The Religion word

[robbo203]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

“You are completely and utterly missing the point.  Everyone has a moral point of view – you wouldn’t be human otherwise.” 

 Really? I will ask you the question I asked Fabian. Can you prove the objectivity of morality?  Can you explain why it changes with material conditions and class consciousness.  Our empathy and sympathy for other human beings is not morality. Dislike of pain and rape for example is not morality. I don’t want pain or rape myself – My reason for making rape illegal would not be based on morality. 

 Certainly I would agree that empathy,  though a necessary condition for morality, is not a sufficient condition. Morality as I said earlier, is  “other oriented” and presupposes that others have value in themselves and are not simply regarded as a means to your own ends (instrumentalism).  When someone inflicts pain on someone else we empathise with that person  – put ourselves in their shoes – and this forms the basis upon which it may develop into a moral point of view. Whether it develops into a moral point of view depends on  context, doesn’t it?  Of course, dislike of pain is not morality as such.  Morality is concerned with the social regulation of behavour.  Tripping over a stone and causing pain to my knee is not going to evoke a feeling of moral outrage. It might conceivably do if we knew someone had deliberately placed the stone there with the intention of causing harm but thats another matter. You ask me to prove the “objectivity of morality”.  Well surely you have experienced a sense of moral outrage yourself on occasions?  If someone – to use our above example  – maliciously placed a stone in your path and you tripped over it how would you react?  I can hear your thoughts now as I write – “the little bastard – wait till i get  my hands on him”  or ” this sort of thing shouldn’t be allowed!”  Is that not evidence enough? See, I’m not too sure what you mean when you talk about the “objectivity” of morality.  Feelings sentiments and values are subjective things aren’t they.? Some researchers have identified certain neurons in the brain which are called  mirror neurons  which they consider to be responsible for empathetic behavior and there is some suggestion that autistic people suffer from mirror neuron dysfunction.  But I don’t think mirror neurons can adequately account for the existence of morality and precisely for the reason you cite that  it changes with material conditions and class consciousness.  But note what you are acknowledging here is that “it” – morality – exists.  Human beings are social animals and there is no such thing as a society without social rules  It is these rules that is the stuff of a moral outlook – how we ought to behave with regard to one another.  These rules are influenced by the kind of society we live in but also by the kind of society we would like to live in and that is why you tend to get a clash of moral opinion  and why our overall pattern of moral opinion is subject to change. 

[Ed]

Ed wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

What is morality after all? At bottom it has to do with a concern for the welfare and wellbeing of others.  It is based on the assumption that others have value in themselves and not simply as a means to your own ends – what is called , “instrumentalism”

Morality is the expression of ruling class interests. Anything can and has been be justified morally, murder, rape, slavery, genocide anything you like. It is then used as part of our social conditioning in order to get the lower classes to accept their lot in life. On an individual level morality is very rarely the same as anyone else and thus can not be measured in any objective way. It’s also mostly bullshit anyway, what people will say that they find morally acceptable they’ll happily break without batting an eyelid. And that is the real point socialists who think they are acting on moral grounds can quite easily change their mind when they find something morally wrong.

robbo203 wrote:

Everyone has a moral point of view –

Most may have a moral view but not all, but what is that view other than an idealist fantasy?

robbo203 wrote:

you wouldn’t be human otherwise.

Tell me more about this human nature and the natural law of morality…………

robbo203 wrote:

Its not peculiar to the ruling class alone.  That just ridiculous. Oddly enough having started out claiming that morality is the expression of ruling class interest you then end up saying it varies from one person to another.  You cant have it both ways, you know,. If morality is so variable as you say then to put it down to being the mere expression of ruling class interests is a tad misleading, don’t you think?This naff reductionist argument crops up in the Communist Manifesto, too  “Law, morality, religion are…so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests. The basic  argument seems to be that ruling ideas of society are those of the ruling class So if people tend to talk  in moral terms this is obviously a ruling class conspiracy to use morality “as part of our social conditioning in order to get the lower classes to accept their lot in life”. It does not seem to occur to you that not all ideas are ruling class ideas – unless, of course,  you think socialist ideas are also  the expression of ruling class interests . Just because people talk in moral terms does not mean they are faithfully reflecting the ruling class outlook into which they have supposedly been “socially conditioned”

