Individualism and Moral Relativism

[Michael]

Individualism and Moral Relativism

If moral relativism is the only standard of moral judgement, how can we as individuals claim that our own views, thoughts, morals or ideas have any substantive meaning at all?

If there is no scale upon which one can objectively judge one's own choices, how can any one choice be considered better than any other?

If this is so, why don't we just flip a coin to make decisions? Surely random probability will not produce any worse or substantially different result than our own fickle or random subjectivity?

Indeed, why does anyone bother to have any thoughts at all? If all thoughts are morally equal and none can be better or superior, what good is any one of them other than for the novelty of variety?

[partofme]

Ultimately what we do is based on emotions and out conscience is emotional as well in my opinion. Even when we act in a logical way to achieve a goal the goal itself is really based on how much we value the goal which still boils down to emotion. If we where all vulcans we would probably know how to get objectives done but have no idea what those should be. So really I think people judge their own actions based on what they feel is right or wrong which they may try to back up using logic after the fact.

[bug]

If you consider morality as a code of conduct according to one's beliefs and learned experiences, morality by definition has to be relative. For the sake of this arguement, I, personally, have no grounds to consider myself qualified to say "It was wrong of you to murder that homeless dude." The only thing that qualifies us as a whole to decide what's right and wrong is society. In civilized societies, there ideally is the respect of other's rights (also decided upon by society). This discredits the things that violate the saftey of or hinder the indepent enjoyment of freedom of the members of society. Societal code doesn't allow for things that are now considered immoral, such as murdering homeless dude, theft, rape, ect. Assuming this point of view, answers to the initial post are as follows....
-Outside of the fact that one, as an indidual, exists, their life is really happening in one way or another, and because they have conciousness....we can't claim them as having any substance. Oh, and the substance that existance qualifies is specific to the individual.
-The scale is societal rules. Footnote/Disclaimer/My Escape Hatch in Case Challenged: This is only a reliable system if we continue to allow for social progress in our rules.
-If it weren't for learning from past experiences, certainly, we could flip a coin. From living with myself, I know myself, and I'm not going to flip a coin to see if homeless dude outside is getting the knife or not. I can make an educated guess that I wouldn't have many positive feeling about myself if I did that. If not now, then eventually. Plus, when you've chosen something you feel good about, you had control. It wasn't left to chance. Good for the spirit.
-I think that's creating a vertical scale on a horizontal plane. Is the Nobel prize or the Lambardi Trophy the better award? Is DaVinci or Monet a better artist? These are based in opinions. Individuals lead diffrent lives that ead to the necissity of different codes. There's arguably no concrete way to determine what's best. In societies, morality (law) could be determined by what works best, or fairest, through the input of many individuals in keeping the majority inact and happy. Not what is vaguey "just better because it is" (to be interpreted "just better 'cause it's what I believe")

The law is good for preventing the chaos that would ensue if we let our moral realitivity have no check. I, for instance, do not feel horribly guilty when I'm doing 20 over the speed limit. However, if i was not kept in check by the law, i could do much more damage to someone crusing along at 115mph than I could going 35. Bad example, but after writing this, I feel mentally lazy.

[drgoodtrips]

Individualism and Moral Relativism

If moral relativism is the only standard of moral judgement, how can we as individuals claim that our own views, thoughts, morals or ideas have any substantive meaning at all?

If there is no scale upon which one can objectively judge one's own choices, how can any one choice be considered better than any other?

If this is so, why don't we just flip a coin to make decisions? Surely random probability will not produce any worse or substantially different result than our own fickle or random subjectivity?

Indeed, why does anyone bother to have any thoughts at all? If all thoughts are morally equal and none can be better or superior, what good is any one of them other than for the novelty of variety?

I think that the simplest answer to this is the idea that, while it is impossible to label actions as "right" or "wrong" with purely subjective relativity, it is not impossible to label actions as beneficial or detrimental. While this too involves subjectivity, we could trace it back to the one known axiom: cogito ergo sum. From there, we can reasonably assert that anything stopping this state of affairs (death) is detrimental and anything preventing it is beneficial. Granted, this opens up the can of worms regarding whether we correctly perceive that something will stave off death, but there has to be some level of "faith" in the equation. And, I submit that assessing "beneficial" versus "detrimental" is less subjective - we have better heuristics for this, such as pain, pleasure, etc.

So, the question of "right" and "wrong" can be couched in terms of actions being harmful or beneficial to various groups and interests. Continuing in this vein, we create societies and dole out rights to maximize the benefit for all members of the society. This is what shapes our notions of right and wrong.

So, we have a state of affairs with unanimous and "trans-temporal" agreement on right and wrong as principals in a vacuum is irrelevant. Some decisions are better than others because of benefit/detriment. If I kill a "homeless dude", he suffers a detriment (death) and I suffer a detriment (jail). Whether killing him is right or wrong... who cares? (for the sake of this argument, that is ;) )

[Michael]

Ultimately what we do is based on emotions and out conscience is emotional as well in my opinion. Even when we act in a logical way to achieve a goal the goal itself is really based on how much we value the goal which still boils down to emotion. If we where all vulcans we would probably know how to get objectives done but have no idea what those should be. So really I think people judge their own actions based on what they feel is right or wrong which they may try to back up using logic after the fact.
Yes, that's very true - emotional decisions are usually made first and reason is then used to construct logically rationalized justifications after the fact.

I've always asserted that humans are mostly irrational creatures that only occasionally use the tools of reason.

If you consider morality as a code of conduct according to one's beliefs and learned experiences, morality by definition has to be relative. For the sake of this arguement, I, personally, have no grounds to consider myself qualified to say "It was wrong of you to murder that homeless dude." The only thing that qualifies us as a whole to decide what's right and wrong is society. In civilized societies, there ideally is the respect of other's rights (also decided upon by society). This discredits the things that violate the saftey of or hinder the indepent enjoyment of freedom of the members of society. Societal code doesn't allow for things that are now considered immoral, such as murdering homeless dude, theft, rape, ect.

:pat:

I agree completely with this. Civil society is the institutionalization of the moral principle. Law is the most formal codification of morality while rules, bylaws or traffic laws also express morality. Social customs and folkways are also major processes for maintaining/defining public morality. It is the collective 'groupthink' of society. :erm:


-The scale is societal rules. Footnote/Disclaimer/My Escape Hatch in Case Challenged: This is only a reliable system if we continue to allow for social progress in our rules.
That's a good American answer. Your answer implicitly suggests the right of rebellion against unjust government. ;)

-If it weren't for learning from past experiences, certainly, we could flip a coin. From living with myself, I know myself, and I'm not going to flip a coin to see if homeless dude outside is getting the knife or not. I can make an educated guess that I wouldn't have many positive feeling about myself if I did that. If not now, then eventually. Plus, when you've chosen something you feel good about, you had control. It wasn't left to chance. Good for the spirit.
-I think that's creating a vertical scale on a horizontal plane. Is the Nobel prize or the Lambardi Trophy the better award? Is DaVinci or Monet a better artist? These are based in opinions. Individuals lead diffrent lives that ead to the necissity of different codes. There's arguably no concrete way to determine what's best. In societies, morality (law) could be determined by what works best, or fairest, through the input of many individuals in keeping the majority inact and happy. Not what is vaguey "just better because it is" (to be interpreted "just better 'cause it's what I believe")

Arguably, our elections do serve this purpose in a vague sort of way. But more often than not it is our friends, families, peers and co-workers - the ones who offer enouragement for certain personal endeavors and not others.

The law is good for preventing the chaos that would ensue if we let our moral realitivity have no check. I, for instance, do not feel horribly guilty when I'm doing 20 over the speed limit. However, if i was not kept in check by the law, i could do much more damage to someone crusing along at 115mph than I could going 35. Bad example, but after writing this, I feel mentally lazy.
I believe the law is codified morality. Morals rule our lives in various degrees. Some are heavy duty ones (laws against murder) some are much less so (not washing the dishes). The rule of morality seems to be the whole of civil society itself.

[Michael]

I think that the simplest answer to this is the idea that, while it is impossible to label actions as "right" or "wrong" with purely subjective relativity, it is not impossible to label actions as beneficial or detrimental. While this too involves subjectivity, we could trace it back to the one known axiom: cogito ergo sum. From there, we can reasonably assert that anything stopping this state of affairs (death) is detrimental and anything preventing it is beneficial. Granted, this opens up the can of worms regarding whether we correctly perceive that something will stave off death, but there has to be some level of "faith" in the equation. And, I submit that assessing "beneficial" versus "detrimental" is less subjective - we have better heuristics for this, such as pain, pleasure, etc.
One minor quibble here - the 'mercy-killing problem' - your ancient grandmother lying in a hospital bed wants to die - in this case, anything stopping/delaying this state of affairs is not necessarily 'beneficial'.

With us humans, there is always so much 'grey area' that makes such attempts at such formally rationalized systems so challenging.

Btw, the 'pleasure/pain' heuristic was a favorite of Plato. That was always the ground Socrates used to illustrate his views (or critiques) of justice and morality.

So, the question of "right" and "wrong" can be couched in terms of actions being harmful or beneficial to various groups and interests. Continuing in this vein, we create societies and dole out rights to maximize the benefit for all members of the society. This is what shapes our notions of right and wrong.

So, we have a state of affairs with unanimous and "trans-temporal" agreement on right and wrong as principals in a vacuum is irrelevant. Some decisions are better than others because of benefit/detriment. If I kill a "homeless dude", he suffers a detriment (death) and I suffer a detriment (jail). Whether killing him is right or wrong... who cares? (for the sake of this argument, that is ;) )
For the sake of this argument, the 'right or wrong' is always relevant. One may presume to prefer the terms of 'benefit/detriment, but genocide is still genocide and that's still evil. ;)

Though of course, one can say that genocide is evil because it is 'mass-detriment'.

