Attention moral relativists... (HOF thread)

[Nathon Detroit]

OK, I have a couple questions for all you who do not believe there is such a thing as absolute morality.

Question #1
Can a government (ANY GOVERNMENT) pass or inact a law that is wrong?

Question #2
If a society (ANY SOCIETY) deems something socially acceptable, can the society be wrong?

Question #3
In a democracy, can the majority be wrong?

 

[Gerald]

No, No, and No, because in Real Life (TM), the right of way goes to he what has the biggest stick...

 

[Zakath]

Interesting questions, Knight. Unlike Gerald's succinct response, mine's a bit wordier...
To answer your questions accurately it would help to understand a few basic ideas first.

Question #1
Can a government (ANY GOVERNMENT) pass or inact a law that is wrong?

From my perspective, this depends mainly on the definition of "wrong." Defining "wrong" for a society or government involves deciding what concepts like "fair" or "just" mean to an individual and to the society in which that government exists. I think history has demonstrated that these concepts have varied widely from society to society.

Question #2
If a society (ANY SOCIETY) deems something socially acceptable, can the society be wrong?

The definition of what is "socially acceptable" changes over time for many things. For example...

• About one hundred years ago, it was not "socially acceptable" for adults to engage in "mixed bathing" (i.e., sharing swimming facilities) within the society of the old holiness churches. The pentecostals picked this trait up and even in the early 1970's it was against the rules in the Assemblies of God to have mixed bathing for adults at any church-sponsored function. Is it "wrong" to allow adults of different genders to share space at the beach?
  
  It was "socially unacceptable" in the US for women to work in factories until the early to mid 1940's. Only poor women did so until the necessities of running factories in WWII changed that perception and women began entering the workforce in increasing numbers. Were the upper classes "right" and the poorer classes "wrong"?
  
  It was "socially acceptable" to own human slaves in certain parts of the U.S. until the mid-ninteenth century. Were those who supported slavery "wrong" and those who opposed it "right"?
  
  For centuries, in European societies, it was socially acceptable to arrest, torture, and kill those whose religious faith differed from that supported by the crown. Were the purges and inquisitions by the various religious groups "wrong"?

Question #3
In a democracy, can the majority be wrong?

If by democracy, you mean an Athenian-style democracy, then I'd say it is possible for the majority to be wrong on any specific issue. Time and experience have traditionally been seen as the best deciders of whether a given position is "right" or "wrong".

 

[Sealeaf]

OK, I'll bite

OK, I'll bite

Question #1
Can a government (ANY GOVERNMENT) pass or inact a law that is wrong?

A government either one ruled by one fallible human or one governed by a number of fallible humans can certainly make a choice that is not in my best interest. That I believe is "wrong". Example: The unnesscessary restrictions placed on the use of fireworks in many US states.

Further these fallible humans also may make decisions which are not in the best interest of the nation as a whole. Example: Prohibition. Or, given the cost of alcoholism to the nation, perhaps the mistake was not adequately enforcing prohibition. Drunk drivers should be excecuted on the second offence.

Question #2
If a society (ANY SOCIETY) deems something socially acceptable, can the society be wrong?

This is a tautology. You are saying, "If a society says something is acceptable to it can that thing not be accepable to it." Duh! Of course not! Society can be wrong about something being harmless. Refer to the whole alcohol thing. But society is the sole judge of what it deems acceptable, that's what "socially acceptable" means.

A tautology is a statement which is true or false purely because of the form of the statement not its content. If the judge has declared O.J. innocent, then has the Judge said O.J. has not been proven guilty? That's a similar tautlogy. But I sure would not let him date my daughter! The above statement is true only about the decision of the judge, not the actual inocence of O.J.

Society can of course decide to tolerate things most members would not choose to do themselves. Society can deem acceptable things individual members do not find acceptable. Societies can deem acceptable things that are contrary to their own best interest, even their survival.

Question #3
In a democracy, can the majority be wrong?


Yes the majority can be wrong. The rule of the majority is followed in a Democracy, not because it is always right, but because it is more likely to be just. We have to live under the laws we choose for ourselves. If we choose badly we have no one to blame but ourselves. Since we have to lie in the bed we want the priviledge of making it ourselves.

