warack@aero.ARPA (Chris Warack ) (08/20/85)
[ouch] OK, the morality discussion is heating up a bit. I wish to take a moment to solidify some basic concepts [at least in my view]. I have some definitions that *I* will use in my postings. If others wish to also, fine. If anyone wishes to discuss definitions, respond to this article, not others. MORAL -- a mechanism for determining whether an action is OK or not. PERSONAL MORALS -- the set of morals that is actually used by an individual to determine his/her actions. GROUP MORALS -- a set of morals that are common to a set of people. UNIVERSAL MORALS -- A set of morals that is meant to apply to everyone. [whether they do or don't; whether they are enforced or not] ABSOLUTE MORALS -- THE set of morals that is RIGHT. [take with a grain of salt. May or may not exist] I'm not arguing for or against the *existence* of any of these, here. I just want to clarify some terminology a bit. If anyone disagrees with these, please note so in responses to me. I do wish to avoid the verbal knots of other recent discussions. Chris -- _______ |/-----\| Chris Warack (213) 648-6617 ||hello|| || || warack@aerospace.ARPA |-------| warack@aero.UUCP |@ ___ | seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest! |_______| sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack || || \ Aerospace Corporation, M1-117, El Segundo, CA 90245 ^^^ ^^^ `---------(|=
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/23/85)
Here's a curious fact which I came upon yesterday. But first let we define
a couple of terms:
MORAL ABSOLUTE - A principle concerning morality which is absolutely true,
regardless of which moral system you subscribe to.
(not to be confused with absolute morals)
ABSOLUTE MORAL RELATIVISM - the idea that it is impossible to conclude that
any particular moral system is correct.
(as compared to ordinary moral relativism, which holds that it is impossible
within any particular moral system to judge that another is incorrect)
The curious fact is, absolute moral relativism is self-contradictory, because
it states a moral absolute.
Some moral systems do in fact state that it can be determined that they are
correct and others are wrong. Some simply state that it can be determined
that certain morals are always incorrect. According to absolute moral
relativism, however, such conclusions are incorrect. This means that this
principle that you cannot determine incorrectness is a moral absolute, and
that one can therefore determine outside of any particular system that
a particular system is incorrect, contrary to absolute moral relativism.
Hence, absolute moral relativism cannot be correct. (Incidentally, this
would seem to imply that there are moral absolutes, since the denial of
this leads to the same contradiction.)
Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (08/26/85)
In article <1358@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >MORAL ABSOLUTE - A principle concerning morality which is absolutely true, > regardless of which moral system you subscribe to. > >ABSOLUTE MORAL RELATIVISM - the idea that it is impossible to conclude that > any particular moral system is correct. > >The curious fact is, absolute moral relativism is self-contradictory, because >it states a moral absolute. > >Some moral systems do in fact state that it can be determined that they are >correct and others are wrong. Some simply state that it can be determined >that certain morals are always incorrect. According to absolute moral >relativism, however, such conclusions are incorrect. This means that this >principle that you cannot determine incorrectness is a moral absolute, and >that one can therefore determine outside of any particular system that >a particular system is incorrect, contrary to absolute moral relativism. Further definitions: MORAL SYSTEM - a set of moral principles. MORAL PRINCIPLE - I'm unable to completely define this concept, but I think most people would agree that a moral principle must be a statement about the permissibility of some kind of behaviour. To say that some moral system claims that it can be determined to be correct amounts to claiming that one of the principles of the moral system states that all the principles of the system can be determined to be correct. A principle that says so is not a statement about the permissibility of any kind of behaviour, but rather a statement about statements about permissibility of behaviour. Therefore, it's not a moral principle. Your definition of absolute moral relativism, which I repeat here: >ABSOLUTE MORAL RELATIVISM - the idea that it is impossible to conclude that > any particular moral system is correct. is rather confusing. It looks like it was deliberate cooked up to have just a sufficient amount of vagueness in all the right places so that it could be used to draw the conclusion you want. You might try arguing with the version of absolute moral relativism that I prefer: ABSOLUTE MORAL RELATIVISM - the idea that the truth or falsehood of a statement of the morality or immorality of some action cannot be demonstrated objectively. -- David Canzi This has been a test of the emergency broadcasting sytem. It was only a test. Repeat: only a test. If this had been a real emergency, you would be dead.
