iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:30 am
You are again [in my opinion] avoiding my suggestion that you frame your argument above in regard to the issue of capital punishment.
I am indeed! I am doing it consciously. Precisely because framing "morality" as something humans do to other humans misses the forrest for the trees.
When I frame morality as the wellbeing of humans, then anything which unnecessarily undermines our wellbeing is immoral.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:30 am
And any rational outrage one might have regarding covid isn't directed at the virus itself. We don't blame the virus for doing its thing in nature.
We don't accuse it of being immoral. Instead, the outrage revolves around individual reactions to the pandemic. For example, some insist that those who refuse to get vaccinated, wear masks, practice safe social distancing etc., are making the pandemic itself all the more virulent.
With the death penalty, though, morality is everywhere among our our species. Is it "cruel and unusual" punishment? Is revenge justified? Should the state be involved in executing citizens?
In problem-solving we don't blame anyone or anything. We look at all the causal factors. We identify the ones which are in our control. We change them towards maximising well-being.
The reason we "blame" humans is because social pressure and punishment is a mechanism of control. Some times the causal factors of immoral outcomes are the choices of other humans. And the way to prevent immoral outcomes from happening is to change human minds and behavior. Which (in the grand scheme of things) is much cheaper and much easier than changing how nature works.
We can't blame the virus because viruses don't respond to blame, punishment, argumentation, ostracism and disincentives. The social mind-games are ineffective on viruses - they are not a mechanism of control.
Blame, punishment, incentive and disincentive are just some of the mechanisms of objective morality. We make people stop doing the immoral things - like murder; or we make people do the moral - like vaccinate.
And over long enough periods of time the results are self-evident. Humans live longer, happier, healthier, wealthier, better educated, more fulfilled lives.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:30 am
That's my point. That moral arguments unfold out in particular worlds [historically, culturally and individually] understood in particular ways. Contingency, chance and change are everywhere in human interactions. Morality in and of itself isn't to blame because morality is only the recognition that when human beings interact there are always going to be conflicting wants and needs. So, "rules of behavior" need to be established in order to reward some behaviors while punishing others. The "human condition" in a nutshell.
So then we agree on the mechanisms of manifesting morality!
iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:30 am
But...
But the moral objectivists among us insist that morality must revolve around their own set of assumptions. Their own conclusions regarding which behaviors will be rewarded or punished. "One of us" vs. "one of them".
Whereas in regard to things like the death penalty both sides can articulate reasonable arguments. Those in favor of it can argue that someone who kills a loved one caused them great pain and suffering and ought to be killed in turn. But then the friends and family and loved ones of the person about to be executed experience great pain and suffering when the state murders him or her. And murder is often how they see it. But state executions are not murder because they are within the law.
But the moral subjectivist do the exact same thing. And so do the relativists. And the nihilists. Everybody does it. That's neither interesting nor relevant to anything.
There is conflict every time both sides can articulate an argument. Every murder accused articulates an arguments in defense of their actions.
Every pro and anti-vaxxer articulates an argument about their choices.
If you are a relativist about morality, why aren't you a relativist about the "reasonableness of arguments" ?
If moral issues are unresolvable, then arguments (of any kind) must be unresolvable too.
You say
this is red.
I say
this is red.
If both of us are 100% committed to standing our ground and deffend our narratives without deferring the resolution to an external adjudicator (society, facts, a coin-toss) there is no way to resolve this. We are both right. And we are both wrong. And so what?
iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:30 am
What else is there but "moderation, negotiation and compromise"?
There are those things. And there is benevolent despotism.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:30 am
Each nation/state/local jurisdiction comes up with its own policies predicated on election results.
Exactly. And doesn't it strike you as rather peculiar that 200 nations on Earth deciding their own, independent policies on issues largely arrive at the same (or similar) policies on moral issues.
Leading us right back to entropy. If moral relativism was true then all nations should divide themselves up 50/50 on all moral issues.
50% pro-murder. 50% anti-murder.
50% pro-theft. 50% anti-theft.
50% pro-rape. 50% anti-rape.
50% pro-homosexuality. 50% anti-homosexuality.
And that distribution should remain constant over the entire history of humanity e.g if 10 countries changed their stance from pro-murder to anti-murder, 10 country should change from anti-murder to pro-murder. Otherwise relativism cannot persevere.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:30 am
What are you arguing, that having a "personal opinion" about the morality of capital punishment is the same as differentiating red from blue?
Yes. Assume an empirical view-point.
This color is an observable experience. You can describe the experience/situation as "red" and I can describe it as "blue".
Capital punishment is an observed experience. You can describe the experience/situation as "moral" and I describe it as "immoral"
In so far as describing our experienes in language - there are no preferential denotations. Any linguistic term can denote any experience.
