16th July 2003, 7:22 AM
(This post was last modified: 16th July 2003, 7:45 AM by Nintendarse.)
Here we go...
I fundamentally disagree. At face value, this seems like a logical statement, but after looking at all the repercussions of this, I realized that to say that society determines what is right and what is wrong means that society is always right. And if you look at all the world's societies at any singular point in time, that is to say that incest, slavery, wife burning, witch burning, and genocide are all right within their respective times and societies. I do not agree with this principle, and I don't think you agree with it either.
I guess I didn't explain the philosophy well enough. I do not agree with the form of relativism that says that the individual is the determinant of morality. Through relativism, I hoped to find objectivism. What's important to note is that when you embody any person, their actions are justified in some way, whether it be conscious or subconscious. And that's an encouraging thought. But just because every action is individually justified, does that make it objectively right? ABSOLUTELY NOT. After all, even the actions of a cold-blooded murderer are individually justified.
So if society nor the individual decides what is right and what is wrong, what do we have to go on? Objectivity. We remove ourselves from all individuals, all societies, and ask, "What is wrong and what is right?" Objectively, the individual cannot do wrong without breaching protected rights. After all, unless the society values the physical integrity of air above the right of a person to move freely, what reasonable person is going to say that a man who swings his fist in the air is doing something wrong? This is where society steps in. We ask the society/law, "What are the protected rights?" Physical integrity is one of them in our society. It is only when the man's fist interferes with someone's physical integrity that society must make a decision: "When in conflict, which do we value more?" Our society chooses physical integrity. The key is, "When in conflict." Without a conflict, there is no wrongdoing.
Within this structure, there are interesting/complicated ways to deal with things like being naked in a public place. Obviously, this structure asserts that being naked is not inherently bad. It is when being naked conflicts with another protected right that we must ask ourselves which is more valuable.
This issue is difficult because it deals with the complicated nature of speech. Being naked in public can be a form of speech. In this case, our society has decided that being naked in public is classified as the "innappropriate" form of speech that causes danger to others such as yelling, "Fire!" in a movie theatre.
As I thought, you agree with me that society can be wrong, which means that you don't really believe that society decides what is wrong and right. In general, I agree with you. Social morality has been pretty good for humanity. It's been pretty accurate to model objective morality. What I'm suggesting is that there is a more accurate model of morality. Is the model I propose this more accurate model? I don't know, probably not. It needs more refinement, certainly more study. The idea I have is that the more accurate model of morality is based upon objectivity.
With the first part, I whole-heartedly agree. A moral system based upon society is more accurate than a moral system based upon the individual. If I had explained my theory better, I think it would be quite clear that it IS NOT relativism. Not only is the opinion of the individual irrelevant, but the opinion of the society plays only a secondary role.
In addition, a social morality system is utterly useless when two societies collide. If there is a discrepency in the values of the societies, how can both be right? In fact, one can model the world as a society of societies. The country-sized societies are the individuals, while the world is the common society. I find this global society to be eerily familiar to your disjointed, morally relativistic society, where the strong impose their morals on the weak, and there is nobody to stop them. I guess all I can do is sigh.
On the second part, you are begging the question. How do you define immorality? Is it because society thinks so? I hope it is clear that society's opinion does not define what is objectively right and what is objectively wrong. It is merely a collective opinion. If this debate was occuring just a few decades ago, you would be the person arguing that because society does not agree with interracial relations, interracial marriages should be illegal. You would say, "It is such an atmosphere where immorality such as interracial marriage can be forced on a society that does not approve of it."
Quote: Weltall:
Society does determine what is right and what is wrong.
I fundamentally disagree. At face value, this seems like a logical statement, but after looking at all the repercussions of this, I realized that to say that society determines what is right and what is wrong means that society is always right. And if you look at all the world's societies at any singular point in time, that is to say that incest, slavery, wife burning, witch burning, and genocide are all right within their respective times and societies. I do not agree with this principle, and I don't think you agree with it either.