Morality is a social construct. It has no fundamental truth other than what the individual assigns to it. The only objective definitions that you could possibly find of morality is the morality imposed by the state acting as an instrument of the ruling class which manifests itself in the law. The individual can have a view of morality seprerate from that of the state but more or less bound to the state’s definition of right and wrong, which in most cases supercedes their own interests in the favour of the ruling classes interests. Either way it’s an idealistic approach which we are taught.However, you seem to be labouring under the impression that there is some sort of fundamental truth to morality which we all share. Coming back to the law, it is an accumulated process of ruling class interests making up the stick with which to beat the subjugated classes with. It is altered whenever there is a change in the material conditions of the ruling class. For example, you know what the earliest recorded English law is? 6s for punching a man on the nose. The second is 50s for murder. The third is 50s for seducing the Kings slave girl. So murder is equatable to sex with someones property, the property being in this case a human being. Ain’t morality wonderful! By today’s standard the two are not morally equatable to the vast majority and as the state has no interest in legally maintaining slavery so to changes the law. So tell me if there is a fundamental shared morality why has it changed to reflect ruling class interests. Why do we not feel it is right to keep slaves now but we did a few hundred years ago?I’ll repeat a point from my first post ANYTHING can be described as moral if the situation calls for it. So in reality morality does not exist.

robbo203 wrote:

Heard of the concept of hegemony BTW.  I find all this talk of the…ahem … “lower classes” being socially conditioned into accepting their lot in life rather disempowering and misleading.  Its projecting the view that we are mere putty in the hands of our rulers. Its reinforcing our sense of our own impotence. I just don’t buy this argument, frankly.  Quite often its the opposite  that is the case – the ruling class being socially conditioned into accepting the ideas of the “lower classes”.  This for instance is the case with populist  type governments where politicians pander to the prejudices of the electorate.

And are the electorate acting in their class interests when the politicians cede to their demands and are the politicians acting against theirs?

robbo203 wrote:

Your analysis is too simplistic

Your’s seems naïve

robbo203 wrote:

I did not say you would become a capitalist if you strove to become one did I?  There is no comparison between what I’m saying and what  Gina Rinehart is saying.  Of course the chances of you becoming a capitalist are absolutely minuscule but thats not the point,  is it?

Yes it is the point. You said why not become a capitalist. If the chances of becoming a capitalist are so small as to be almost non-existent then what’s the point? It’s not in my interest to chase an impossible goal.

robbo203 wrote:

The point is that if you want socialism for no other reason than that it is in your self interests then you might as well forget about socialism in that case because if its self interest that motivates you would be better advised to strive to become a capitalist  (or even just a better paid worker).  Whether you will become a capitalist is another matter entirely, obviously

If you think that the world will become class conscious as the result of their love for their fellow man then you are seriously deluded. What other reason could they possibly have other than the realization that our own self interests depend on each other a.k.a their class interests.

robbo203 wrote:

You claim to ” recognize that my self interest is inextricably linked to the rest of my class”. Well it wouldn’t be –  would it?  –  if you what you are adopting here is a purely “instrumentalist approach” to the rest of your class. If you see them as simply a means your own selfish ends then clearly it is not true that your self interest is linked to the rest of your class.

Except that their interests are the same as mine and the only way we can achieve our goals is to pursue our shared interest together.

robbo203 wrote:

Ironically you more or less admit this yourself  when you say Although if I had the chance to run a business I’d have no moral qualms about exploiting surplus value from others labour.  What you saying here is that the realisation of your self interest in the form of running your own business would actually demonstrate that far from your interests being “inextricably linked to the working class” those interests  would actually be opposed to the working class who you would happily exploit to further your own self interests!  The instrumentalist approach to fellow workers that comes across when you say “I recognize that my self interest is inextricably linked to the rest of my class”  will be take  a step further and put  into practice should you come to run a business and use these self same fellows to enrich yourself.

Well I wouldn’t be working class if I ran a business, would I? So no I can’t say that if I were an incredibly rich businessman that I would remain a socialist. I’d like to think I would but it could only be from the position of scientific interest rather than an actual material need for revolution.

robbo203 wrote:

No it does not it.  He is talking about the morality of the  oppressed class vis-a-vis the morality of the ruling class.  Your contention is that ” morality is the expression of ruling class interests”. Period

Clearly not my position. I hope I’ve shed some more light on my feelings about morality. I can go further and say that as morality does not exist in any objective form and that basing thought on it will only result in fallacies.