Btw, I think you are trying to play Kant's game here - seeking to define a rule system for defining comparative morality calculations. In contrast, my inclination is to argue against all such attempts. Humans are just too irrational to accept that kind of stuff. I'm inclined to look for a more pragmatic approach that accepts that humans are mostly idiots. :D

[SMadsen]

I agree completely with this. Civil society is the institutionalization of the moral principle. Law is the most formal codification of morality while rules, bylaws or traffic laws also express morality. Social customs and folkways are also major processes for maintaining/defining public morality. It is the collective 'groupthink' of society. :erm:
...

I believe the law is codified morality. Morals rule our lives in various degrees. Some are heavy duty ones (laws against murder) some are much less so (not washing the dishes). The rule of morality seems to be the whole of civil society itself.
I also completely agree with Bug regarding the argument of why morality is relative but, although the phrase "codified morality" may be superficially acceptable, I don't agree with the notion that law expresses morality.

First and foremost, there is of course the logical argument that if legal equals moral then legality equals morality and illegality equals immorality. In other words, all that is immoral is also illegal. Obviously, that's not the case.

Then there's the scope. As Bug said, morality is a code of conduct according to one's belief and experiences. That was splendidly said. Morality is subjective and must therefore be relative. Law, however, has quite a different scope. It must consider the coexistence of all individuals and must therefore seek to be objective in that pursuit. If it reflects a given morality then it stops itself in its own tracks and can't pursue anything but the subjectivity of those certain morals. That's called ideological fundamentalism, not law.

I appreciate that this is not a law vs morality thread but now that it came up, I thought I'd belch a bit.

[Helene]

Individualism and Moral Relativism

If moral relativism is the only standard of moral judgement, how can we as individuals claim that our own views, thoughts, morals or ideas have any substantive meaning at all?

What do you mean by substansive? What I think, feel and believe only has meaning in how I behave and how that affects others. If I die, all that is left of me is how the consequences of my actions have affected and will continue to affect the world. My inner world will be gone.

If there is no scale upon which one can objectively judge one's own choices, how can any one choice be considered better than any other?

You can never know if a choice was actually "good", because you do not know what would have happened if you had chosen something else. I suppose the best measurement is the amount of regret you feel afterwards.

If this is so, why don't we just flip a coin to make decisions? Surely random probability will not produce any worse or substantially different result than our own fickle or random subjectivity?

If you do not want to feel in any way responsible for the outcome of your choices, then this is a good solution. However, most people do have an idea of what they are working towards, and their choices will generally reflect that end goal. Flipping a coin would interfere with achieving that goal.

Indeed, why does anyone bother to have any thoughts at all? If all thoughts are morally equal and none can be better or superior, what good is any one of them other than for the novelty of variety?

Most people don't bother to have thoughts.

[Michael]

I also completely agree with Bug regarding the argument of why morality is relative but, although the phrase "codified morality" may be superficially acceptable, I don't agree with the notion that law expresses morality.

First and foremost, there is of course the logical argument that if legal equals moral then legality equals morality and illegality equals immorality. In other words, all that is immoral is also illegal. Obviously, that's not the case.

Then there's the scope. As Bug said, morality is a code of conduct according to one's belief and experiences. That was splendidly said. Morality is subjective and must therefore be relative. Law, however, has quite a different scope. It must consider the coexistence of all individuals and must therefore seek to be objective in that pursuit. If it reflects a given morality then it stops itself in its own tracks and can't pursue anything but the subjectivity of those certain morals. That's called ideological fundamentalism, not law.

I appreciate that this is not a law vs morality thread but now that it came up, I thought I'd belch a bit.

To address your last point first, I always find issues of morality and law to be intimately intertwined.

And I don't think the law is the same as morality (and have never asserted this). That being said, I have argued that law is one form of morality and I don't think any of your counterpoints sufficiently rebutt that assertion.

To put that in 'mathematical terms', law is a subset of morality. Thus, all laws involve morality, but not all morality is ruled by law.

As for your point about morality in law leads to ideological fundamentalism, I respectively submit that is your supposition (or bias), not a rationally inherent function of law or morality.

[Michael]

What do you mean by substansive? What I think, feel and believe only has meaning in how I behave and how that affects others. If I die, all that is left of me is how the consequences of my actions have affected and will continue to affect the world. My inner world will be gone.
I'd define "substantive" as having some element or property that is objectively rational. For "objective", one has to have a reference outside the subjective self.

Your inner world itself is thus not substantive - it is pure subjectivity.

One's effect upon others may also be equally subjective, but they may also be objectively observed - and thus may be rationally substantiated.

You can never know if a choice was actually "good", because you do not know what would have happened if you had chosen something else. I suppose the best measurement is the amount of regret you feel afterwards.
If you put some money on 'red 7' and the roulette wheel turns up 'red 7', you'd win a big pile of money. For most people, that would sound like a pretty darn good choice. Indeed, if you were thinking about 'red 7' but had actually chosen something else, you probably would feel regret afterwards when 'red 7' came up.

But of course, gaining that big huge pile of money for choosing 'red 7' might lead to you developing a gambling addiction, in which case you might lose your life-savings, or your job and/or your family. Which might suggest that not choosing 'red 7' would be the better choice.

So yes, I do believe that actions/choices do have consequences. That the subsequent chain of events is difficult to prove according to principles of legal responsibility doesn't make it any less real.

If you do not want to feel in any way responsible for the outcome of your choices, then this is a good solution. However, most people do have an idea of what they are working towards, and their choices will generally reflect that end goal. Flipping a coin would interfere with achieving that goal.
So morals are only good insofar as they are useful to achieving one's goals?

Most people don't bother to have thoughts.
That's one of the reasons I reject Kant's moral system. Humans just don't seem inclined to go around trying (or wanting) to make rationally moral decisions. Certainly a small vocal minority does, but definitely not all humans like doing this. In other words, there doesn't appear to be any market for a universal system of rationalized morality. Few people seem to want one.

[SMadsen]

Only one thing regarding this, Michael. Members of a subset of a set are classified as belonging to the set. Thus it doesn't make sense to say that law is not the same as morality, yet is a subset of morality.

Illustration. The numbers 1, 2 and 3 form a subset of the set of rational numbers. Thus 1, 2 and 3 are rational numbers.

[Michael]

Only one thing regarding this, Michael. Members of a subset of a set are classified as belonging to the set. Thus it doesn't make sense to say that law is not the same as morality, yet is a subset of morality.

Illustration. The numbers 1, 2 and 3 form a subset of the set of rational numbers. Thus 1, 2 and 3 are rational numbers.

Not all morals are laws, but all laws are moral.

[SMadsen]

Not all morals are laws, but all laws are moral.
So we can bin the following statement of yours: "And I don't think the law is the same as morality (and have never asserted this)"?

Law includes ethics but must not express morality. The difference is that morality deals with individual values while ethics deals with commitments towards others. That makes ethics a societal issue, by, ideally, imposing duties upon and between members of the populace, while morality points in a very different direction and only becomes a societal issue when imposed upon society by individuals or groups sharing the same moral values.

The latter may be fine for theocracies or otherwise ideologically fanatic government forms but for democracy it's a bummer.

[Helene]

I'd define "substantive" as having some element or property that is objectively rational. For "objective", one has to have a reference outside the subjective self.

How can anything be objectively rational?

One's effect upon others may also be equally subjective, but they may also be objectively observed - and thus may be rationally substantiated.

Although an effect can be observed, the exact effect cannot (unless the effect is death).

I am reminded of several recent occurences around me lately.
1. About a year ago, my son went to a birthday party. They went to a museum. At the museum there was an exhibition about food from different places around the world. My son tried all the different kinds of food. He brought home a fried grasshopper for me to try. I didn't try it. A male friend of mine was there, who did try it.
Recently, my son recalled this occurence, but, substituted my boyfriend for the male friend. And then he said: "You didn't try it, but V and I did! That's because we're real men!"

2. A friend of mine isn't being appreciated nor receiving affirmation in her life. She's a stay at home mother of 2 (rather annoying) kids. Her husband works on the other side of the country and doesn't actually contribute to the household. Since she can't deal with having to make the choice of changing her current situation, she's projecting her lack of feeling appreciated now onto her childhood and blaming her parents for not ever acknowledging her feelings. This is leading her to overcompensate towards her own children, and acknowledging all the annoying behaviour they have as an expression of "genuine feelings". She believes that as long as she doesn't give in to them, but just gives a lot of attention to their antics, she's not actually rewarding their negative behavior. Hence her kids being annoying, hence nobody saying she's actually doing a good job in raising the kids. While the real issue is that 1. her husband sucks and 2. she needs to find a job where she can find some satisfaction.

Both of them are relabelling and even changing their past to build their current identities, regardless what actually happened.

If you put some money on 'red 7' and the roulette wheel turns up 'red 7', you'd win a big pile of money. For most people, that would sound like a pretty darn good choice. Indeed, if you were thinking about 'red 7' but had actually chosen something else, you probably would feel regret afterwards when 'red 7' came up.

I wouldn't have had my son if his biological father hadn't lied to me. Yet today, I find myself having a great son, a wonderful relationship, a career with good prospects, etc. I think this is a prime example of how bad choices (namely dating someone with a narcistic personality syndrome who was also a pathological liar) can lead to good consequences.

So yes, I do believe that actions/choices do have consequences. That the subsequent chain of events is difficult to prove according to principles of legal responsibility doesn't make it any less real.

Obviously there is a subsequent chain of events, but you cannot know what it is. And therefore you cannot in hindsight say that one choice is better than another, as you cannot know the subsequent line of events from the other option.

So morals are only good insofar as they are useful to achieving one's goals?

I am not comfortable with such a general statement. I think they are mostly useful for not hurting others. But even hurting others can have positive consequences.