 

[Gerald]

Re: OK, I'll bite

Re: OK, I'll bite

Originally posted by Sealeaf
Drunk drivers should be excecuted on the second offence.

Any particular reason for the second offense? One would think that the prospect of losing your head for a first offense would be a far greater deterrent.

 

[Goose]

Re: Attention moral relativists...

Re: Attention moral relativists...

Originally posted by Knight
Question #1
Can a government (ANY GOVERNMENT) pass or inact a law that is wrong?

Yes

Question #2
If a society (ANY SOCIETY) deems something socially acceptable, can the society be wrong?

Yes

Question #3
In a democracy, can the majority be wrong?

Yes

 

[Goose]

The definition of what is "socially acceptable" changes over time for many things. For example...

About one hundred years ago, it was not "socially acceptable" for adults to engage in "mixed bathing" (i.e., sharing swimming facilities) within the society of the old holiness churches. The pentecostals picked this trait up and even in the early 1970's it was against the rules in the Assemblies of God to have mixed bathing for adults at any church-sponsored function. Is it "wrong" to allow adults of different genders to share space at the beach?

It was "socially unacceptable" in the US for women to work in factories until the early to mid 1940's. Only poor women did so until the necessities of running factories in WWII changed that perception and women began entering the workforce in increasing numbers. Were the upper classes "right" and the poorer classes "wrong"?

It was "socially acceptable" to own human slaves in certain parts of the U.S. until the mid-ninteenth century. Were those who supported slavery "wrong" and those who opposed it "right"?

For centuries, in European societies, it was socially acceptable to arrest, torture, and kill those whose religious faith differed from that supported by the crown. Were the purges and inquisitions by the various religious groups "wrong"?

It was "socially acceptable" to haul Jews off to be slaughtered in Nazi Germany. It was their opinion to do so. I'm also sure that's it's your opinion that this was wrong. How would we go about deciding who is more right, with no standard or authority to appeal to?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Zakath states...

From my perspective, this depends mainly on the definition of "wrong."

Feel free to define "wrong" however you choose. So I ask again....

Question #1
Can a government (ANY GOVERNMENT) pass or inact a law that is wrong?

Zakath continues....

The definition of what is "socially acceptable" changes over time for many things. For example...

About one hundred years ago, it was not "socially acceptable" for adults to engage in "mixed bathing" (i.e., sharing swimming facilities) within the society of the old holiness churches. The pentecostals picked this trait up and even in the early 1970's it was against the rules in the Assemblies of God to have mixed bathing for adults at any church-sponsored function. Is it "wrong" to allow adults of different genders to share space at the beach?

It was "socially unacceptable" in the US for women to work in factories until the early to mid 1940's. Only poor women did so until the necessities of running factories in WWII changed that perception and women began entering the workforce in increasing numbers. Were the upper classes "right" and the poorer classes "wrong"?

It was "socially acceptable" to own human slaves in certain parts of the U.S. until the mid-ninteenth century. Were those who supported slavery "wrong" and those who opposed it "right"?

For centuries, in European societies, it was socially acceptable to arrest, torture, and kill those whose religious faith differed from that supported by the crown. Were the purges and inquisitions by the various religious groups "wrong"?

Thank you for the exercise in the obvious. But you didn't answer the question but merely stated some items that have and have not been socially acceptable. So I ask again....

Question #2
If a society (ANY SOCIETY) deems something socially acceptable, can the society be wrong?

You continue....

If by democracy, you mean an Athenian-style democracy, then I'd say it is possible for the majority to be wrong on any specific issue. Time and experience have traditionally been seen as the best deciders of whether a given position is "right" or "wrong".

Any form of democracy will do.

But let me give you a specific example and you tell me if the majority could be wrong.

Let's assume a group of 100 or so families move to a completely (until now) deserted island in the Pacific Ocean. Let's assume this Island is not owned or governed by ANY country or entity whatsoever. Let's assume further that these families settle the island and start their own country which is ruled by a strict democracy (majority rules).