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (08/26/85)
In article <374@aero.ARPA> warack@aero.UUCP (Chris Warack (5734)) writes: > If anyone wishes to discuss definitions, respond to this >article, not others. > >MORAL -- a mechanism for determining whether an action is OK or not. If I'm not mistaken, a discussion of definitions was what you intended to get in the discussion "What is morality, anyways", but the discussion ended up being about whether it was right for one person's morals to be imposed on others. I'm guilty (good moral concept, that) of advancing a tentative definition of morality and then going on too long about the consequences of that definition. I'll stick to the topic here. One thing, maybe, that we can all agree on, is that a morality is a system of restrictions on our behaviour. Another thing we can probably agree on is that not all restrictions on our behaviour are moral in nature. For example, the reason why I don't flap my arms and fly has nothing to do with morality. So it seems to me that a definition of morality involves describing what it is that distinguishes moral restrictions on our behaviour from other kinds of restrictions. Another thing to consider is what version of morality we want to try to define. What the majority of people in our society mean by the term? Or shall we simply compare our personal definitions? If the latter, bickering can be avoided if we realize ahead of time that we are likely to disapprove of each other's morals, and resolve not to take it too personally. That's all for now... -- David Canzi This has been a test of the emergency broadcasting sytem. It was only a test. Repeat: only a test. If this had been a real emergency, you would be dead.
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (08/26/85)
>MORAL ABSOLUTE - A principle concerning morality which is absolutely true, > regardless of which moral system you subscribe to. > >(not to be confused with absolute morals) > >ABSOLUTE MORAL RELATIVISM - the idea that it is impossible to conclude that > any particular moral system is correct. > >(as compared to ordinary moral relativism, which holds that it is impossible > within any particular moral system to judge that another is incorrect) > >The curious fact is, absolute moral relativism is self-contradictory, because >it states a moral absolute. I get the feeling you just like to cheat. Why did you state "not to be confused with absolute morals" if you were going to ignore it? AMR makes a statement *about* moral systems; it does not in any way state a *moral* absolute. The absolute statement it makes is not a *moral* statement. Consider: +---------------------------------------------------------+ | 1) Exactly one of the statements in this box is false.| | | | 2) Charley Wingate exists. | +---------------------------------------------------------+ If the first statement is true, then the second statement is false. But, if the first statement is false, then the second statement cannot be true, because then the first statement would be true, not false. So the second statement is false. As with your argument, the logic seems designed to produce the desired conclusion regardless of its content. >Some moral systems do in fact state that it can be determined that they are >correct and others are wrong. Some simply state that it can be determined >that certain morals are always incorrect. According to absolute moral >relativism, however, such conclusions are incorrect. This means that this >principle that you cannot determine incorrectness is a moral absolute, and >that one can therefore determine outside of any particular system that >a particular system is incorrect, contrary to absolute moral relativism. >Hence, absolute moral relativism cannot be correct. (Incidentally, this >would seem to imply that there are moral absolutes, since the denial of >this leads to the same contradiction.) I suggest that you read Richard Smullyan's "What is the Name of This Book?". You are making a fundamental logical error of confusing statements *about* moral systems with *moral* statements *within* moral systems. The latter are statements about desired human behavior, not about moral systems. Aquinas and Berkley argued for the *logical* existence of God with arguments which, like yours, are as logically flawed as arguments that all numbers are equal, via hidden use of division by zero. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (08/27/85)
There are a few other terms floating around in this discussion which I
think need definitions.
As a forward, I think the definition someone (I forget who) made of a
morality is correct: a function from possible actions to the set
{required, forbidden, optional}. This is consistent with the definition
in the article I am following up, but more explicit.
The main term I think needs defining is right (in the sense of a right).
I think this word has been misused in the discussion so far.
RIGHT: an action permitted to a person which no one else has the right to
directly prevent.
Note that only direct interference is proscribed. If I decide to quit my
job and start working at a fast food joint (which is my right), my friends
are not permitted to prevent this; they are permitted to try to talk me
out of it.
This has been commonly used to mean simply an action which is not forbidden.