That's one of the reasons I reject Kant's moral system. Humans just don't seem inclined to go around trying (or wanting) to make rationally moral decisions. Certainly a small vocal minority does, but definitely not all humans like doing this. In other words, there doesn't appear to be any market for a universal system of rationalized morality. Few people seem to want one.

I have made several rationally moral decisions in my life, because it was important for me to make them. But to say that this is an every day occurance would be a gross overstatement. I think my total amount of rationally moral decisions comes to about 3.

[Michael]

So we can bin the following statement of yours: "And I don't think the law is the same as morality (and have never asserted this)"?

I don't think so. Law is NOT the same as morality. Morality is a much larger and more complex or fluid topic than just the law (which tends to be black and white). I believe that the law is only a particular subset of morality.

Law includes ethics but must not express morality. The difference is that morality deals with individual values while ethics deals with commitments towards others. That makes ethics a societal issue, by, ideally, imposing duties upon and between members of the populace, while morality points in a very different direction and only becomes a societal issue when imposed upon society by individuals or groups sharing the same moral values.

The latter may be fine for theocracies or otherwise ideologically fanatic government forms but for democracy it's a bummer.
I've always had a strong aversion to the distinction between "morality" and "ethics". The definitions always seem so clear-cut, but in reality, they are closely related in practice.

For example, it is unethical to kill a human being or to steal or to cheat on one's taxes. It is also immoral to kill a human being or to steal or to cheat on one's taxes. It is also illegal to kill a human being or to steal or to cheat on one's taxes. What's the difference?

[Michael]

How can anything be objectively rational?
From a strict epistemological perspective, you are correct - that's impossible.

However, 'objectivity' is much like 'perfection' - it is something aspired to, or aimed at, but never actually reached, despite one's best efforts. One only can achieve an approximation of objectivity. But it is asserted that an approximation of objectivity is (or can be) substantively more objectively rational than subjectivity.

Although an effect can be observed, the exact effect cannot (unless the effect is death).

I am reminded of several recent occurences around me lately.
1. About a year ago, my son went to a birthday party. They went to a museum. At the museum there was an exhibition about food from different places around the world. My son tried all the different kinds of food. He brought home a fried grasshopper for me to try. I didn't try it. A male friend of mine was there, who did try it.
Recently, my son recalled this occurence, but, substituted my boyfriend for the male friend. And then he said: "You didn't try it, but V and I did! That's because we're real men!"

2. A friend of mine isn't being appreciated nor receiving affirmation in her life. She's a stay at home mother of 2 (rather annoying) kids. Her husband works on the other side of the country and doesn't actually contribute to the household. Since she can't deal with having to make the choice of changing her current situation, she's projecting her lack of feeling appreciated now onto her childhood and blaming her parents for not ever acknowledging her feelings. This is leading her to overcompensate towards her own children, and acknowledging all the annoying behaviour they have as an expression of "genuine feelings". She believes that as long as she doesn't give in to them, but just gives a lot of attention to their antics, she's not actually rewarding their negative behavior. Hence her kids being annoying, hence nobody saying she's actually doing a good job in raising the kids. While the real issue is that 1. her husband sucks and 2. she needs to find a job where she can find some satisfaction.

Both of them are relabelling and even changing their past to build their current identities, regardless what actually happened.
Precisely why subjectivity is useless for rational analysis.

Humans are tricky things to study! ;)

I wouldn't have had my son if his biological father hadn't lied to me. Yet today, I find myself having a great son, a wonderful relationship, a career with good prospects, etc. I think this is a prime example of how bad choices (namely dating someone with a narcistic personality syndrome who was also a pathological liar) can lead to good consequences.
With all due respect, your son might in fact inherit/develop the pathological liar and narcistic personality syndrome of the father as he matures and then you may have some cause for regret or negative consequences. ;)

That just illustrates my point that 'consequences' are very difficult to predict for any given act - given any reasonable timeframe. It all depends on perspective here and that's a classic marker of 'relativism'.

Obviously there is a subsequent chain of events, but you cannot know what it is. And therefore you cannot in hindsight say that one choice is better than another, as you cannot know the subsequent line of events from the other option.
Well, if you are speaking in epistemological absolutes, then yes, that's true. But I'm talking about humans here. Humans do permit a bit of 'wiggle-room'. ;)

I am asserting that subjectivity can't be rationalized. You don't appear to be disputing that at all. Your critique seems to be of the character that 'because rationalized and objective analysis of events is very difficult, it won't work or can't be considered substantive.'

Is this correct?

I'm only exploring this topic as a potential line of inquiry at this point.

I am not comfortable with such a general statement. I think they are mostly useful for not hurting others. But even hurting others can have positive consequences.
I didn't think you were asserting this, only that your argument pointed in that direction.

Though, I'm not adverse to sophistry. :D

I have made several rationally moral decisions in my life, because it was important for me to make them. But to say that this is an every day occurance would be a gross overstatement. I think my total amount of rationally moral decisions comes to about 3.
:lol: Yes, that's my point. I've probably made even less than that! :D

Thus, Kantian-type objectively moral systems don't seem to have much utility to them. Moral quandries do seem to pop up just about every day though...

[SMadsen]

I don't think so. Law is NOT the same as morality. Morality is a much larger and more complex or fluid topic than just the law (which tends to be black and white). I believe that the law is only a particular subset of morality.
Well, I have a technical problem with your use of subset. If you say that law is a subset of morality then it's a subset because of one or more shared properties of all laws but, by necessary technical definition, law shares ALL properties with morality and, therefore, IS morality. Intersection might be a better term if you insist on using set theory.

I've always had a strong aversion to the distinction between "morality" and "ethics". The definitions always seem so clear-cut, but in reality, they are closely related in practice.

For example, it is unethical to kill a human being or to steal or to cheat on one's taxes. It is also immoral to kill a human being or to steal or to cheat on one's taxes. It is also illegal to kill a human being or to steal or to cheat on one's taxes. What's the difference?
Michael, I think the difference was stated quite clearly in my previous post.

Morality is a set of individual values without any consideration of circumstance. For example, if I regard circumcision to be immoral then it is a bad thing regardless of the effects, i.e. of the good or bad things it has actually accomplished. If homosexuality is immoral to me then the actual merits of any homosexual person as well as the effects of homosexuality in society make no difference whatsoever. I will not be in a position to argue the actual good or bad of it.

Ethics is a set of collective values resulting from consideration of circumstance. For example, if society considers circumcision to be unethical then it does so because circumcision can be argued to have this or that effect in opposition to a common good. Same with homosexuality. A common good could be equal rights (such as marriage), and a common bad could be, well, I don't really know but having kids in same-sex relations is often argued quite succesfully.

I know, or at least suspect, that you have a problem with "common good" when it comes to society but it's really nothing more than a synonymon to the slightly extended adjective "incidentally fuctional" (as opposed to the also slightly extended adjective "incidentally not working very well")

In short, morality does not owe its gain to rational justification. Ethics, however, owe its entire validity to rational justification. Therefore, you can't impose the former on state and populace. It's unethical.

[Michael]

Michael, I think the difference was stated quite clearly in my previous post.
Yes it was. And I was pointing out that I consider the distinction to be almost meaningless in practice.

Morality is a set of individual values without any consideration of circumstance. For example, if I regard circumcision to be immoral then it is a bad thing regardless of the effects, i.e. of the good or bad things it has actually accomplished. If homosexuality is immoral to me then the actual merits of any homosexual person as well as the effects of homosexuality in society make no difference whatsoever. I will not be in a position to argue the actual good or bad of it.

Ethics is a set of collective values resulting from consideration of circumstance. For example, if society considers circumcision to be unethical then it does so because circumcision can be argued to have this or that effect in opposition to a common good. Same with homosexuality. A common good could be equal rights (such as marriage), and a common bad could be, well, I don't really know but having kids in same-sex relations is often argued quite succesfully.

Yes, your disctinction between morality and ethics is consistent with most philosophy textbook interpretations on the issue. As I noted above, I find the distinction to be non-functional.

I know, or at least suspect, that you have a problem with "common good" when it comes to society but it's really nothing more than a synonymon to the slightly extended adjective "incidentally fuctional" (as opposed to the also slightly extended adjective "incidentally not working very well")
While the issue of "common good" is something I consider 'troublesome', it is a natural issue (and concern) of civil politics. My personal obsession with morality is an 'agency problem'. ;)

In short, morality does not owe its gain to rational justification. Ethics, however, owe its entire validity to rational justification. Therefore, you can't impose the former on state and populace. It's unethical.
Ethics is a much more functional and useful term. It can be used quite successfully to hide the morality that usually lurks underneath. ;)

I've always found it interesting that people find it so easy to construct ethical arguments that support their moral viewpoints. The concept of morality is too much 'contaminated' with God - thus the retreat to 'ethics'. But the game is still the same.

[andrewl]

Individualism and Moral Relativism

If moral relativism is the only standard of moral judgement, how can we as individuals claim that our own views, thoughts, morals or ideas have any substantive meaning at all?

If there is no scale upon which one can objectively judge one's own choices, how can any one choice be considered better than any other?

If this is so, why don't we just flip a coin to make decisions? Surely random probability will not produce any worse or substantially different result than our own fickle or random subjectivity?

Indeed, why does anyone bother to have any thoughts at all? If all thoughts are morally equal and none can be better or superior, what good is any one of them other than for the novelty of variety?

We can measure them up against suffering. Suffering is certainly an objective human experience. If morals, ideas, thoughts, views, serve to increase or decrease real physical suffering then that is how they can be be judged objectively.

Andrew

[Michael]

We can measure them up against suffering. Suffering is certainly an objective human experience. If morals, ideas, thoughts, views, serve to increase or decrease real physical suffering then that is how they can be be judged objectively.

Andrew
A young person, fresh out of high school has a choice. Either take a decent paying job right away - or "suffer" four long years of part-time work and full-time study and many years of debt to go to college.

According to your theory, the latter is bad.