The new government creates the laws of the land by the voting majority.

Question #3 - restated
Is it possible for this new government to create laws that you would consider "wrong"?

 

[Projill]

Originally posted by Gerald
No, No, and No, because in Real Life (TM), the right of way goes to he what has the biggest stick...

Should I be snickering right now?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Knight
Feel free to define "wrong" however you choose.

No, we've actually discussd my definition of wrong several times and you don't accept it as "relevant." You've posted the question, so let's use your defiinition.

Let's assume a group of 100 or so families move to a completely (until now) deserted island in the Pacific Ocean. Let's assume this Island is not owned or governed by ANY country or entity whatsoever. Let's assume further that these families settle the island and start their own country which is ruled by a strict democracy (majority rules).

The new government creates the laws of the land by the voting majority.

Question #3 - restated
Is it possible for this new government to create laws that you would consider "wrong"?

Certainly. And my qualifications that "time will tell" still apply.Those things that are helpful to the survival of the civilization will be considered "right" and those that injure the civilization will be considered "wrong" by the members of the civilization.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Zakath states...

No, we've actually discussd my definition of wrong several times and you don't accept it as "relevant." You've posted the question, so let's use your definition.

Actually it is you who claims your opinions are irrelevant not me! But that is for another thread.

Back to topic...
Lets say wrong, meaning "not right" Wrong meaning bad, should be repealed, etc. Feel free to add or change the definition if you like.

You continue...

Certainly. And my qualifications that "time will tell" still apply. Those things that are helpful to the survival of the civilization will be considered "right" and those that injure the civilization will be considered "wrong" by the members of the civilization.

Hmmmm, I have many thoughts regarding your answer.

My first thought is I am wondering how long it would take you to determine if a law were "wrong" based on your "time will tell" test. Will you have to wait until the new government fails to make the determination? Will you ever really be able to make a determination? I mean after all you are clearly not going to live to see the outcomes of most laws.

Furthermore (and more importantly) I can think of many laws that could be passed by our imaginary majority that might be helpful to our imaginary society that would be HIGHLY immoral compared to say what is currently socially acceptable in the USA and most of the modern world.

For instance, what if our island people voted by majority that the woman be the concubines of the men on the island in an effort to increase the population of the new found country (not to mention convenience and pleasure facter). The woman were fiercely opposed to the law but they were outvoted by the men. Ultimately, the law had a very positive effect for the island as the population increased dramatically and the men were happy and satisfied. The women were miserable but remained the minority due to another law passed by the men that stated men MUST remain in a majority position by whatever means necessary.

Would you consider this sexual slaves law "wrong" even though it does not violate your above stated rule as to what would make you think a law was "wrong"?

 

[admiral_d]

Re: Attention moral relativists...

Re: Attention moral relativists...

Originally posted by Knight
OK, I have a couple questions for all you who do not believe there is such a thing as absolute morality.

Question #1
Can a government (ANY GOVERNMENT) pass or inact a law that is wrong?

Yes...The question that is begging is what is the standard for right?

Question #2
If a society (ANY SOCIETY) deems something socially acceptable, can the society be wrong?

Yes, but in this case, society has to be educated as to the prinicple of rightness...

Question #3
In a democracy, can the majority be wrong?

Oh, most definately yes... The world is wrong in it's view of God and His character of Love....but it "sees thru a glass darkly" and is doing the best that it can in this world of various degrees of rebellion....

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Zakath?

 

[Zakath]

I thought this thread was addressed to "Moral Relativists", not to me alone. Am I the only one left?

 

[Goose]

I think so.

 

[Zakath]

It's a tough job, but I can handle it...

 

[Goose]

I'd like to see your reply Zakath.

 

[Zakath]

In response to goose's request:

Originally posted by Knight
My first thought is I am wondering how long it would take you to determine if a law were "wrong" based on your "time will tell" test...Will you ever really be able to make a determination? I mean after all you are clearly not going to live to see the outcomes of most laws.

