church. Divine command theory claims that an action, or obedience to a command of God, becomes obligatory and required for no other reason that that God has commanded it. This is not the doctrine of the Church, nor do most LDS believe it. Some commandments are to be obeyed in faith not knowing beforehand the outcome, but this is not divine command theory, but acting in faith based upon experience with a being who manifests himself in our lives through our actions and choices. Faith is action and experience.

The Church teaches that we obey God, not just because he commands, but because the Gospel is a lawful, ordered system of growth and progression in which following divine commands tends to greater happiness, development, and enlightenment. Our obedience is a volitional, free choice grounded in a knowledge that in following a specific pattern of law, principle, and life, we move closer to Christ. We move toward happiness, which is the purpose of life.

A nihilist does not think moral facts exist. A relativist does.

No...a relativist thinks his own moral facts exist, and nothing more, and that implies a denial of moral facts inherent the external universe in which he is embedded that transcend his own subjective preferences regarding them.

That is a stark, glaring distinction. You can't be both. And Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russian, and Maoist China aren't aptly described as either.

Communist, fascist, and otherwise collectivist dictatorships have been described and elucidated as manifestations of both, but as your reading and education does not include conservative or libertarian scholars, I wouldn't expect you to have run across any such references. Here's a few:


http://journals.cambridge.org/download. ... 03675a.pdf
&code=c2ff70cd2d13d0e2d990e75cf703ee45

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5405 (the first review)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... 0113/print

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airc ... ml#Whiting

above, a Harvard scholar calls Mao's Cultural Revolution "nihilistic"

And this next one should keep you pawing the ground for the remainder of the month:

http://www.emory.edu/INTELNET/ideolanguage1.html

Of particular importance is the following paragraph, the italics of which are mine:

An ideology that was nonchalant or equivocal about the activities it enjoyed or prohibited would be no ideology at all... Ideology and modernism were to each other as an immovable object to an irresistible force." Susser assumes that ideology follows a standard of certainty while the modern age follows a standard of relativism--their modes of thinking remain completely alien to each other. As Kipling said, "East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet..." Thus, the question of how Eastern ideology can survive in the epoch of Western relativity loses its intriguing appeal.

My answer, if only preliminary and partial, is quite different. Far from being antithetical to post-modernism, ideology supplies a unique forum for the post-modernist interplay of all conceivable ideas. Paradoxically, Soviet Marxism, the philosophy least expected to be involved in postmodernist debate, can provide an explanation. The ideology of Soviet Marxism has always enjoyed the reputation of being one of the most conservative and anti-modern system of beliefs of the twentieth century. Totalitarianism was assumed to exclude the sort of relativism that flourished in Western culture and laid the basis for the transition to the postmodernist condition. However, glasnost' and perestroika have shed new light on this ideological system which, if regarded in the process of its formation, reveals a stunning example of relativism inscribed into totalitarian thinking. Totalitarianism itself may thus be viewed as a specific postmodern model which came to replace the modernist ideological stance elaborated in earlier Marxism. The difference between classic Marxism, which is recognized as a breakthrough in philosophical modernism, and Soviet Marxism in its Stalinist and especially Brezhnevian versions, can be described precisely in terms of the modernist-postmodernist relationship. The latter tended to absorb and assimilate the former, eventually overcoming classic Marxism's original system of historical certainties and utopian beliefs.

Brezhnevian socialism postmodern? That would mean that leftist totalitarianism contains elements of both relativism and nihilism.

The real problem here is that you think rejecting divine command is accepting nihilism and relativism altogether in one ball of amorality. This is just plain wrong.

I have made no such claim. The history of the last century, and centuries before (The French Revolution, for example), and in particular, the last forty years or so, makes quite clear that, although rejecting serious religion and its proscriptions and delimitations to human behavior does not lead any particular individual inexorably to nihilism or relativism, relativism and nihilism always accompany such a retreat from traditional Judeo/Christian morality (and indeed, this was Nietzsches very purpose) because they are both the most productive justifications for its abandonment as well as the most likely philosophical harbor once it has been abandoned.