[robbo203]

Ed wrote:

 Morality is a social construct. It has no fundamental truth other than what the individual assigns to it. The only objective definitions that you could possibly find of morality is the morality imposed by the state acting as an instrument of the ruling class which manifests itself in the law. The individual can have a view of morality seprerate from that of the state but more or less bound to the state’s definition of right and wrong, which in most cases supercedes their own interests in the favour of the ruling classes interests. Either way it’s an idealistic approach which we are taught.

Of course morality is a “social construct”.  That’s not the point though, is it?  I’m not denying morality adapts to changing material conditions. The point that I am making is quite  different.  I’m not so much concerned with the content of morality – the particular notion of  what is or is not morally acceptable = as with the fact of morality itself   You are constantly confusing these two things. Human beings are social animals and there is no such a thing as a society that does not have some kind of code of behaviour. In short,  a morality. – whatever form that may take,   If you think there is such thing as an amoral  society then show me the evidence.  It would be a truly remarkable find in the world of anthropological researchYour claim that The only objective definitions that you could possibly find of morality is the morality imposed by the state acting as an instrument of the ruling class which manifests itself in the law is I’m afraid, complete bollocks.   Are  you seriously trying to suggest here that pre-state societies – like hunter gatherer band societies had no sense of morality, no code of conduct which differentiates between morally acceptable and morally unacceptable behaviour? .Conflict resolution in such societies admittedly tended to be radically decentralised involving often only the affected parties but in even the most extreme cases it is easily possible to show social mechanisms loke socialisation  for the conveyance of group opinion on the morality of certain acts such as manslaughter and often as not the parties involved in a dispute would key into group motions of morality to justify their own stance.  The group opinionis always in the background But never mind pre=state societies – what about the post state society we call communism/socialism? You claimed earlier that the quite from Engels in Anti Durhring lent support to your position. However if you read on a little this is what Engels has to say which puts the matter beyond disputeWe have not yet passed beyond class morality. A really human morality which stands above class antagonisms and above any recollection of them becomes possible only at a stage of society which has not only overcome class antagonisms but has even forgotten them in practical life (my emphasis)

Ed wrote:

ANYTHING can be described as moral if the situation calls for it. So in reality morality does not exist.

Your position it seems to me is one based old fashioned 19th century positivism.  Things exist only if they can be apprehended through senses. Yes?   Of course by this token capitalism does not exist. Have you ever smelt tasted touched or even seen capitalism?  Of course not.  Capitalism is a construct just as morality is a construct  and therefore, I suppose,  “not real.”  The working class is not real either.  Nor society and I take it as a naive empiricist you would accept Mrs Thatcher’s claim that there is no such thing as a society only individuals and their familiesAnd yet, according to you, despite this thing called morality  not existing it is conspiratorially used by the ruling class as part of our social conditioning in order to get the lower classes to accept their lot in life”.  How something that is non existent can have such a discernable real -world effect on the “lower classes”  (assuming these exist too which by your empiricist logic dont seem to) is to put it mildly, baffling

[steve colborn]

Morality, class ad nauseum, are not subjective but objective. We, as human beings do not decide our position in society, it is without our remit.
One can claim to be, MIDDLE CLASS, but this is our subjective view of our place in society. Our class is not ours to choose, it is decided for us by our relationship to the means and instruments for producing the things we need to live.

[steve colborn]

Y TERMS!OBJECTIVITY & SUBJECTIVITYThe difference between these two important ideas is the difference between fact and opinion. Facts are objective
and provably true; however, if no clear facts exist about a topic, then a series of balanced opinions needs to be
produced to allow the reader to make up his or her mind; opinions are subjective ideas held by individuals and so
are always biased. If unbalanced opinions are presented as if they are facts, they act as propaganda or persuasion,
e.g. a newspaper headline might state: “Youngsters are the prime cause of trouble in this area”. This is presented
as an objective fact but is clearly a subjective opinion.
An objective piece of information, therefore, needs either to be the whole truth and at least be unbiased or
balanced, whereas a subjective point of view is biased because it is either not the complete picture or it is
merely a viewpoint or expression of feelings.
When studying literature, it is best to be objective when you consider a text’s qualities. Of course, literature
read for pleasure should be approached subjectively as this allows you to ‘be there’ with the characters, feeling
involved with the plot and so forth. But when you discuss literature for an essay, it is far safer to ‘stand back’
and see it objectively for what it is: no more than an attempt to engage and hold your attention, build trust in
its writer, and persuade you to a way of thinking – the writer’s way!
Looked at objectively, a text is no more than a ‘vehicle’ for communicating a persuasive message. This applies to
characters and settings, too – all highly compelling and believable ‘vehicles’ for the writer to convince you to
think his or her way!