Or alternatively, an older person is diagnosed with cancer. Option A is to kill one's self (zero suffering). Option B is to engage in a long-drawn out treatment plan that involves much physical suffering.

According to your theory, the latter is bad.

[The Drunk Guy]

All choices are subjective. In no way can a choice be made in objectivity.

Ayn Rand demonstrates this best through her novels. Her lead characters, the models of an objective human, are wrought with incredible passion. This passion drives them to do incredible things. Their passion is subjective.

Wants AND needs are emotional demands. Without emotion, we would not care to act on anything. I strongly believe that this is the dividing point in all life. You want to see objective animal? You never will. Want to see an objective plant? Look out your window.

[SMadsen]

Ethics is a much more functional and useful term. It can be used quite successfully to hide the morality that usually lurks underneath. ;)

I've always found it interesting that people find it so easy to construct ethical arguments that support their moral viewpoints. The concept of morality is too much 'contaminated' with God - thus the retreat to 'ethics'. But the game is still the same.
I don't find the same inconsistency between ethics and morality that you seem to. Ethics is nothing more than applied morals and, as such, morality does not have to 'lurk' underneath. It's the raw material of ethics. The difference is in the application, not in the topics.

Of course, like you I see more or less deliberate efforts to confuse ethics with morals. The MPAA film rating system for instance being one of them. Whether or not it succeeds depends on a number of things. For example, if the recipients are oblivious enough to ignore the difference between ethics and morals, or, as in the MPAA case, on the apparant power of religious puritans and others who have specific gains to make by trying to confuse morality with ethics.

I don't see it as if the distinction is non-functional, as you referred to above. I see it as if the distinction can be non-existent. That's a problem with society, not a problem with the concept.

[Korimyr the Rat]

If moral relativism is the only standard of moral judgement, how can we as individuals claim that our own views, thoughts, morals or ideas have any substantive meaning at all?

We invest them with meaning by choosing to believe in them, by investing our passion and our drive into demonstrating, upholding, and enforcing them.

Remember that at the same time that we are the source of all morality, we are also the source of all meaning. We decide what is meaningful to us, and our actions shape what others decide is meaningful to them.

If there is no scale upon which one can objectively judge one's own choices, how can any one choice be considered better than any other?

Just because we cannot measure objectively, does not mean that we cannot measure; while there is no objective scale upon which to measure our choices, there is no person that does not have a subjective scale that suffices for them.

I would say that the problem lies in the fact that most people are incapable of accepting their own moral authority-- and the tremendous moral responsibility that it implies-- and so either attribute their morality to some outside authority that justifies their actions, or retreat into moral relativism to shrug off that responsibility.

Either way, you end up with an internally inconsistent system of morality that lacks clarity of purpose.

If you consider morality as a code of conduct according to one's beliefs and learned experiences, morality by definition has to be relative. For the sake of this arguement, I, personally, have no grounds to consider myself qualified to say "It was wrong of you to murder that homeless dude."

If you were to observe someone murder a homeless person, would you not disapprove? Would you not have the power to impose some kind of consequences on the person who has offended your values?

Those are the only qualifications you need.

[SMadsen]

Wants AND needs are emotional demands. Without emotion, we would not care to act on anything. I strongly believe that this is the dividing point in all life. You want to see objective animal? You never will. Want to see an objective plant? Look out your window.
Hehe .. I've never seen that one before.

Are you saying that all animals make decisions while plants don't? If so, how can you tell that plants are 'objective'? And if plants do make decisions how can you tell that they are actually more objective in their decisionmaking process than animals? Is it solely the presence/absence of a nervous system you based it upon? Or is it the number of available options or stimuli? For example, is an inmate less subjective than a free citizen because his options are limited?

[SMadsen]

I would say that the problem lies in the fact that most people are incapable of accepting their own moral authority-- and the tremendous moral responsibility that it implies-- and so either attribute their morality to some outside authority that justifies their actions, or retreat into moral relativism to shrug off that responsibility.

Either way, you end up with an internally inconsistent system of morality that lacks clarity of purpose.
Why must it be inconsistent? It may be imperfect but imperfection is not the same as inconsistency.

If you were to observe someone murder a homeless person, would you not disapprove? Would you not have the power to impose some kind of consequences on the person who has offended your values?

Those are the only qualifications you need.
Well, if nothing else those are the qualifications needed to bypass a legal system :)

[The Drunk Guy]

Hehe .. I've never seen that one before.

Are you saying that all animals make decisions while plants don't? If so, how can you tell that plants are 'objective'? And if plants do make decisions how can you tell that they are actually more objective in their decisionmaking process than animals? Is it solely the presence/absence of a nervous system you based it upon? Or is it the number of available options or stimuli? For example, is an inmate less subjective than a free citizen because his options are limited?
The plant has no brain to conceive of alternate choices. The only decision a plant makes is which direction a root or limb should grow to better set itself for survival. The thoughts of a plant brain would read something like this: Water. Sun. Nutrients. Water. Sun. Nutrients.

With a brain, animals have an emotional center that allows for a decision making process. Emotional responses trigger choices. Animal thoughts tend to read something like this: What do I want to eat? I'm fuckin starvin and there's these berries here, but I had some bananas last week that were mag-fuckin-nificent and I want some of them. After I eat, I want to fuck something. Maybe Kara will give it up later. She's been ruttin like a motherfucker for a week or so now. Oh, hey, there's some water. I'm thirsty, but I know those goddamn alligators are over there. What do I do?

(Sorry. I like illustrations that also serve as entertainment. I learned theory presentation from watching standup rather than reading books.)

[SMadsen]

The plant has no brain to conceive of alternate choices. The only decision a plant makes is which direction a root or limb should grow to better set itself for survival. The thoughts of a plant brain would read something like this: Water. Sun. Nutrients. Water. Sun. Nutrients.
That's what I mean. Since plants have no brains and can express neither subjectivity nor objectivity then how can they be said to be objective?

Anyhow, I think you'll find that the whole animals-have-brains thesis falls into some pretty fluid definitions at some point, even if the difference between plants and animals was defined the way you imply, - which it of course isn't :)

[Korimyr the Rat]

Why must it be inconsistent? It may be imperfect but imperfection is not the same as inconsistency.

Appeal to divine authority becomes inconsistent because people cannot separate the divine authority from everything they believed before accepting the divine authority-- so they believe in values that contradict one another, and argue passionately that they derive from the same source.

Moral relativism is essentially inconsistent by default, because no matter how "enlightened" someone claims to be about such matters, there will always be someone's conduct who offends them-- and they will desire to take action against it.

They usually resolve this by claiming some sort of universal "rights" or "values", ignoring the fact that these beliefs are just as subjective as the ones they contradict.

Well, if nothing else those are the qualifications needed to bypass a legal system :)

A legal system's nothing more than a bunch of men with guns. What value is it to you, if it will not or can not effectively enforce your moral values?

[Michael]

We invest them with meaning by choosing to believe in them, by investing our passion and our drive into demonstrating, upholding, and enforcing them.
Indeed. Been reading Nietzsche eh? ;)

Remember that at the same time that we are the source of all morality, we are also the source of all meaning. We decide what is meaningful to us, and our actions shape what others decide is meaningful to them.
I'll never dispute the inherent subjectivity of humans or the subjectivity of knowledge.

Just because we cannot measure objectively, does not mean that we cannot measure; while there is no objective scale upon which to measure our choices, there is no person that does not have a subjective scale that suffices for them.
This is true. But in practice, this tends to put personal subjectivity on a pedestal (as it were) as something to be worshipped in itself. This tends to cause problems for society which is a social enterprise, not an individually subjective one.

I would say that the problem lies in the fact that most people are incapable of accepting their own moral authority-- and the tremendous moral responsibility that it implies-- and so either attribute their morality to some outside authority that justifies their actions, or retreat into moral relativism to shrug off that responsibility.
I'll agree with all this.

And I'll double down on that Nietzsche comment here - this is very Nietzschean - humans are sheep. ;)

Either way, you end up with an internally inconsistent system of morality that lacks clarity of purpose.
Which is why I started this thread. Inconsistent subjective morality doesn't seem to function very well for society. Subjective morality seems like it is designed to kill civil society.

If you were to observe someone murder a homeless person, would you not disapprove? Would you not have the power to impose some kind of consequences on the person who has offended your values?

Those are the only qualifications you need.
A bulletproof vest and/or armored car are also helpful when confronting murderers.

[Michael]

A legal system's nothing more than a bunch of men with guns. What value is it to you, if it will not or can not effectively enforce your moral values?
1. A legal system is a bunch of men with guns acting in a non-arbitrary way.

2. Even if it doesn't effectively enforce my moral values, it is still useful if it effectively prevents YOU from enforcing your moral values on me.

[Korimyr the Rat]

This is true. But in practice, this tends to put personal subjectivity on a pedestal (as it were) as something to be worshipped in itself. This tends to cause problems for society which is a social enterprise, not an individually subjective one.

Which is why I started this thread. Inconsistent subjective morality doesn't seem to function very well for society. Subjective morality seems like it is designed to kill civil society.

Which means that in order to be functional, a society must take the moral beliefs of its constituent citizens and bend them toward a more unified consensus-- why it is necessary for a society and its institutions to enforce its moral beliefs.

1. A legal system is a bunch of men with guns acting in a non-arbitrary way.

They are enforcing arbitrary laws, as further modified by their own prejudices. Certainly, they have their own rules which they more or less follow, but how is this any different from any other organized gang of armed men?

2. Even if it doesn't effectively enforce my moral values, it is still useful if it effectively prevents YOU from enforcing your moral values on me.

Unless they're working for me in the first place, or I haven't subverted them in some fashion.

And assuming that they are preventing me from enforcing my moral beliefs upon you... wouldn't that mean that they were effectively enforcing yours upon me, by preventing me from acting in accordance with my own? After all, non-interference is your creed, not my own.