LEGAL MORALITY: the morality implicit in the legal system; i.e., forbidden =
illegal, required = legally obligatory (this is not a commonly used term, but
the concept is significant in the discussion so far, so I am proposing it.
If anyone has a better suggestion for a name for this concept, please speak up)
MORAL ABSOLUTISM: the belief that there is such a thing as an absolute
morality (q.v.).
MORAL CODE: a list of possible actions [in various situations variously
described] each specified as required, forbidden, or optional. A moral code
is a special case of a morality.
There is a common use of the word morality which restricts its meaning
to that of moral code.berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/27/85)
> Here's a curious fact which I came upon yesterday. But first let we define > a couple of terms: > > MORAL ABSOLUTE - A principle concerning morality which is absolutely true, > regardless of which moral system you subscribe to. > > (not to be confused with absolute morals) > > ABSOLUTE MORAL RELATIVISM - the idea that it is impossible to conclude that > any particular moral system is correct. > > (as compared to ordinary moral relativism, which holds that it is impossible > within any particular moral system to judge that another is incorrect) > > The curious fact is, absolute moral relativism is self-contradictory, because > it states a moral absolute. > > Some moral systems do in fact state that it can be determined that they are > correct and others are wrong. Some simply state that it can be determined > that certain morals are always incorrect. According to absolute moral > relativism, however, such conclusions are incorrect. This means that this > principle that you cannot determine incorrectness is a moral absolute, and > that one can therefore determine outside of any particular system that > a particular system is incorrect, contrary to absolute moral relativism. > Hence, absolute moral relativism cannot be correct. (Incidentally, this > would seem to imply that there are moral absolutes, since the denial of > this leads to the same contradiction.) > > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Being a relativist, I must admit that it may be practical in some situations to regard some moral values as absolute. Thus the statement that it is impossible to determine that any particular moral system is correct may be incorrect. As all other moral statements. Is there a self-contradiction? Not necessary. One solution is to have introduce time variable into the logic. Then we would admit statements which are true at a given time. Imagine a formula which does not involve time variable, but contains several free variables (denoting people, material goods, places etc.). Now we may have a situation that at certain time moment the formula is true under all interpretations (i.e. for all people, material goods, places etc. existing at this moment, with the truth values of relationships being evaluated at this moment), but at another moment of time the formula is not valid under certain interpretation. Thus universally valid could have two meanings: universally valid at a given time, or universally valid for all times. Again, assuming ignorance on the states of the world at certain time points (distant future or distant past, for example) it may well be impossible to determine universality over time of any statement which is not an utter tautology, like "if A is better that B then it is better to do A then to do B". SHOOT!! I, a relativist, revealed myself an universally valid principle! More seriously Charlie, before accusing others of contradicting themselves, refresh your knowledge on logic. Piotr Berman "Have you found a new universal principle today?"
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/27/85)
In article <1700@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: >> Here's a curious fact which I came upon yesterday. But first let we define >> a couple of terms: >> MORAL ABSOLUTE - A principle concerning morality which is absolutely true, >> regardless of which moral system you subscribe to. >> (not to be confused with absolute morals) >> ABSOLUTE MORAL RELATIVISM - the idea that it is impossible to conclude that >> any particular moral system is correct. >> (as compared to ordinary moral relativism, which holds that it is >> impossible within any particular moral system to judge that another >> is incorrect) Notice the above definition carefully... >> The curious fact is, absolute moral relativism is self-contradictory, >> because it states a moral absolute. >> Some moral systems do in fact state that it can be determined that they are >> correct and others are wrong. Some simply state that it can be determined >> that certain morals are always incorrect. According to absolute moral >> relativism, however, such conclusions are incorrect. This means that this >> principle that you cannot determine incorrectness is a moral absolute, and >> that one can therefore determine outside of any particular system that >> a particular system is incorrect, contrary to absolute moral relativism. >> Hence, absolute moral relativism cannot be correct. (Incidentally, this >> would seem to imply that there are moral absolutes, since the denial of >> this leads to the same contradiction.) >Being a relativist, I must admit that it may be practical in some situations >to regard some moral values as absolute. Thus the statement that >it is impossible to determine that any particular moral system is correct >may be incorrect. As all other moral statements. >Is there a self-contradiction? Not necessary. One