[Ed]

robbo203 wrote:

Of course morality is a “social construct”.  Thats not the point though, is it?  I’m not denying morality adapts to changing material conditions. The point that I am making is quite  different.  I’m not so much concerned with the content of morality – the particular notion of  what is or is not morally acceptable = as with the fact of morality itself   You are constantly confusing these two things. Human beings are social animals and there is no such a thing as a society that does not have some kind of code of behaviour. In short,  a morality. – whatever form that may take,   If you think there is such thing as an amoral  society then show me the evidence.  It would be a truly remarkable find in the world of anthropological researchYour claim that The only objective definitions that you could possibly find of morality is the morality imposed by the state acting as an instrument of the ruling class which manifests itself in the law is I’m afraid, complete bollocks.   Are  you seriously trying to suggest here that pre-state societies – like hunter gatherer band societies had no sense of morality, no code of conduct which differentiates between morally acceptable and morally unacceptable behaviour? .Conflict resolution in such societies admittedly tended to be radically decentralised involving often only the affected parties but in even the most extreme cases it is easily possible to show social mechanisms loke socialisation  for the conveyance of group opinion on the morality of certain acts such as manslaughter and often as not the parties involved in a dispute would key into group motions of morality to justify their own stance.  The group opinion is always in the background

I’m obviously not being clear enough so apologies for that. There is no right and wrong, something can be right in certain situations and wrong in others depending on the material conditions effecting the decision. So if there is no right and wrong there are no moral truths. Any argument based on morality presupposes that there is a moral truth since that cannot be it is bound to result in a fallacy. I’m not arguing for amorality since that also presumes that there is a morality.You on the other hand seem to be saying that morality is best practice. There is certainly best practice and some of which is shared almost universally while other parts are purely subjective. Best practice can be anything but it is the accumulation of experience based on actual results, a crude form of science. For example when I wipe my arse I neatly fold the tissue paper, I find this way uses less tissue paper than scrunching it up in a ball. Now this isn’t a moral decision, that is best practice I’m not saying scrunching tissue paper in a ball (or any other way) is wrong. It’s just not as effective as the other method. This can be extended to anything I don’t call for reforms to capitalism, since it is proven not to be best practice in achieving the results I need. I don’t go around killing people as it is not in my interests to do so, I have witnessed what happens to other people who have murdered and so do not want the same to happen to me. Although if the situation called for it then I’d have no objection to it.Morality differs because it says at any given time that something is either universally right or universally wrong.Pre-state societies developed best practice, I think it will be hard to prove either way if they had a sense of morality.

robbo203 wrote:

But never mind pre=state societies – what about the post state society we call communism/socialism?

I’ll just dust off my crystal ball. I would hope that humanity could transcend past using such logical fallacies as morality and I see no reason why the concept should not disappear in time (may take a long time though).

Ed wrote:

ANYTHING can be described as moral if the situation calls for it. So in reality morality does not exist.

robbo203 wrote:

Your position it seems to me is one based old fashioned 19th century positivism.  Things exist only if they can be apprehended through senses. Yes?

No, it’s 21st century Moral Nihilism (No, Young Master Smeet, not like the Hells Angels) specifically a branch of error theory called fictionalism. The best written source would be Richard Joyce’s Myth of Morality. But for the record I arrived at my views independently and so are not exactly the same but that’s probably the closest you can get.

robbo203 wrote:

Of course by this token capitalism does not exist. Have you ever smelt tasted touched or even seen capitalism?  Of course not .  Capitalism is a construct just as morality is a construct and therefore, I suppose,  “not real.”  The working class is not real either.  Nor society and I take it as a naive empiricist you would accept Mrs Thatcher’s claim that there is no such thing as a society only individuals and their families

No capitalism can be observed, defined, recorded and measured. It is a socio-economic construct not a social one; there’s a big difference.

robbo203 wrote:

And yet, according to you, despite this thing called morality  not existing  it is conspiratorially used by the ruling class as part of our social conditioning in order to get the lower classes to accept their lot in life”..  How something that is non existent can have such a discernable real -world effect on the “lower classes”  (assuming these exist too  which by your empiricist logic dont seem to) is to put it mildly, baffling

It’s only existence is as an idea thus idealism. A fallacy used to stop people acting in their own interests. You might as well have said that it exists by the fact that we are talking about it.Can you provide an example of a single moral truth?