We could even use the term "delicious" to describe the experience of "eating mud".
iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:30 am
How we prove things relating to color revolves around the science of color. So, where is the scientific equivalent of proving whether capital punishment is
either moral
or immoral?
You are mistaken. Science doesn't prove anything. Science constructs quantifiable models of the world which account for our experiences and help us understand cause-effect and make predictions.
Science makes no proclamation on whether
this is red; or
this is red.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:30 am
It's the difference between establishing that the colors in the American flag are red, white and blue, and establishing whether it is moral or immoral to use the American flag as a diaper.
Sure. You can describe it either way! There are no preferential descriptions.
You can describe it as red, white and blue.
I can describe it as a diaper.
You are a relativist. You should accept that without any objection.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:30 am
"Reality" being what any particular "society" deems the most rational/virtuous policies to be given the historical and cultural and experiential context being considered.
No. Reality being reality. No historical or cultural context determined that SARS CoV-2 will cause acute respiratory syndrome; and possibly death; to millions of people. That's just how this particular virus interacts with human physiology. Unles you want to contend that history determines physiology.
Oh yeah? Do you have an example of any individuals who don't consider acute respiratory syndrome as harmful? Maybe they do it recreationally on weekends?
iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:30 am
I am not arguing that you are "wrong"...or
wrong. I am suggesting only that, as with me, your own value judgments in regard to capital punishment are rooted existentially in the life that you lived.
Not only. It's also rooted in my reading of history. It's rooted in my observation that despite cultural and historical difference, there are also trends in moral predispositions which span beyond cultures and historical periods.
How is it that the Code of Hammurabi captures ideas such as "justice", "responsibility" and "accountability" in a culture so distant (in space and time) from my own?
iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:30 am
And not on any capacity on your part to provide us with an argument that does establish the existence of an objective morality here. Unless of course what you construe objective morality to be as that which is encompassed in "historical trends".
You still don't see the irony in your continued demand for "arguments". That practice/tradition is just your own value-judgment rooted expstentially in the life that you've lived and the culture which you've experienced.
I come from a very different tradition to yours. It's much easier to just race two horses and figure out the winner than to argue about it all day long.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:30 am
Well, lynching someone certainly does involve the laws of physics. No doubt about an objective reality there. But the morality of it...? Suppose the "collectively agreed upon standards" of any given community embrace lynching as moral?
Jurisprudence is a starting point. But the letter of the law and the spirit of the law always seem to diverge.
That is why the letter of the law needs continuous revision.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:30 am
On the contrary, I assume that we don't. But I also assume that there is no way in which I can demonstrate this. So -- click -- I exchange posts with other here given the assumption that we do.
Then your double is even more confusing. If humans don't have free will then the harm we cause to each other is no different than the harm COVID causes to us. No choice. No intent. No malice.
Humans do what they do.
Viruses do what they do.
All the less reason to blame or hate them for it.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:43 pm
No, what is natural is that human beings come into the world genetically hard-wired to commit murder...to kill others. But given that the overwhelming preponderance of us don't commit murder or kill others, there's the nurture factor. And it is the nurturing factor that includes the part about morality. Embedded
in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.
So what about the genealogy of your nurturers. Who nurtured them not to murder. And who nurtured their nurturers?
Nurturing itself is part of nature and therefore natural!
You sure seem to be pointing out that both murder and non-murder are natural. And you also seem to be pointing out that nurturing non-murder is far more prevalent. Which is what I have been telling you all along.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:43 pm
In other words, I refuse to agree with your point again.
Don't worry about agreeing or disagreeing with me. You have taken some significant steps towards disagreeing with yourself.
Which is a good thing.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:43 pm
After all, since you construe yourself to be a moral objectivist, you will divide the world up between "one of us" [the rational and righteous few] and "one of them" [the irrational and unrighteous many].
No, I won't. I am perfectly capable of pointing out that there are no bad people, there are just people who make bad choices.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:43 pm
Back again to historical trends. Trends that happen to coincide with your own moral dogmas.
My own dogmas, or the dogmas of all mankind across history?
Surely as a moral relativist you should be just a little surprised that the opposing dogma - the pro-murder dogma is lacking representation.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:43 pm
Therefore "proof" that capital punishment is inherently/necessarily immoral. So, what are the historical trends in regard to "abortion, homosexuality, gay wedding.
Abortion is now a safe and elective medical procedure meaning pregnant mothers no longer die in back alley abortion clinics - reduction of harm to humans. Moral.
Homosexuality never caused any harm to begin with. The harm was in the social ostracism and mistreatment of homosexuals. Tolerance has increased - harm has decreased. Moral.
iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:43 pm
So, that we can all know precisely what we are morally and politically -- and spiritually? -- obligated to think about them too.
Who is talking about obligations here? Just because all of mankind throughout history has deemed murder immoral it doesn't mean you are obliged to be moral. Go and murder whoever you want.
That's how free will works. Of course, there will be consequences.