solution is to have >introduce time variable into the logic. Then we would admit statements >which are true at a given time. Imagine a formula which does not involve >time variable, but contains several free variables (denoting people, >material goods, places etc.). Now we may have a situation that at certain >time moment the formula is true under all interpretations (i.e. for all >people, material goods, places etc. existing at this moment, with the >truth values of relationships being evaluated at this moment), but at >another moment of time the formula is not valid under certain interpretation. >Thus universally valid could have two meanings: universally valid at >a given time, or universally valid for all times. >Again, assuming ignorance on the states of the world at certain time points >(distant future or distant past, for example) it may well be impossible >to determine universality over time of any statement which is not an >utter tautology, like > "if A is better that B then it is better to do A then to do B". >SHOOT!! I, a relativist, revealed myself an universally valid principle! >More seriously Charlie, before accusing others of contradicting themselves, >refresh your knowledge on logic. What? Aren't you just proving my point? Does this not make you something other than an absolute moral relativist? In the section which Piotr excised, I stated quite plainly that the problem I saw does not effect less strong varieties of moral relativism. There is a small error in my definition of absolute moral relativism. It should say that "it is impossible to determine the correctness *or incorrectness* of any particular moral system on moral principles." Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/30/85)
In article <27500106@ISM780B.UUCP> jim@ISM780B.UUCP writes: >>MORAL ABSOLUTE - A principle concerning morality which is absolutely true, >> regardless of which moral system you subscribe to. >>(not to be confused with absolute morals) > Why did you state "not to be >confused with absolute morals" if you were going to ignore it? The point is that moral absolutes need not be morals in and of themselves. They can be principles and statements which provide the basis for the actual moral statements. >>ABSOLUTE MORAL RELATIVISM - the idea that it is impossible to conclude that >> any particular moral system is correct. >>The curious fact is, absolute moral relativism is self-contradictory, >>because it states a moral absolute. >AMR makes a statement *about* moral systems; it does not in any way state >a *moral* absolute. The absolute statement it makes is not a *moral* >statement. It is a moral absolute, because it is an absolute statement about moral systems. The fact that it is not in itself a moral command is irrelevant. Then we have a paradox: > +---------------------------------------------------------+ > | 1) Exactly one of the statements in this box is false.| > | | > | 2) Charley Wingate exists. | > +---------------------------------------------------------+ >If the first statement is true, then the second statement is false. >But, if the first statement is false, then the second statement cannot >be true, because then the first statement would be true, not false. >So the second statement is false. >As with your argument, the logic seems designed to produce the desired >conclusion regardless of its content. Unfortunately, if it is at all applicable, AMR is analogous to the *first* statement in the box. I think, however, that it is more closely analogous to the barber paradox. Taken as strongly as I have stated it, AMR is in fact a self-referential statement. If you weaken it so that it only applies to moral strictures, then the self-reference obviously goes away; but this makes it perfectly acceptable to refuse to consider a system because it is (supposedly) groundless. As it stands, however, it can in fact have a value of false if some other absolute truth exists which can be used to descriminate between systems. >I suggest that you read Richard Smullyan's "What is the Name of This Book?". >You are making a fundamental logical error of confusing statements *about* >moral systems with *moral* statements *within* moral systems. The latter >are statements about desired human behavior, not about moral systems. >Aquinas and Berkley argued for the *logical* existence of God with arguments >which, like yours, are as logically flawed as arguments that all numbers are >equal, via hidden use of division by zero. I have read the book; what you are neglecting is the fact the bases of some systems include statements *about* other systems. One can only resolve this problem in one of three ways. One can reject all systems which make statements about other systems: this clearly invalidates AMR. One can reject any demands for logica consistency, in which case it becomes impossible to talk about morality on any level in any rational way. Or finally, one can reject AMR, and admit the possibility of rejecting the bases of some systems on rational grounds. It's significant that forms of relativism which allow rational criticism only of the moral strictures themselves avoid this problem completely. But these all allow one to reject the basis of a system, and thus imply that relativism is not complete. Charley Wingate
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/30/85)
> >> The curious fact is, absolute moral relativism is self-contradictory, > >> because it states a moral absolute. Has anyone ever pointed out Godel's Theorem to you? It's possible to create a contradiction in any complete logical system. Why should morality be exempt?