[Ed]

steve colborn wrote:

Y TERMS!OBJECTIVITY & SUBJECTIVITYThe difference between these two important ideas is the difference between fact and opinion. Facts are objectiveand provably true; however, if no clear facts exist about a topic, then a series of balanced opinions needs to beproduced to allow the reader to make up his or her mind; opinions are subjective ideas held by individuals and soare always biased. If unbalanced opinions are presented as if they are facts, they act as propaganda or persuasion,e.g. a newspaper headline might state: “Youngsters are the prime cause of trouble in this area”. This is presentedas an objective fact but is clearly a subjective opinion.An objective piece of information, therefore, needs either to be the whole truth and at least be unbiased orbalanced, whereas a subjective point of view is biased because it is either not the complete picture or it ismerely a viewpoint or expression of feelings.When studying literature, it is best to be objective when you consider a text’s qualities. Of course, literatureread for pleasure should be approached subjectively as this allows you to ‘be there’ with the characters, feelinginvolved with the plot and so forth. But when you discuss literature for an essay, it is far safer to ‘stand back’and see it objectively for what it is: no more than an attempt to engage and hold your attention, build trust inits writer, and persuade you to a way of thinking – the writer’s way!Looked at objectively, a text is no more than a ‘vehicle’ for communicating a persuasive message. This applies tocharacters and settings, too – all highly compelling and believable ‘vehicles’ for the writer to convince you tothink his or her way!

I pretty much agree with thisbut then how do you conclude that morality is objective?

steve colborn wrote:

Morality, class ad nauseum, is not subjective but objective. We, as human beings do not decide our position in society, it is without our remit.

steve colborn wrote:

One can claim to be, MIDDLE CLASS, but this is our subjective view of our place in society. Our class is not ours to choose, it is decided for us by our relationship to the means and instruments for producing the things we need to live.

Social class is a classic example of a social construct rather than a socio-economic one. Thus rendering it a completely subjective term as compared with the socialist definition of class which can be defined as an effect of capitlism making it an objective term.

[robbo203]

Ed wrote:

I’m obviously not being clear enough so apologies for that. There is no right and wrong, something can be right in certain situations and wrong in others depending on the material conditions effecting the decision. So if there is no right and wrong there are no moral truths. Any argument based on morality presupposes that there is a moral truth since that cannot be it is bound to result in a fallacy. I’m not arguing for amorality since that also presumes that there is a morality.

You are still not getting the point, EdI’m not disputing that what people take to be  moral truths are variable, adaptable and historically contingent  . Of course there is no right or wrong in that absolutist timeless sense. What is right in one circumstance may very well be wrong in another and vice versa   – although the American anthropologist  Donald Brown has noted in his work on “human universals” that there are certain things, such a bias favouring kin over unrelated strangers, which are culturally invariant.  Thus “charity begins at home” or something like that might perhaps be an example of the kind of moral truth you might be looking for However for the purpose if this argument this is not really what interests me . What interests me is the plain and deniable fact that people always and everywhere have had some notion of what is right and what is wrong –  irrespective of what these notions may mean in practice. I repeat – there is no such  thing as a society  that lacks some notion of morality whatever that notion may be.. Nor could there ever be  .  Living in society involves conforming to certain rules about one ought to do or not do do .    What these rules are of course depends on the society in question but all societies without exception have such rules -a code of behaviour.  It is this code of behaviour that we are talking about when we refer to “morality” We are all socialised in one way or another and to a lesser or greater extent into accepting of internalising this socially sanctioned code of behaviour.  You are no different.  Let me ask you –  would you regard, say,   deliberately running over an old lady crossing the street is a matter of complete indifference?  Of course you wouldn’t.   In fact even if you ran over the old lady by accident you would still feel completely gutted and, quite likely ,overcome by a sense of guilt that might last a lifetime even though strictly speaking you may not have been to blame at all. That is, of course, unless you were a clinically diagnosed as a sociopath  But why would you feel like this? The reason is that for you that old lady has value in herself. This is what morality is about. It is about our relationship with other people who we care about,  who we see as having value in themselves and not simply as a means to our own selfish ends.  Who those people are who we care about will, of course, vary from society. to society. A nationalist might morally identify with her nation and the citizens who comprise it but not the citizens of some other nation.  A gang member will morally identify the members of his gang  but happily kick the shit out of someone from some other gang.  Minimally, almost everyone cares about and morally identifies with their family and close relatives  In this sense there is no escaping the moral impulse and it is absolutely delusional to think that you can. Human beings are moral animals because they are social animals. Period

Ed wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

But never mind pre=state societies – what about the post state society we call communism/socialism?

