In the last post, one commenter (Tlaloc) came down hard on the tobacco companies. Another commenter (Classical Liberal Anonymous) asked Tlaloc whether he was engaging in a moral argument. This was interesting because Tlaloc has generally thrown bombs at notions of foundational morality despite frequently engaging in moral argument. Tlaloc, perhaps sensing the implications, carefully distinguished his moral argument from any endorsement of universal moral values.
So, let's work it out. The basic allegation by Tlaloc seems to be that the tobacco companies have immorally lied for profit and have sold an addictive drug for profit. The basic rules being put forth seem to be:
1. It is wrong to lie without a compelling justification (such as to save a life -- e.g. lying to the Nazi S.S. about the Jew hiding in your closet). Lying for mere monetary profit is particularly bad.
2. It is wrong to subject others to the harm of unhealthy addiction for the sake of personal enrichment. It is further wrong to lie about the fact that one is doing that.
Now, here's the money question. Why wouldn't these rules stand up as universal moral values? When would it ever be right to lie for profit without any compelling justification? When would it ever be right to subject others to addiction for no better reason than to get rich?
Either those values are universal, or they are arbitrary.
ReplyDelete""Now, here's the money question. Why wouldn't these rules stand up as universal moral values?"
ReplyDeleteBecause undoubtedly someone somewhere at some time has felt them to be just fine."
So ... you are saying that they are arbitrary?
Thats the definition of arbitrary.
ReplyDeleteWebsters: arbitrary - depending on individual discretion and not fixed.
ReplyDeleteI stand by my contention that the values are either universal or arbitrary.
By stating that they are "demonstrably not universal" does not make it so.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, please demonstrate.
"Since it is a historical fact that there is no moral question to which every culture would answer the same way..."
ReplyDeleteHere's one:
A soldier fleeing a battle in a war (and placing his/her battalion at risk) is frowned upon ... universally.
Hunter writes: "This was interesting because Tlaloc has generally thrown bombs at notions of foundational morality despite frequently engaging in moral argument."
ReplyDeleteTlaloc responsds: "This is blatantly false. What I have argued is that any attempt to show a universal morality will fail precisely because morals vary quite a lot from place to place. However it is still quite possible to make rational moral arguments so long as you understand and accept that these arguments will only hold true for people who share your moral views with regard to the issue in question. Is that in anyway unclear?"
Clarity, apparently, is a virute of thought that Tlaloc believes his disputants ought to value even before he tries to discover if in fact they value it. Hmmm? In addition, Tlaloc seems troubled by what he thinks is a misrepresentation of his views. But how does he know that Hunter "values" correct representation? But even if Hunter did, why should Hunter have to obey that value, unless there is a meta-norm that says, "One ought to obey the values that one values." But suppose I don't value the value that "one ought to obey the values that one values." Should I value that?
Also, it is odd to say that one can only offer a rational argument to one who already shares one's moral views. But I don't share the moral view that one can only offer a rational argument to one who already shares my moral views. So, on the very grounds that Tlaloc offers to defend his position, I am justified in rejecting it.
The notion that universal values could only exist if everyone everywhere held them is philosophically incoherent. Humans are imperfect, humans lack full knowledge, humans exist in a state in which the intellect, the will, and the baser passions do constant internal battle. No serious moral thinker anywhere would, or ever has, to my knowledge, started from Tlaloc's premise.
ReplyDeleteA universal moral code, in the absence of divine revelation, can still be ascertained by reference to man's essential nature, how he must act and refrain from acting in order to thrive. Just because different people come to different conclusions about how that is accomplished does not mean that there is no answer to the question, any more than the variety of answers provided by a 2nd grade class when asked "How much is 7 times 8" a refutation of arithmetic.
T, I appreciate you engaging this question, but I think you misunderstand the nature of what we mean by a universal moral value.
ReplyDeleteI've just very quickly caught up on this thread after a busy day, but you seem to be repeating that a universal moral value can't be because some people disagree or hold different values.
What we mean is that a value is universal because it is true, not because some person may not agree. For instance, 2+2=4 is true regardless of whether someone disagrees.
Now, don't fly off the handle and say that morals aren't like numbers. You never dealt with the meat of this post. Show me how it would be right for anyone to do the things you criticized as regards the tobacco companies. If you and I agree those things are not praiseworthy or good and we can further agree that it has to do with lying and hurting others, then we are probably discovering or reaffirming universal moral values.
In addition, you said I misrepresented you by saying you have thrown bombs at foundational morality. That is not "blatantly false" as you say. You have disputed any foundation for moral values consistently. You may be changing position and don't realize it.
Here's something else that's important, T: if you are saying you agree moral truths are discoverable by reason, then you are merely affirming what natural law theorists have long said.
ReplyDeleteInteresting responses, T. You are an oak, as Doc said to Wyatt. Nevertheless, I can't help but think you may be untrue to yourself in your thinking. In the passion of your responses, it is clear you think the tobacco companies are wrong in what they do. You have also many times said you think other actions are wrong. Presumably, you would support action to right some of these wrongs. How to support penalties, punishments, and/or reform other than to say that your values are superior to those you criticize? And if your values are superior, then does it not follow that there is a right and a wrong. A right and a wrong that go right down to the ground, as it were?