Quote:If morality were determined solely by the individual, then essentially anything could be moral, and anyone could justify anything simply by claiming their personal morality.
I guess I didn't explain the philosophy well enough. I do not agree with the form of relativism that says that the individual is the determinant of morality. Through relativism, I hoped to find objectivism. What's important to note is that when you embody any person, their actions are justified in some way, whether it be conscious or subconscious. And that's an encouraging thought. But just because every action is individually justified, does that make it objectively right? ABSOLUTELY NOT. After all, even the actions of a cold-blooded murderer are individually justified.
So if society nor the individual decides what is right and what is wrong, what do we have to go on? Objectivity. We remove ourselves from all individuals, all societies, and ask, "What is wrong and what is right?" Objectively, the individual cannot do wrong without breaching protected rights. After all, unless the society values the physical integrity of air above the right of a person to move freely, what reasonable person is going to say that a man who swings his fist in the air is doing something wrong? This is where society steps in. We ask the society/law, "What are the protected rights?" Physical integrity is one of them in our society. It is only when the man's fist interferes with someone's physical integrity that society must make a decision: "When in conflict, which do we value more?" Our society chooses physical integrity. The key is, "When in conflict." Without a conflict, there is no wrongdoing.
Within this structure, there are interesting/complicated ways to deal with things like being naked in a public place. Obviously, this structure asserts that being naked is not inherently bad. It is when being naked conflicts with another protected right that we must ask ourselves which is more valuable.
This issue is difficult because it deals with the complicated nature of speech. Being naked in public can be a form of speech. In this case, our society has decided that being naked in public is classified as the "innappropriate" form of speech that causes danger to others such as yelling, "Fire!" in a movie theatre.
Quote:Social morality has been a part of human civilization since the very beginning. It has been responsible for some bad things, the Crusades and slavery being two examples, but it has also been an integral part of social fabric and civilizational advance.
As I thought, you agree with me that society can be wrong, which means that you don't really believe that society decides what is wrong and right. In general, I agree with you. Social morality has been pretty good for humanity. It's been pretty accurate to model objective morality. What I'm suggesting is that there is a more accurate model of morality. Is the model I propose this more accurate model? I don't know, probably not. It needs more refinement, certainly more study. The idea I have is that the more accurate model of morality is based upon objectivity.
Quote:If you want to see where moral relativism takes place, you need only look at whatever lawless third-world nation you choose... Africa's got quite a few. Everyone has their own morals because there is no society, and because of that the strong can and do impose their morals over the weak, because who will stop them? In contrast, civilized nations of the world, for the most part, practice social morality in some fashion, and as a result, have a much stronger and rich society. Moral relativism is something that should only exist where there is no society. To want to dismantle social morality and artificially create a moral vacuum is, as you put it, absolutely ridiculous. It is such an atmosphere where immorality such as gay marriage can be forced on a society that does not approve of it.
With the first part, I whole-heartedly agree. A moral system based upon society is more accurate than a moral system based upon the individual. If I had explained my theory better, I think it would be quite clear that it IS NOT relativism. Not only is the opinion of the individual irrelevant, but the opinion of the society plays only a secondary role.
In addition, a social morality system is utterly useless when two societies collide. If there is a discrepency in the values of the societies, how can both be right? In fact, one can model the world as a society of societies. The country-sized societies are the individuals, while the world is the common society. I find this global society to be eerily familiar to your disjointed, morally relativistic society, where the strong impose their morals on the weak, and there is nobody to stop them. I guess all I can do is sigh.
On the second part, you are begging the question. How do you define immorality? Is it because society thinks so? I hope it is clear that society's opinion does not define what is objectively right and what is objectively wrong. It is merely a collective opinion. If this debate was occuring just a few decades ago, you would be the person arguing that because society does not agree with interracial relations, interracial marriages should be illegal. You would say, "It is such an atmosphere where immorality such as interracial marriage can be forced on a society that does not approve of it."