[andrewl]

A young person, fresh out of high school has a choice. Either take a decent paying job right away - or "suffer" four long years of part-time work and full-time study and many years of debt to go to college.

According to your theory, the latter is bad.

Or alternatively, an older person is diagnosed with cancer. Option A is to kill one's self (zero suffering). Option B is to engage in a long-drawn out treatment plan that involves much physical suffering.

According to your theory, the latter is bad.

I do mean it more broadly, or global, than that.

For example - if a type of economic policy forces small scale subsistence farmers off their land and into the landless suffering of factory labor, that policy is immoral. Such a policy can certainly be measured objectively.

Suffering measured at the individual level is obviously less objective. But it is still suffering nonetheless, even if the long term consequences are positive. But I don't think this means suffering should be tolerated. A typical case - pregnancy and child birth are full of suffering, but the result is obviously a big positive. Yet the successful efforts to lessen the suffering of that experience have not diminished the positive consequences; in fact such efforts have more than likely enhanced the experience in general through lessening the suffering and at the same time increasing the chances of health and happiness of an already joyous and occasion. Just less pain.

Also, your examples assume that people are purely selfish beings. Imagine that i have cancer and I choose to shoot myself because i think my suffering is all that matters and the suffering of others is inconsequential. But what if my loved ones have to find and deal with the bloody mess i leave behind? That would certainly cause more suffering than i care to cause. Doing such a thing is ultimately immoral.

(Note: this is not an argument against euthanasia. If i was terminal and could end my life with painless dignity at the time and place of my choosing, this would ultimately be the most positive and moral choice, for all people involved.)

Andrew

[SMadsen]

A legal system's nothing more than a bunch of men with guns. What value is it to you, if it will not or can not effectively enforce your moral values?
First let me say that very few things regarding society, if any at all, can be rationally argued with an "I", simply because the always valid counter-argument is another "I". And another "I". And so on. Therefore I desperately miss a "we" in your argumentation (especially in your reply to Michael above).


To the point, though, if you claim that morals are inconsistent whether they are held as absolute or relative, how can a system that enforce inconsistent moral values be of any value to anyone?

Thing is of course that a legal system, in a purposely diverse society, gets its entire value from the fact that it does not enforce anyone's moral values. Doing so will flush any endeavor of maintaining a standard of diversity down the drain.

But, of course, it all depends on what is needed, or, as so often is the case in a world of awareness, wanted. If a tribe finds itself in a situation where doing the same thing over and over is needed to ensure its continued existence, there'll be an obvious advantage to a legal system that comes down hard on a member who does something differently than anyone else. It's a negative thing and is therefore offensive to the purpose of society.

However, if a tribe finds itself with optional survival strategies, there'll be an obvious advantage to a legal system that encompasses behaviors within the thus extended options of continued existence. In other words, doing something differently may offend those the behavior differs from but it's a positive thing to society as a whole and therefore is not offensive to the purpose of society.

Scale this up to modern day society and I hope it'll become apparant why a legal system must not in any way enforce anyone's particular moral values. Unless, of course, one wishes to create a totalitarian system.

[Korimyr the Rat]

First let me say that very few things regarding society, if any at all, can be rationally argued with an "I", simply because the always valid counter-argument is another "I". And another "I". And so on. Therefore I desperately miss a "we" in your argumentation (especially in your reply to Michael above).

The problem is, every "we" is nothing more than a bunch of people following either a single "I", or the consensus of a small group of "I"-- and there is no rational argument with the law, because you either comply or they take away your money and beat you with sticks until you do comply.

I miss the "we" in my argumentation, too, if only because I am very badly out-of-touch with the morals of the society I live in, and there are simply too many of its values that I cannot support.

To the point, though, if you claim that morals are inconsistent whether they are held as absolute or relative, how can a system that enforce inconsistent moral values be of any value to anyone?

It is always of value to the people whose morals it enforces, and the closer and more consistently it adheres to those morals, the more value it is to them.

The problem is not with absolute morals, it is with the logical error of believing that one's absolute morality is objective-- or, worse, deriving one's absolute moral values by selective interpretation of a text one holds to be absolutely and objectively true.

It is one thing to remember that you are the source of absolute morality; it is another thing entirely to forget that other people are governed by their own. This mistake causes you to be ineffective at advocating for your moral vision, and cripples your ability to understand-- and thus predict the behavior of-- people whose morals contradict yours.

I don't think the legal system is worthless. I am just vexed by the fact that it enforces a set of beliefs that I cannot understand and can only barely tolerate-- and one that appears to be increasingly unstable and disorderly, as even the most basic legal and social institutions are crumbling.

Thing is of course that a legal system, in a purposely diverse society, gets its entire value from the fact that it does not enforce anyone's moral values. Doing so will flush any endeavor of maintaining a standard of diversity down the drain.

This is the error of moral relativism; it does not recognize that diversity and tolerance are themselves moral values, and most moral relativists hold other moral beliefs that they are incapable of recognizing as moral beliefs. Like the absolutist, they believe that the customs of their tribe are the laws of the universe-- except for the most important ones.

I also find the phrase "standard of diversity" to be an amusing contradiction in terms.

Scale this up to modern day society and I hope it'll become apparant why a legal system must not in any way enforce anyone's particular moral values. Unless, of course, one wishes to create a totalitarian system.

Every legal system enforces someone's particular moral values. They vary only in whose moral values are being enforced, how compatible they are with the values of the society they are being enforced upon, and to what degree those moral values are beneficial to the people who follow them.

The law is only ever considered "restrictive" or "totalitarian" by those people who disagree with it.

[SMadsen]

Every legal system enforces someone's particular moral values. They vary only in whose moral values are being enforced, how compatible they are with the values of the society they are being enforced upon, and to what degree those moral values are beneficial to the people who follow them.
No, it absolutely does not, nor must it ever, enforce anyone's particular moral values. What it does is to ensure that the effects of various individual morals, doctrines and goals do not harm the purpose of society. That's completely different from ensuring that individual morals, doctrines and goals are good for the purpose of society, That is, the notion that individual morals, doctrines and goals should therefore be enforced. It's actually diametrically opposed to such a notion. As it should be.

The law is only ever considered "restrictive" or "totalitarian" by those people who disagree with it.
Yes! Because that's the same as to say that it leaves no room for people who disagree.

[SMadsen]

The problem is, every "we" is nothing more than a bunch of people following either a single "I", or the consensus of a small group of "I"-- and there is no rational argument with the law, because you either comply or they take away your money and beat you with sticks until you do comply.
"We" is a society. Plain and simple.

Now, who are the "they" you constantly refer to?
I miss the "we" in my argumentation, too, if only because I am very badly out-of-touch with the morals of the society I live in, and there are simply too many of its values that I cannot support.
And yet you advocate that a legal system should enforce particular individuals moral values? I don't get it, Korimyr.
It is always of value to the people whose morals it enforces, and the closer and more consistently it adheres to those morals, the more value it is to them.
I know what you mean but it simply can't work in a society more diverse than what can fit inside a beduine tent ('diverse' being a very objective concept of necessity; there is either more people than a few or there isn't, they either differ from each other or they don't and they either have to live together or they don't. See below).
The problem is not with absolute morals, it is with the logical error of believing that one's absolute morality is objective-- or, worse, deriving one's absolute moral values by selective interpretation of a text one holds to be absolutely and objectively true.

It is one thing to remember that you are the source of absolute morality; it is another thing entirely to forget that other people are governed by their own. This mistake causes you to be ineffective at advocating for your moral vision, and cripples your ability to understand-- and thus predict the behavior of-- people whose morals contradict yours.
I don't think the legal system is worthless. I am just vexed by the fact that it enforces a set of beliefs that I cannot understand and can only barely tolerate-- and one that appears to be increasingly unstable and disorderly, as even the most basic legal and social institutions are crumbling.
Now I'm stumped again. Here you say that imposing moral values is an awful thing, yet you say that a system of moral imposition is of value to you?

Maybe I'm not reading it slowly enough.
This is the error of moral relativism; it does not recognize that diversity and tolerance are themselves moral values, and most moral relativists hold other moral beliefs that they are incapable of recognizing as moral beliefs. Like the absolutist, they believe that the customs of their tribe are the laws of the universe-- except for the most important ones.
I beg to differ. Diversity and tolerance are necessities for the continued success of society (which again is a very objective term; society either exists or it doesn't). From the necessesity of retaining those concepts sprouts moral values, - not the other way 'round.

[Korimyr the Rat]

No, it absolutely does not, nor must it ever, enforce anyone's particular moral values. What it does is to ensure that the effects of various individual morals, doctrines and goals do not harm the purpose of society.

This? This would be that error in moral relativism that I was referring to, refusing to acknowledge that certain moral values are, in fact, moral values-- and that one's own standards for good governance are universal.

Yes! Because that's the same as to say that it leaves no room for people who disagree.

No law does.

Now, who are the "they" you constantly refer to?

In this thread, I believe "they" has only been used to refer to either lawmakers or law enforcement. It is the same for every law, in every society.

I miss the "we" in my argumentation, too, if only because I am very badly out-of-touch with the morals of the society I live in, and there are simply too many of its values that I cannot support.

And yet you advocate that a legal system should enforce particular individuals moral values? I don't get it, Korimyr.

I'm not arguing that it should; I am arguing that it inevitably does, a point which you dispute because you do not consider your moral values to be moral values.

Since the government will enforce particular moral values regardless of my actions, I should prefer that it enforces my own and take steps toward that goal. I'm doing what I can, but it's an uphill battle that I frankly have no chance of winning under the current system of government.

Right now, my most effective strategy appears to be making sure I outlive it.

It is always of value to the people whose morals it enforces, and the closer and more consistently it adheres to those morals, the more value it is to them.

I know what you mean but it simply can't work in a society more diverse than what can fit inside a beduine tent...