ReplyDeleteI should have suspected you'd mix up the difference between everyone having the same moral code and everyone adhering to that code. There is a difference between saying there is a universal morality and saying that people are universally perfect in following that universal morality.
ReplyDeleteThe failing of humans do not just extend to failing to live up to the moral code that they agree upon. They can also fail to use their human faculties to correctly discern what constitutes the moral code. It is for the second reason that a failure for all to agree on what is moral does not preclude the existence of universal morals.
Here is an example: I believe it is wrong to speak and write in ways that demean the human dignity of others. It is wrong to belittle, to insult, to patronize: wrong, in sum, to speak to another in a way which one would resent. I know it is wrong both through revelation (both because it is a species of violation of the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill", and because Christ Himself warned that: 'whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.') and through reasoning about the nature of humans as beings living in common, worthy of respect, and so on.
Now, as I'm sure everyone here has noticed, I often fail to live up to this standard. I get mad. I fall victim to pride. I tell myself "It will actually be good for this guy to be insulted. It'll bring him to his senses." I am always sorry afterwards. And then I do it again.
However: the very same failings that lead me to verbally abuse people even when I know it's wrong could have led me instead to believe that verbally abusing people is just fine, in fact it might be my moral duty to do so. My pride could have led my reason astray so that I believed that I was mentally and morally superior to other people, it was my duty to correct them, they were too stupid to listen to reason and too coarse to respond to gentle reproof, and that therefore my only tool was to undermine their self-dignity. I would still be wrong. It does not become right for me to abuse other people just because I believe it's OK. It's not right even if I live in a society where everyone thinks it's OK.
Wow ... I go to football practice and when I get back there are posts galore!
ReplyDeleteI feel as though we are ganging up on Tlaloc ... but I must admit that he is a trooper.
I also feel it necessary to peck one more time where I ended yesterday:
CLA said: "A soldier fleeing a battle in a war (and placing his/her battalion at risk) is frowned upon ... universally."
Tlaloc replied: "No it's not. I can posit endless scenarios to you where we'd agree it was justified."
You are helping make my point in two ways:
1) You said that fleeing a battle can be "justified". This implies that the universal code would be to NOT flee, unless it can be justified. The justification is simply the facts of the case and not the moral code itslef.
Take the Iraq war, for example:
If the facts stated that Sadaam had WMD's and was directly threatening the USA, then there would be moral justification for going to war.
If the facts stated otherwise then the moral argument would be tough to justify.
Either way, the moral argument is the same.
2) You state the "we'd agree" about the justification.
This implies that, in the case of two people debating, that there is a single Truth to be achieved.
It is my humble opinion, that you are drawing your conclusions regarding the abscence of a universal moral code by applying one yourself.
I also think that whether T acknowledges it or not, the real effect of his beliefs is virtually the same as a true foundationalist through and through. A person with his stated philosophical views normally comes across as a Holmesian legal positivist, but T doesn't go there at all. He argues very much more as though he were a natural law theorist, albeit a natural law theorist of the left.
ReplyDeleteThe pacifist who flees a battle does have a compelling justification. He either thinks that any violence is wrong and thus flees or he thinks God has commanded him to flee. Both are powerful justifications. The issue CLA was reaching was that the person who flees for a selfish reason, such as cowardice, and leaves his fellows to fight is seen as immoral by any culture we dig up.
ReplyDeleteTo address something different, you asked about my comment about foundationalism vs. positivism. A foundationalist believes there is a ground to what he believes, either in reason (of the natural law sort), religion, etc. and thus insists that his point of view is the right one. A positivist would hold that laws are purely social constructions with no morality behind them. Instead, laws merely reflect the opinions of lawgivers. Justice is not a concern, just the science of state coercion to achieve the most desirable results.
You, T, argue much more like a foundationalist than like a positivist. It would seem you really do believe in something called justice and that is not merely a social construction.
This is a fascinating analogy and I thank you for sharing it. But it still seems that despite the many "internal consistencies," there is still a reality outside the equations. The train is moving and the car is standing still.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the FoR, the relative position (velocity, acceleration) between the train and the car are identical.
ReplyDeleteSee, by using a variety of FoR for the physics problem, you are merely confounding the problem.
What the different observers "see" is the exact same phenomena (the relative motion between the car and train) but through a "filter" which is their own FoR.
Again, you have made many arguments against a universal moral code, but each and every one of them is merely arguing the facts of the case (ie, the different PoV ... not knowing all of the facts) and not the fundamental moral.
"Similarly if you and I witness a revolution we each evaluate the incident by our own point of view and come to different but equally valid moral judgements."
ReplyDeleteYes ... and each of us fits into one of the following camps:
1) we are only getting some of the facts;
2) we are ignoring facts that are inconvenient to our preconcieved notions;
3) we are humans and we are being disingenuous.
Why are we even discussing this? I mean, seriously, you are trying to convince me that you are right ... correct?
Your argument is, "there is no universal right/wrong, and doggone it I am right about it."
Seems kinda silly.