I would suggest that the "right" and "wrong" of a law should be evaluated by its effects. Due to the wide variety of legal statues and their also widely variant effect, I cannot suggest the type of "one size fits all" answer you seem to be asking for. To be effective, evaluations should be conducted on a case-by-case basis. Some evaluations could be rapid within a year or a few years, while others might take longer. It depends upon the individual circumstance being considered.

Will you have to wait until the new government fails to make the determination?

That's a bit extreme. Governments pass "bad" legislation all the time and do not collapse. Much of it is repealed or repaired, over time.

Furthermore (and more importantly) I can think of many laws that could be passed by our imaginary majority that might be helpful to our imaginary society that would be HIGHLY immoral compared to say what is currently socially acceptable in the USA and most of the modern world.

That's not really surprising, Knight. I can think of laws that allow things in the USA that I view as immoral. I don't think it would be difficult at all for you to think up some hypothetical law or regulation that would be different from current US law.

For instance, what if our island people voted by majority that the woman be the concubines of the men on the island in an effort to increase the population of the new found country (not to mention convenience and pleasure facter). The woman were fiercely opposed to the law but they were outvoted by the men. Ultimately, the law had a very positive effect for the island as the population increased dramatically and the men were happy and satisfied. The women were miserable but remained the minority due to another law passed by the men that stated men MUST remain in a majority position by whatever means necessary.

This scenario has already been debated here on TOL, at least once by my recollection. Can't you come up with a new one?

Would you consider this sexual slaves law "wrong" even though it does not violate your above stated rule as to what would make you think a law was "wrong"?

It's fascinating how you slip inflammatory language like "sexual slaves" into the argument, after the fact.

The definition of concubine does not encompass sexual slavery, to wit:

concubine
1. Law. A woman who cohabits with a man without being legally married to him.
2. In certain societies, such as imperial China, a woman contracted to a man as a secondary wife, often having few legal rights and low social status.
Source - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

So, since concubines are not "sexual slaves", your question is not germaine to the subject we are discussing.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Zakath writes....

I would suggest that the "right" and "wrong" of a law should be evaluated by its effects.

So how can you tell ahead of time what laws you should support (vote for) of reject (not vote for).

Furthermore, isn't VERY possible (as I have described in a previous post) that a law may be VERY beneficial to the majority but could still be an evil law? Therefore the law would pass your "time will tell" test but the law would still be evil.

You continue...

I can think of laws that allow things in the USA that I view as immoral.

Can you give me an example?

You continue...

This scenario has already been debated here on TOL, at least once by my recollection. Can't you come up with a new one?

You didn't have a good answer then, so I was wondering if you had any good answer now.

Please correct me if I am wrong but to this point you have given us only ONE criteria for how you (as a moral relativist) can determine if a law is "bad" or "good" and that is the "time will tell" criteria, is that correct?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Knight
So how can you tell ahead of time what laws you should support (vote for) of reject (not vote for).

By extant historical experience (mine and others') and by my own subjective sense of right and wrong.

Furthermore, isn't VERY possible (as I have described in a previous post) that a law may be VERY beneficial to the majority but could still be an evil law? Therefore the law would pass your "time will tell" test but the law would still be evil.

I have no way of assessing the probability implicit in "very possible". The weak spot in your argument is that, in a pure democracy, that it is relatively easy to pass any law or ordinance that the majority agrees with. But, as the old saying goes, "the devil's in the details". For instance, in the example you gave, the perception of "evil" would depend entirely on one's viewpoint. If you were a woman, or a romantic, it's likely that you would perceive the moral value of the law (good or evil) differently than if you were a man.

Your argument also begs the point that many (possibly most?)laws are not inherently "good" or "evil", they are merely laws.

You didn't have a good answer then...

In your opinion.

Please correct me if I am wrong but to this point you have given us only ONE criteria for how you (as a moral relativist) can determine if a law is "bad" or "good" and that is the "time will tell" criteria, is that correct?

Until this post, that was true. It's not that I do not have other criteria, but it's difficult on this venue for me to debate multiple points simultaneously. I tend to lose track of one of them after several posts...

I have provided you with another at the beginning of this post. Of course this brings us round, for the umpteenth time, to the absolute versus subjective morality argument, upon which we are apparently not going to agree...