You seem to think that I am promoting something, when I am merely describing it. The society we live in is considerably larger than a Bedouin tent, and while I would say that it is in decline, it is not falling down around our ears.

I don't think the legal system is worthless. I am just vexed by the fact that it enforces a set of beliefs that I cannot understand and can only barely tolerate-- and one that appears to be increasingly unstable and disorderly, as even the most basic legal and social institutions are crumbling.

Now I'm stumped again. Here you say that imposing moral values is an awful thing, yet you say that a system of moral imposition is of value to you?

I think you misunderstood me.

It is not the system of moral imposition-- which I consider to be a necessary feature of government-- that I consider awful, it is the specific moral values of the larger portion of the society I live in, and the specific moral values that are currently being enforced by the State. The government is not awful because it imposes its moral values upon me, it is awful because it is imposing values that I find abhorrent.

Every government is totalitarian to the people that do not believe in it.

('diverse' being a very objective concept of necessity; there is either more people than a few or there isn't, they either differ from each other or they don't and they either have to live together or they don't.

Nonsense. Diversity of skin color or religion is tolerable; diversity of language or culture is surmountable. Diversity of fundamental moral worldview destroys society-- look what has happened to American politics in the last thirty years, or what has been happening to its basic social institutions for the last fifty.

People will only tolerate what is different about their neighbors because of what is the same about them, and the less unified and whole a group is, the less individual deviance it can tolerate among its members.

[SMadsen]

I'm not arguing that it should; I am arguing that it inevitably does, a point which you dispute because you do not consider your moral values to be moral values.
No, it doesn't. It works on ethics, which is very different from imposing individual morality.

Since the government will enforce particular moral values regardless of my actions, I should prefer that it enforces my own and take steps toward that goal. I'm doing what I can, but it's an uphill battle that I frankly have no chance of winning under the current system of government.

Right now, my most effective strategy appears to be making sure I outlive it.

You seem to think that I am promoting something, when I am merely describing it.
You just said that it's an uphill battle to get your moral values enforced. Is that not a promotion??

I think you misunderstood me.

It is not the system of moral imposition-- which I consider to be a necessary feature of government-- that I consider awful, it is the specific moral values of the larger portion of the society I live in, and the specific moral values that are currently being enforced by the State. The government is not awful because it imposes its moral values upon me, it is awful because it is imposing values that I find abhorrent.
What's the difference?

Every government is totalitarian to the people that do not believe in it.
That's your assertion. I don't think totalitarity is a battle of ideologies. There's a world of difference between having other ideologies and having other ideologies but one suppressed.

Nonsense. Diversity of skin color or religion is tolerable; diversity of language or culture is surmountable. Diversity of fundamental moral worldview destroys society-- look what has happened to American politics in the last thirty years, or what has been happening to its basic social institutions for the last fifty.

People will only tolerate what is different about their neighbors because of what is the same about them, and the less unified and whole a group is, the less individual deviance it can tolerate among its members.
I said this before: "doing something differently may offend those the behavior differs from but it's a positive thing to society as a whole". Thus this has nothing to do with what people will tolerate or not tolerate. It has to do with what society can withstand and not withstand, and in that game, individual moral values mean nothing UNLESS they act against the continued existence of society. Said in one simple sentence: A legal system must allow for all possible moral values as long as they do no damage.

This means that A can be as intolerant of B as A wants. It doesn't matter one bit. Until the day, of course, that either A or B counteracts the gain that society makes of the diversity of having both A and B as part of it.

And regarding your claim that diversity is somehow part of my morality, I'm not in any way saying that having A and B living together is a good or bad thing. I'm saying that it works until it doesn't. In fact, I use the term diversity in no other way than a biological measurement of the success of the opportunist. The more diverse the environment, the better the chances for the opportunist and the worse the chances for the specialist. We humans are not specialists, we are opportunists (that's not a moral statement, - it's a quite objective indication made by our digestive system from our teeth to our colons).

[Michael]

Which means that in order to be functional, a society must take the moral beliefs of its constituent citizens and bend them toward a more unified consensus-- why it is necessary for a society and its institutions to enforce its moral beliefs.
Indeed.

They are enforcing arbitrary laws, as further modified by their own prejudices. Certainly, they have their own rules which they more or less follow, but how is this any different from any other organized gang of armed men?
I disagree with this. The rule of law itself is not arbitrary. The enforcement of it certainly may be arbitrary (and usually is).

Most other organized gangs of armed men are not following any rule of law.

Unless they're working for me in the first place, or I haven't subverted them in some fashion.

And assuming that they are preventing me from enforcing my moral beliefs upon you... wouldn't that mean that they were effectively enforcing yours upon me, by preventing me from acting in accordance with my own? After all, non-interference is your creed, not my own.
That's an interesting point that I'll come back to later on.

Christians and Muslims routinely raise that point about the 'secular' morality of the legal system.

The law codifies morality whether we like it or not.

[Michael]

I do mean it more broadly, or global, than that.
Intentions are nice, but they don't work well for black and white rules or definitions.

For example - if a type of economic policy forces small scale subsistence farmers off their land and into the landless suffering of factory labor, that policy is immoral. Such a policy can certainly be measured objectively.
Measured objectively only using a subjectively chosen scale.

Btw, economic incentives don't FORCE anyone to do anything. That small scale subsistence farmers routinely choose to sell their land and go off to work in factories is not something that can be easily prevented.

And those who work in factories may indeed have a higher standard of living compared to subsistance farming on marginal quality land.

To assert that one is superior to the other requires a subjective bias.

Suffering measured at the individual level is obviously less objective. But it is still suffering nonetheless, even if the long term consequences are positive. But I don't think this means suffering should be tolerated. A typical case - pregnancy and child birth are full of suffering, but the result is obviously a big positive. Yet the successful efforts to lessen the suffering of that experience have not diminished the positive consequences; in fact such efforts have more than likely enhanced the experience in general through lessening the suffering and at the same time increasing the chances of health and happiness of an already joyous and occasion. Just less pain.

So you propose setting up a committee to judge the comparative level of suffering versus the comparable long term positives? That's subjective.

Also, your examples assume that people are purely selfish beings. Imagine that i have cancer and I choose to shoot myself because i think my suffering is all that matters and the suffering of others is inconsequential. But what if my loved ones have to find and deal with the bloody mess i leave behind? That would certainly cause more suffering than i care to cause. Doing such a thing is ultimately immoral.
But what if you are an asshole and your friends and family might be happy if you did the dirty deed? You ending your suffering might end their suffering of putting up with you.

Again, your argument requires a subjective bias.

(Note: this is not an argument against euthanasia. If i was terminal and could end my life with painless dignity at the time and place of my choosing, this would ultimately be the most positive and moral choice, for all people involved.)
Agreed. But I would argue that euthanasia can be morally justified by pure selfishness.

[SMadsen]

But I would argue that euthanasia can be morally justified by pure selfishness.
Everything can be morally justified :D

That's the reason morality must not be enforced by law.

[Korimyr the Rat]

That's the reason morality must not be enforced by law.

Except for the fact that even the most basic laws, that every society must have in some form, are based on subjective moral statements-- and have had functionally different approaches in other cultures.

[SMadsen]

Except for the fact that even the most basic laws, that every society must have in some form, are based on subjective moral statements-- and have had functionally different approaches in other cultures.
No, you're still confusing morality with ethics. Laws, even the most basic of them, are based on effect. Whether it's well-founded, empirically observed effect or less well-founded such as speculative or contemplated doesn't matter (all being more or less subjective approaches, by the way) - what matters is that laws must never be justified by themselves. That particular property is reserved for morality.

Basically, morals are a priori and ethics are a posteriori.

[Korimyr the Rat]

The "effects" that laws/ethics are supposedly based in, a posteriori, are likewise matters of moral preference.

Thus it may be true that the law cannot be used to justify itself, but it is still nothing more than an appeal to an arbitrary system of moral belief. The extra step of remove there does nothing to change the fact that the laws enforce a certain moral worldview, and that they do so by necessity.

[SMadsen]

The "effects" that laws/ethics are supposedly based in, a posteriori, are likewise matters of moral preference.
That I can certainly agree with. A law would mean nothing if it didn't reflect human intention. Morality is, after all, the basic value system of human thought and action.

However, morality is strictly an individual a priori system. It's worthless as far as imposing duties on people unless all people take the exact same values for granted and/or the imposing party has the necessary power to do so.

If you want a relatively free society, diversity (not in terms of tolerance but in terms of de facto opportunities) and things like civil rights, morality can and will take part in expression of law but law must never express morality.

Thus it may be true that the law cannot be used to justify itself, but it is still nothing more than an appeal to an arbitrary system of moral belief. The extra step of remove there does nothing to change the fact that the laws enforce a certain moral worldview, and that they do so by necessity.
There is no justification for having a moral worldview other than, well, having it. Laws enforce societal ethics, i.e., duties and commitments justified by circumstance.

[dilettante]

...Laws enforce societal ethics, i.e., duties and commitments justified by circumstance.

I'm not sure anything be justified by circumstances alone. If "Morality is, after all, the basic value system of human thought and action," then anything that's "justified" is justified (on some level) in moral terms.

[SMadsen]

I'm not sure anything be justified by circumstances alone. If "Morality is, after all, the basic value system of human thought and action," then anything that's "justified" is justified (on some level) in moral terms.

I disagree.

I think we all know attempts of justifying moral values by circumstance. For example, the evil of things like sodomy and abortion are often argued by, say, the lack of procreation.

However, circumstance for legislation in those areas, and based on those arguments, concerns whether or not such a lack of procreation is even measurable, - heck, if it even exists at all and, if so, if society is actually affected by it in such a way that it opposes the continued existence of society.

An issue may solely be raised on moral grounds - the same that may guide our thoughts and actions - and it may be a steady stream of moral input that goes into consideration of law but it is solely the justification by circumstance that creates the output. Or, rather, that should ideally create the output (I'm not that naïve).