I’ll just dust off my crystal ball. I would hope that humanity could transcend past using such logical fallacies as morality and I see no reason why the concept should not disappear in time (may take a long time though).ANYTHING can be described as moral if the situation calls for it. So in reality morality does not exist.

  Are you seriously suggesting that socialism will have have no kind of tacit social rules, no code of behaviour, no notion of right or wrong – in short moral nihilism.  So it will be a matter of indifference to the citizens of a socialist community somewhere if one of their  members rapes a ten year old girl.  You have seriously got to be kidding. Of course they will care and what is that if not acting on moral impulses In socialism morality will not be less important but more important than ever before. As the man said socialism will be the basis on which is a truly human morality can flourish once we’ve dispensed with the class morality of capitalism

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

“Are you seriously suggesting that socialism will have have no kind of tacit social rules, no code of behaviour, no notion of right or wrong – in short moral nihilism.  So it will be a matter of indifference to the citizens of a socialist community somewhere if one of their  members rapes a ten year old girl.  You have seriously got to be kidding. Of course they will care and what is that if not acting on moral impulses”

I will not be against rape of a ten year old girl because of some idea that it is morally wrong or a ‘sin’ I will be against rape because it is pain that I feel, empathy. I do not want to be raped! Not because of an inbuilt ‘morality’ or because of the ten commandments! Preventing the rape of children is in our genes. Self preservation, survival. Is it ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ to be hungry? Or to  allow a 10 year old child to go hungry? Hunger can kill!

[robbo203]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

“Are you seriously suggesting that socialism will have have no kind of tacit social rules, no code of behaviour, no notion of right or wrong – in short moral nihilism.  So it will be a matter of indifference to the citizens of a socialist community somewhere if one of their  members rapes a ten year old girl.  You have seriously got to be kidding. Of course they will care and what is that if not acting on moral impulses”

I will not be against rape of a ten year old girl because of some idea that it is morally wrong or a ‘sin’ I will be against rape because it is pain that I feel, empathy. I do not want to be raped! Not because of an inbuilt ‘morality’ or because of the ten commandments! Preventing the rape of children is in our genes. Self preservation, survival. Is it ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ to be hungry? Or to allow a 10 year old child to go hungry? Hunger can kill!

Firstly, morality is not necessarily linked with religion at all.  So the notion of  “sin” is irrelevant to this discussion.  Most atheists I know of are extremely morally sensitive individuals Secondly, the issue is not whether you don’t want to be raped because it is painful.  The issue is precisely that someone else is being raped and you obviously disapprove of it.  Morality as I said is  an other-oriented disposition and one way or another , the disapproval you evince towards someone else being raped is  a moral response.  You regard it as morally unacceptable.  Why not simply call a spade a spade?   I cannot understand why some socialists pussyfoot around the word morality as if even to utter it is to condemn yourself  in the venerable comnpany of  ..ahem… “scientifc materialists” who have no truck with such “idealist” nonsense   Whether your response is “inbuilt” or not is neither here nor there and I’m not quite sure what you mean by that anyway though I imagine you mean “genetically determined”. I doubt that it is but what cannot be doubted is that it is a moral response that is being demonstrated by your display of moral disapprobation towards the act of raping a ten year old child

[Ed]

robbo203 wrote:

You are still not getting the point, EdI’m not disputing that what people take to be  moral truths are variable, adaptable and historically contingent  . Of course there is no right or wrong in that absolutist timeless sense. What is right in one circumstance may very well be wrong in another and vice versa- although the American anthropologist  Donald Brown has noted in his work on “human universals” that there are certain things, such a bias favoring kin over unrelated strangers, which are culturally invariant.  Thus “charity begins at home” or something like that might perhaps be an example of the kind of moral truth you might be looking for

