Right & Wrong About Right & Wrong
Paul Stearns argues against moral relativism and moral presentism.
This is basically Harry Baird's argument. That, in regard to some behaviors, absolutely no one can seriously argue that there is a "both sides" moral agenda.“Whatever we may say about the merits of torturing children for pleasure, and no doubt there is much to be said on both sides, I am sure we all agree it should be done with sterilized instruments.”
– G.K. Chesterton
To which I noted my own ambivalence:
And...This comes closest to upending my own "fractured and fragmented" frame of mind. People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"
And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.
And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?
For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.
In turn, I noted that there may be any number men and women who find the abuse of children in any form to be repugnant. Yet they are able to rationalize, among other things, the abortion of unborn babies in the womb.If someone's morality functions to provide them with self-gratification in what they construe to be a No God world then for them, "in the absence of God all things are permitted". Their frame of mind shifts from "is it the right thing to do?" to "can I get away with it?"
Now, as far as I can tell, the function of your morality revolves around concluding that if particular behaviors are repugnant to you that makes them immoral. But for particular sociopaths abusing children is not repugnant at all to them. On the contrary, it arouses them.
Now, if there is an omniscient/omnipotent God then this is a Sin. There is no question of getting caught and no question of being punished. No God however and the abuser of children never does get caught...? Then what?
Also, we live in a world where "each day, 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes." un.org
Or...
https://www.unicef.org/social-policy/child-poverty
And how much of this is attributable to those who own and operate the global economy? The amoral, "show me the money" capitalists hell bent on make the rich richer.
Or...
"250 million children between 5 and 14 are forced to work in sweatshops for up to 16 hours per day. The sweatshops produce products for western markets including clothing, shoes, and toys." the world counts.
Which men? Measuring what things morally and politically? As though these measurements did not/do not vary dramatically down through the ages historically and across the globe culturally.“Man is the measure of all things.” – Protagoras
Pick an issue. Then line up the liberals and conservatives here. Let them provide us with the tools -- moral and political prejudices -- they use to measure their own "my way or the highway" parameters of right and wrong behaviors.
Oh, but no, in regard to things like capitalism vs. socialism, big government vs. small government, I vs. we, genes vs. memes, religion vs. atheism, idealism vs pragmatism, might makes right vs. right makes might vs. democracy and the rules of law...that's hardly ever been a factor at all historically and culturally.
Yes, moral relativists believe "cultures, individuals, and times do differ in their basic moral values, and that relativism is the best explanation for these differences" because the history of the human race to date could not possibly be more indicative of that.One of the most common beliefs that people have about morality is the idea that different times and cultures have radically different moral standards. This assumption fuels moral relativism. Moral relativists believe cultures, individuals, and times do differ in their basic moral values, and that relativism is the best explanation for these differences. Moral relativists also hold that all moral views are equally valid because each culture (or person) invents their own morality.
As for believing that all moral narratives are equally valid, that would generally be applicable more to the sociopaths among us. No God from their frame of mind and all things can be rationalized. Including the abuse of children.
But what of the moral objectivists down through the ages? From the theocrats to the Nazis to the Communists, what human pain and suffering have they managed to sustain down through ages? Not to mention the amoral autocrats and dictators and thugs that nations like America have propped up for centuries.