[dilettante]

I disagree.

I think we all know attempts of justifying moral values by circumstance. For example, the evil of things like sodomy and abortion are often argued by, say, the lack of procreation.

But an argument that such things decrease procreation can only be used to justify laws against them IF decreasing procreation is deemed to be unacceptably bad (a moral judgment).


However, circumstance for legislation in those areas, and based on those arguments, concerns whether or not such a lack of procreation is even measurable, - heck, if it even exists at all and, if so, if society is actually affected by it in such a way that it opposes the continued existence of society.

An issue may solely be raised on moral grounds - the same that may guide our thoughts and actions - and it may be a steady stream of moral input that goes into consideration of law but it is solely the justification by circumstance that creates the output. Or, rather, that should ideally create the output (I'm not that naïve).

Circumstances can only act as justification if the circumstances carry moral weight. That it leads to "the continued existence of society" is only a justification for something IF the continued existence of society is accepted to be a good thing.

[SMadsen]

But an argument that such things decrease procreation can only be used to justify laws against them IF decreasing procreation is deemed to be unacceptably bad (a moral judgment).


Circumstances can only act as justification if the circumstances carry moral weight. That it leads to "the continued existence of society" is only a justification for something IF the continued existence of society is accepted to be a good thing.
I agree and disagree. An a priori is most definately involved here. The one that I claim here is that society has a goal of maintaining a continued existence. It's based on the simple observation that societies exist. I don't think there is any conclusive observation that the sum of actions taken within societies points to either indifference as to their own existence or any urges to selfdestruct.

While a moral judgment is usually based on an a priori assessment, an a priori assessment is not necessarily a moral judgment. In this case, it's merely an observation held to be true.

[dilettante]

I agree and disagree. An a priori is most definately involved here. The one that I claim here is that society has a goal of maintaining a continued existence. It's based on the simple observation that societies exist. I don't think there is any conclusive observation that the sum of actions taken within societies points to either indifference as to their own existence or any urges to selfdestruct.

If its granted that "society has goal of maintaining a continued existence," then presumably "society" has judged its continued existence to be a good thing, i.e. something that is worth pursuing, i.e. something it is justified in pursuing.
Goals are inextricably tied to moral concepts, to what is good/bad, to what should/should-not be done.


While a moral judgment is usually based on an a priori assessment, an a priori assessment is not necessarily a moral judgment. In this case, it's merely an observation held to be true.

I completely agree with this distinction but not with your application of it. Goals are not merely observations, they rely on moral judgments.

Now it may be true that some (although clearly not all) societies do happen to perpetuate their own existence, just as it is true that rocks do happen to fall to the ground when released in mid air. But that doesn't mean that continued existence is necessarily the goal of the society any more than hitting the ground is the goal of the rock. It's just something it does (or, at least, happens to have been doing thus far).

Anyway, I'm inclined to think that giving the abstraction "society" anthropomorphic features such as goals and urges is likely to obscure more than it reveals here. Individuals may decide that the continued existence of their society is a good thing, and therefore try to enact laws to perpetuate it. But that is a moral judgment, just as it is for the individual who thinks his/her society is decrepit (i.e. bad) and needs to be destroyed.

[SMadsen]

If its granted that "society has goal of maintaining a continued existence," then presumably "society" has judged its continued existence to be a good thing, i.e. something that is worth pursuing, i.e. something it is justified in pursuing.
Goals are inextricably tied to moral concepts, to what is good/bad, to what should/should-not be done.



I completely agree with this distinction but not with your application of it. Goals are not merely observations, they rely on moral judgments.

Now it may be true that some (although clearly not all) societies do happen to perpetuate their own existence, just as it is true that rocks do happen to fall to the ground when released in mid air. But that doesn't mean that continued existence is necessarily the goal of the society any more than hitting the ground is the goal of the rock. It's just something it does (or, at least, happens to have been doing thus far).
I admit that goal is a terribly wrong word. What I mean is end result. I.e., since societies continue to exist the end result seems to be a continued existence.

Thanks for correcting me.

Anyway, I'm inclined to think that giving the abstraction "society" anthropomorphic features such as goals and urges is likely to obscure more than it reveals here. Individuals may decide that the continued existence of their society is a good thing, and therefore try to enact laws to perpetuate it. But that is a moral judgment, just as it is for the individual who thinks his/her society is decrepit (i.e. bad) and needs to be destroyed.
I absolutely agree. Societies are not moral entities. Morality is in the domain of the individual.

In fact, if it was the property of society to cause its own discontinuence, it starts the other way round, namely with the demise of the individual, - not with the individual causing the demise of society (in which case, society doesn't actually discontinue but merely continues in a more or less altered state).

[Michael]

Everything can be morally justified :D
Indeed. A fun game to play. :)

That's the reason morality must not be enforced by law.
I don't think so. I'll agree that's why law is so challenging and difficult though.

If one takes morality away from the law, there is nothing left except an authoritarian police state.

Law has no meaning without morality. :D

(Note, I've made many arguments in various threads to show that morality is intimately involved with the law. You've made assertions that this 'ought not to be' and denied the connection between morality and law on that basis. I think you need to show an argument that demonstrates how the law and morality are not connected rather than just asserting it)

[Michael]

I guess I'm in a 'trolling mood'... :D

Basically, morals are a priori and ethics are a posteriori.
Indeed, a good illustration of the 'technical' distinction. ;)

However, I respectfully submit that ethics, more often than not, are constructed in order to offer a rational justification for 'a priori' moral choices that are always held with strong (purely subjective) convictions.

One discovers the truth of this when one offers substantive challenge to the ethical rationale asserted by one who espouces that particular (common) viewpoint. If successfully challenged with logic, they will ALWAYS retreat to their own 'a priori' moral imperative and stand their ground there - on pure subjectivity. Remarkable process that is. Seen it, been there, got the t-shirt. :)

In short, rational justification is 'a posteriori' by definition. After the fact of the act. Hard to believe that it is responsible for commanding the act to occur in the first place.

Edited to add: Ethics is the art of 'apologetics' for morality. :D

[SMadsen]

Interesting :)

Unfortunately, it's way past bedtime on this side of the globe but expect my usual rants when daylight returns.

[SMadsen]

Edited to add: Ethics is the art of 'apologetics' for morality. :D
I respectfully disagree. Ethics is the art of dealing with justice indepently of the legislator.

A law based on morality is like a child asking why it's being reprimanded and being told "because I say so". There is no way a judicial system can work on that basis unless we're talking about autocratic or theocratic or otherwise totalitarian forms of government where the legislator is identical to the judge.

[SMadsen]

I don't think so. I'll agree that's why law is so challenging and difficult though.

If one takes morality away from the law, there is nothing left except an authoritarian police state.

Law has no meaning without morality. :D

(Note, I've made many arguments in various threads to show that morality is intimately involved with the law. You've made assertions that this 'ought not to be' and denied the connection between morality and law on that basis. I think you need to show an argument that demonstrates how the law and morality are not connected rather than just asserting it)
Right. Law has no meaning without morality and it is indeed that very fact what makes law challenging and difficult.

I don't deny a connection between morality and law. On the contrary, in fact (or so I naïvely hope to have made clear). I'm saying that the challenge is to get from the inadvertent moral input to an output free of moral imposition.

The connection is certainly there. Inescapably so, even. Only, it's a one-way connection since between morality and law there is a necessary and, as far as conceptualizing law is concerned, irreversibly step of justification that, well, preferrably is rational but more importantly must be able to act independently of any moral only sentiment.

[Michael]

Right. Law has no meaning without morality and it is indeed that very fact what makes law challenging and difficult.
That's not quite what I said. I said the law has only the police authoritarian state to back it up, if it loses its moral justification. The police authoritarian state is not "nothing". It most certainly is "something".

I don't deny a connection between morality and law. On the contrary, in fact (or so I naïvely hope to have made clear). I'm saying that the challenge is to get from the inadvertent moral input to an output free of moral imposition.
One has to make the argument that morality in law is harmful before one can reasonably expect to proceed on that basis.

While I recognize many difficulties with the morality of law, I'm not convinced that removal of morality from the law would be beneficial. Law supported only by police state authoritarianism is no improvement upon morality driven laws.

The connection is certainly there. Inescapably so, even. Only, it's a one-way connection since between morality and law there is a necessary and, as far as conceptualizing law is concerned, irreversibly step of justification that, well, preferrably is rational but more importantly must be able to act independently of any moral only sentiment.

This sounds like "if wishes were fishes, we'd all be rich". Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point.

[SMadsen]

That's not quite what I said. I said the law has only the police authoritarian state to back it up, if it loses its moral justification. The police authoritarian state is not "nothing". It most certainly is "something".
I get the feeling that you're mixing two issues here. There's the issue of what law can and can't impose and then there's the issue of incentives to abide by the law. When you say that law only has police authority to back it up if it loses its "moral justification" then you mean the moral justification among the populace in order to abide by the law, right?

Though intrinsically interconnected, it's not the same issue (which anyone can become assured of by observing a pedestrian traffic light for a couple of minutes).

One has to make the argument that morality in law is harmful before one can reasonably expect to proceed on that basis.

While I recognize many difficulties with the morality of law, I'm not convinced that removal of morality from the law would be beneficial. Law supported only by police state authoritarianism is no improvement upon morality driven laws.
I'd be careful with the phrase 'removal of morality' in this context (could it be that you have that phrase in mind as a result of another issue in another thread?). What is removed between proposal and legislature is the imposition of moral issues. That is to say, the issues become ethically substantiated.

This sounds like "if wishes were fishes, we'd all be rich". Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point.
I don't know. I could also say, "if fishes were wishes, we'd perhaps go hungry to bed but we'd dream a hell of alot better", but that's not the issue, either.