That’s a big concession because if there is no universal right and wrong then no moral judgments are true. I must say I am surprised that you chose nepotism as your example of a moral truth.. Rather than it being a moral choice to favour ones offspring could this not be a case of perceived best interests? I mean it’s hardly objective, half the people I grew up with were being kicked out of their family homes while they were still at school. Dumped on social services at worst or put up by friends families if they were lucky. There’s also the rather ghoulish tendency of some to look forward to relatives dying due to the inheritance. 

robbo203 wrote:

However for the purpose if this argument this is not really what interests me.  What interests me is the plain and deniable fact that people always and everywhere have had some notion of what is right and what is wrong –  irrespective of what these notions may mean in practice. I repeat – there is no such  thing as a society  that lacks some notion of morality whatever that notion may be.. Nor could there ever be .  Living in society involves conforming to certain rules about one ought to do or not do do .    What these rules are of course depends on the society in question but all societies without exception have such rules -a code of behavior.  It is this code of behavior that we are talking about when we refer to “morality”

But you’ve just said that there is no right or wrong. I see this as a contradiction or not following through with the logical conclusion. If there is no moral truth then all moral judgments are based on fallacies. What people do claim are their morals amount to no more than asserting an opinion.”murder is wrong” this is a subjective statement presented as fact by a person who is presupposing that there is a moral truth to murder being wrong. It is however based on a fallacy and so must be incorrect. All the statement is really saying is “I don’t like murder so don’t do it”. Now it may be a true statement for material reasons that people should not kill each other but the way it is presented makes it a fallacy. This also means that in the context of moral socialists (which I think was your original point a few pages back) that people can be motivated to be socialists on moral grounds (and in my experience the vast majority of socialists are). However, that motivation is not based on a material position it’s based on a fallacy. So they are correct but for the wrong reasons. They can of course correct this by learning socialism from a scientific perspective.

robbo203 wrote:

We are all socialised in one way or another and to a lesser or greater extent into accepting of internalising this socially sanctioned code of behaviour.

In other words social construct (implying subjectivity)

robbo203 wrote:

You are no different.  Let me ask you –  would you regard, say,   deliberately running over an old lady crossing the street is a matter of complete indifference?  Of course you wouldn’t.   In fact even if you ran over the old lady by accident you would still feel completely gutted and, quite likely, overcome by a sense of guilt that might last a lifetime even though strictly speaking you may not have been to blame at all. That is, of course, unless you were a clinically diagnosed as a sociopath  But why would you feel like this? The reason is that for you that old lady has value in herself.

This presupposes that the old lady is not Margaret Thatcher. If it were I don’t think I’d feel guilty and I’d probably never have to buy another drink for the rest of my life. So no I’d be quite pleased in certain circumstances. But you also presuppose that I am acting in an irrational way. For what reason am I attempting to run down this old lady? Surely I must have a reason for my actions based on material reality rather than behaving in a completely random manner. And if it were an accident then it would be irrational to proportion blame on myself since by the fact of it being accidental.

robbo203 wrote:

This is what morality is about. It is about our relationship with other people who we care about,  who we see as having value in themselves and not simply as a means to our own selfish ends.  Who those people are who we care about will, of course, vary from society. to society. A nationalist might morally identify with her nation and the citizens who comprise it but not the citizens of some other nation.  A gang member will morally identify the members of his gang  but happily kick the shit out of someone from some other gang.  Minimally, almost everyone cares about and morally identifies with their family and close relativesIn this sense there is no escaping the moral impulse and it is absolutely delusional to think that you can. Human beings are moral animals because they are social animals. PeriodAre you seriously suggesting that socialism will have have no kind of tacit social rules, no code of behaviour, no notion of right or wrong – in short moral nihilism.  So it will be a matter of indifference to the citizens of a socialist community somewhere if one of their members rapes a ten year old girl.  You have seriously got to be kidding. Of course they will care and what is that if not acting on moral impulses

So what you are calling morality I call acting in perceived self interest. Now when I said self interest before you started thinking ZOMG Stirner, Rand, Individualism this must be evil. However as we are indeed social animals our interests are linked and cannot be separated. If something negatively affects one of us it can have far wider implications affecting all of us. So it is in our best interests to prevent harm and negative impacts on one another even if it does not affect us directly. However, as I feel I’ve demonstrated many times morality itself is an empty phrase with no meaning based in reality. So people may act in their best interests and say it’s a moral act but as I said the action may be correct but not for the right reasons. The real reason they are doing something is due to their own perceived self interest.Moral Nihilism is simply saying that morals don’t exist and explaining why. It’s not promoting a view where everyone should go out and murder each other.

