Who’s To Say?

[iambiguous]

Who’s To Say?
Michael-John Turp asks if anyone has the authority to establish moral truth

Moral Visions

It seems that the relativists’ strategy of indexing moral truth to cultural norms saddles them with an ethics of authority despite themselves. Can we do better?

Doesn't this suggest relativists who suppose that any particular culture is capable of actually becoming an authority in distinguishing between good and evil, right and wrong? And, instead, the part about relativism comes to pertain to different cultures making the further distinction between "one of us" [the good guys] and "one of them" [the bad guys]? Whereas moral relativists of my ilk suggest cultures themselves are just the historical embodiment of dasein. That there is no philosophical capacity to differentiate good from evil, right from wrong in a No God world.

Three images come to mind when I try to think through moral authority. The first is of a moral guru handing down what he takes to be the absolute moral truth from a position of authority. He might be looking down from a preacher’s pulpit or a professor’s lectern, or a politician’s hustings. He might take himself to be in the business of civilizing the natives.

Yes, and in cultures/communities down through the ages there have been countless renditions of this. Then it comes down to the extent to which they might be willing to concede that "we're right from our side and you're right from your side", or flat out insist that "we're right so you're wrong". And then, of course, historically, the consequences of that.

Then back to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

And those right here who are themselves on one of these more or less arrogant and autocratic One True Paths to Enlightenment.

In other words...

This is a somewhat frightening image. In its most extreme version, it involves a toxic combination of power and moral certainty that is a prelude to authoritarianism, totalitarianism, oppression, even genocide.

Which is why my main aim here is to engage the objectivists among us in a discussion of what the consequences might be for those they deem to be of the wrong faith or the wrong gender or the wrong sexual orientation...or have the wrong skin color or are from the wrong ethnic background. Or have the wrong moral and political convictions.

Bringing them down out of the "serious philosophy" clouds and exploring the "for all practical purposes" ramifications of their God or No God dogmas.

[iambiguous]

Who’s To Say?
Michael-John Turp asks if anyone has the authority to establish moral truth

The relativists’ alternative seems at least a step better. Here I imagine members of a shared culture gathered around their moral truths like campers around a fire. There is a measure of harmony, and often an acceptance that other campers have other fires that seem to keep them equally warm. Let a thousand campfires burn!

In fact, what does this tell us about the nature of morality itself? That it revolves as much around how it anchors us psychologically to a community as in what the actual moral prescriptions of that community are. That we can all come to embrace -- to share -- a moral consensus is truly a significant inducement in and of itself in creating the ties that bind.

There is also the sensible conservative insight that we may learn something from the ideas handed down by our ancestors – ideas that worked for them; or at least worked for most of them, more or less, some of the time.

Or, more to the point [mine], that it becomes of fundamental importance that the past, the present and the future are "as one". After all, if we come to reject the moral narratives of our ancestors what's to stop the next generation from rejecting ours? The crucial point is the necessity to intertwine the past, the present and the future to one or another inherent, essentially objective set of behaviors that do sustain the "one of us" ties that bind.

I worry here, however, about the dissenting voices around the edges of the group, huddled against the cold, who suspect that their culture may have gone astray. Let’s hope they belong to a culture that tolerates such dissent if they dare voice it. In fact, let’s hope that their culture is responsive to rational argument. Also, let’s not think too much about those other groups of campers who are intent on spreading their fire – by force if necessary. After all, tolerance isn’t a universal moral norm.

Yep, that's eventually what it always comes down to. There's what you believe about rational or irrational, moral or immoral rules of behavior and there's how far you are willing to go to enforce them once in a position of power. The power I bring up with those like AJ and Wizard and Satyr in regard to race and gender and homosexuals and Jews. There's what they do believe about them "in their heads" and there's what actual policies those who think like they do would impose on the community if they were able to.