[Michael]

I get the feeling that you're mixing two issues here. There's the issue of what law can and can't impose and then there's the issue of incentives to abide by the law. When you say that law only has police authority to back it up if it loses its "moral justification" then you mean the moral justification among the populace in order to abide by the law, right?

Though intrinsically interconnected, it's not the same issue (which anyone can become assured of by observing a pedestrian traffic light for a couple of minutes).
I would assert that your attempt to split this issue into two parts is not justified.

The law itself, incentives to abide by it, punishments for not abiding it, and probability of getting caught, are all one and the same issue to me. They are all interconnected.

Btw, observing pedestrians at traffic lights will show that the vast majority will follow the law - and if a cop is nearby, the compliance rate rises to near 100%. With no cop around, and low rate of traffic (i.e., low chance of getting caught, and low danger), some pedestrians may choose to 'risk' the law in that case. Many will not. This illustrates the interconnectedness of law, incentives, punishment and relative chance of getting caught. All exist on a continuum of behavior.

I'd be careful with the phrase 'removal of morality' in this context (could it be that you have that phrase in mind as a result of another issue in another thread?). What is removed between proposal and legislature is the imposition of moral issues. That is to say, the issues become ethically substantiated.
Taking a moral statement and enshrining it into a law applied to the whole population does not magically turn "a moral imperative" into ethics. It is still morality driven law.

[SMadsen]

I would assert that your attempt to split this issue into two parts is not justified.

The law itself, incentives to abide by it, punishments for not abiding it, and probability of getting caught, are all one and the same issue to me. They are all interconnected.

Btw, observing pedestrians at traffic lights will show that the vast majority will follow the law - and if a cop is nearby, the compliance rate rises to near 100%. With no cop around, and low rate of traffic (i.e., low chance of getting caught, and low danger), some pedestrians may choose to 'risk' the law in that case. Many will not. This illustrates the interconnectedness of law, incentives, punishment and relative chance of getting caught. All exist on a continuum of behavior.
Yes, your reference to policing is what made me think you were referring to incentives to abide by the law.

However, the intended effect of traffic lights doesn't change, no matter how many cops are around, how high or low the rate of traffic is or whatever other incentives there are to abide or not abide by the law. That's what I mean with justification of law being a different issue from the incentives to abide by it.

Taking a moral statement and enshrining it into a law applied to the whole population does not magically turn "a moral imperative" into ethics. It is still morality driven law.
True. Turning a moral statement into law does not turn anything into ethics. Rational justification of the intended effects does.

[Michael]

Yes, your reference to policing is what made me think you were referring to incentives to abide by the law.

However, the intended effect of traffic lights doesn't change, no matter how many cops are around, how high or low the rate of traffic is or whatever other incentives there are to abide or not abide by the law. That's what I mean with justification of law being a different issue from the incentives to abide by it.

Justifications created for laws are indeed a method of increasing compliance. They are quite related. People are more likely to follow a law when they agree with the law. Rational justifications increase the likelihood of compliance. A lack of a rational justification for a law tends to produce a law that isn't complied with (pot laws are a good example of this - probably one of the laws that is most routinely violated - primarily due to the failure of rationalized justification of the law).

True. Turning a moral statement into law does not turn anything into ethics. Rational justification of the intended effects does.
Laws exist whether they are rationally justified or not. Rational justification is neither necessary nor sufficient for the law. Morality is certainly sufficient to make law.

[dilettante]

Rational justification is neither necessary nor sufficient for the law. Morality is certainly sufficient to make law.

I'm not so sure that works. I certainly think of things that I consider to be immoral but would not make illegal, even if I had the power to do so.

[Michael]

I'm not so sure that works. I certainly think of things that I consider to be immoral but would not make illegal, even if I had the power to do so.
Morality alone is not sufficient to make law without human agency.

That being said, if one wants to make some act illegal, it is usually sufficient to assert that it is immoral. One doesn't need social science or other justifications. Immorality is sufficient justification to create law.

[dilettante]

Morality alone is not sufficient to make law without human agency.

That being said, if one wants to make some act illegal, it is usually sufficient to assert that it is immoral. One doesn't need social science or other justifications. Immorality is sufficient justification to create law.

No, I don't think that works either.

For example, I think its very immoral to make fun of people with mental disabilities or to denigrate them in front of others. I imagine that most people would agree with me here. But, as far as I know, there's no significant interest in getting a law passed against such behavior.

[SMadsen]

No, I don't think that works either.

For example, I think its very immoral to make fun of people with mental disabilities or to denigrate them in front of others. I imagine that most people would agree with me here. But, as far as I know, there's no significant interest in getting a law passed against such behavior.
Can I ask what you think it would take in order to get such a law passed?

[dilettante]

Can I ask what you think it would take in order to get such a law passed?

Well, technically, it would take a majority vote of the House and Senate and the president's signature, but I don't think that's what you're asking.

What would it take for most people to want there to be a law passed? I'm not sure. I suppose you'd have to convince them that the law could be enforceable, would be applied fairly, and would cause more good than harm.

[SMadsen]

Well, technically, it would take a majority vote of the House and Senate and the president's signature, but I don't think that's what you're asking.
Heh .. no, you're right

What would it take for most people to want there to be a law passed? I'm not sure. I suppose you'd have to convince them that the law could be enforceable, would be applied fairly, and would cause more good than harm.
So such a law should be enforceable, fair and helpful in order to be passed, as opposed to unenforceable, unfair and harmful? Why not simply moral as opposed to immoral?

[dilettante]

So such a law should be enforceable, fair and helpful in order to be passed, as opposed to unenforceable, unfair and harmful?

Quite so.

Why not simply moral as opposed to immoral?

I'm not sure I understand this question.

Laws should be passed in pursuit of good results - in that sense they should be moral. Enforceable, fair and helpful are all good things for a law to be.
However, just because something is immoral doesn't mean that a law against will necessarily be a good law (I refer you again to the example above).

All laws should be moral, but not all morality should be enshrined in law.

[SMadsen]

I'm not sure I understand this question.

Laws should be passed in pursuit of good results - in that sense they should be moral. Enforceable, fair and helpful are all good things for a law to be.
However, just because something is immoral doesn't mean that a law against will necessarily be a good law (I refer you again to the example above).

All laws should be moral, but not all morality should be enshrined in law.
If I claim that it's moral to curse or do worse at people with mental disabilities (which could remind of certain regimes that have actually held high such moral virtues) then a law against it is not passed in pursuit of good results, - that is, if and only if good results mean moral results.

If good results do not mean moral results but simply results in compliance with, say, the observation that a reasonably peaceful coexistence is favorable to the prosper and well-being of society then a law passed against treating certain people a certain way would be in pursuit of good results, regardless of my personal moral virtues.

[dilettante]

If I claim that it's moral to curse or do worse at people with mental disabilities... then a law against it is not passed in pursuit of good results, - that is, if and only if good results mean moral results.

If good results do not mean moral results but simply results in compliance with, say, the observation that a reasonably peaceful coexistence is favorable to the prosper and well-being of society then a law passed against treating certain people a certain way would be in pursuit of good results, regardless of my personal moral virtues.

I suspect you consider "the prosper and well-being of society" to be good things, and that judgment is based on your moral outlook.

Anyway, I'm not sure what it is we're debating here.
I can think of two reasons people would support a law: (1) Because it benefits them personally, granting them pleasure, power, money...etc. (2) Because they believe the law would achieve morally good results.
I submit that laws should be supported for the second reason, rather than the first (though at times they will doubtless both apply).
Do you disagree?

Also, I submit that not everything that is morally wrong should be banned by law, nor should everything that is morally good be required by law.
Do you disagree?

[Michael]

If I claim that it's moral to curse or do worse at people with mental disabilities (which could remind of certain regimes that have actually held high such moral virtues) then a law against it is not passed in pursuit of good results, - that is, if and only if good results mean moral results.
You just claimed that it is moral to curse at people with mental disabilities. If you got such a law passed, then it is in pursuit of a moral good - obviously if a law is passed, then it is understood that the majority agree that it is moral to curse at people with mental disabilities. Morality is always relative.

What was moral last week may become immoral this week. Human history is littered with countless examples of this phenomenum.

[SMadsen]

You just claimed that it is moral to curse at people with mental disabilities. If you got such a law passed, then it is in pursuit of a moral good - obviously if a law is passed, then it is understood that the majority agree that it is moral to curse at people with mental disabilities. Morality is always relative.

What was moral last week may become immoral this week. Human history is littered with countless examples of this phenomenum.
I don't agree with the conclusion you seem to be making here, - namely that morality is relative because it differs from person to person.

In my understanding, neither society nor a majority of people is a moral entity. Morality is a property of the individual and is always either relative or absolute to the individual. If values are, say, absolute to an individual then they don't become relative because they differ from values held by other individuals but are still as absolute as they always were.

That being said, I agree that the sum of all individual values in society is indeed a fluid and dynamic affair that, like the sum of all political affiliations or the sum of all tastes in fashion, naturally causes paradigm shifts.

[Michael]

I don't agree with the conclusion you seem to be making here, - namely that morality is relative because it differs from person to person.
That is precisely the definition I use for 'relativism'.

In my understanding, neither society nor a majority of people is a moral entity. Morality is a property of the individual and is always either relative or absolute to the individual. If values are, say, absolute to an individual then they don't become relative because they differ from values held by other individuals but are still as absolute as they always were.
Yes, individuals may have morality that is characterized as 'absolute' or 'relative', but that is only relative to themselves as reference points.

Anything that is human-self-referential is subjective by definition. And if it is subjective, it is always relative. That is to say, your 'morality held absolutely' is entirely subjective when compared to another person's view of the matter.

That being said, I agree that the sum of all individual values in society is indeed a fluid and dynamic affair that, like the sum of all political affiliations or the sum of all tastes in fashion, naturally causes paradigm shifts.
Okay, we can agree on that.