[robbo203]

Ed wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

You are still not getting the point, EdI’m not disputing that what people take to be  moral truths are variable, adaptable and historically contingent  . Of course there is no right or wrong in that absolutist timeless sense. What is right in one circumstance may very well be wrong in another and vice versa- although the American anthropologist  Donald Brown has noted in his work on “human universals” that there are certain things, such a bias favoring kin over unrelated strangers, which are culturally invariant.  Thus “charity begins at home” or something like that might perhaps be an example of the kind of moral truth you might be looking for

That’s a big concession because if there is no universal right and wrong then no moral judgments are true. I must say I am surprised that you chose nepotism as your example of a moral truth.. Rather than it being a moral choice to favour ones offspring could this not be a case of perceived best interests? I mean it’s hardly objective, half the people I grew up with were being kicked out of their family homes while they were still at school. Dumped on social services at worst or put up by friends families if they were lucky. There’s also the rather ghoulish tendency of some to look forward to relatives dying due to the inheritance.

  Even if  there were no timeless absolute moral truths in the sense of being operative in every kind of society we have ever known  – and as I say, some people like Brown would question this –  this does not mean there are not relative moral truths applying to particular societies at particular times.  You are using the word “truth” in an absolutist sense which is absurd.  So you say if there is no universal right and wrong then no moral judgments are true.  But that’s not the case.  A moral truth is not like an empirical truth and cannot be inferred from the latter as Hume contended (the Is-Ought problem).  What might be true for you might not be true for someone else.  But it is still true for you!  So someone might find eating meat morally reprehensible , someone else might find it perfectly natural.  For each of them this is their truthOn nepotism, or kin selection as it is called in the literature, here we have a classic case where both self interest AND altruism is apparent.  It is not simply a case of perceived self interest on its own as you claim. That’s absurd when you think about it.  You as an individual are relating to someone else – your child, brother, parent or whatever –  on the basis that they have value in themselves.  This is a moral choice without question.  A person who dives into a raging river with no concern for her own safety to save her drowning child is acting on a deep rooted moral impulse. If it were simply a case of self interest as you claim, she would want to preserve her life and not risk losing it.  As Dawkins put it in his book The Selfish Gene, while the replication of your own genes requires that you survive and pass these on to your offspring, genes themselves have no motivation – that is an anthropomorphism – and it would be misleading to transfer the metaphor of the selfish gene to conscious sentient organisms like human beings who are fully capable of psychological altruism as well as psychological egoism 

Ed wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

However for the purpose if this argument this is not really what interests me.  What interests me is the plain and deniable fact that people always and everywhere have had some notion of what is right and what is wrong –  irrespective of what these notions may mean in practice. I repeat – there is no such  thing as a society that lacks some notion of morality whatever that notion may be.. Nor could there ever be.  Living in society involves conforming to certain rules about one ought to do or not do do .    What these rules are of course depends on the society in question but all societies without exception have such rules -a code of behavior.  It is this code of behavior that we are talking about when we refer to “morality”

But you’ve just said that there is no right or wrong. I see this as a contradiction or not following through with the logical conclusion. If there is no moral truth then all moral judgments are based on fallacies. What people do claim are their morals amount to no more than asserting an opinion.”murder is wrong” this is a subjective statement presented as fact by a person who is presupposing that there is a moral truth to murder being wrong. It is however based on a fallacy and so must be incorrect. All the statement is really saying is “I don’t like murder so don’t do it”. Now it may be a true statement for material reasons that people should not kill each other but the way it is presented makes it a fallacy. This also means that in the context of moral socialists (which I think was your original point a few pages back) that people can be motivated to be socialists on moral grounds (and in my experience the vast majority of socialists are). However, that motivation is not based on a material position it’s based on a fallacy. So they are correct but for the wrong reasons. They can of course correct this by learning socialism from a scientific perspective..

 I did not say there was no right or wrong. I said there was (apparently) no absolute notion of what is right or wrong. People will fashion their notion of right or wrong to fit their circumstances  but they will always have some notion of right or wrong whatever that may be.  THAT is what is universal – not the actual content of their moral beliefs.  And this will apply also to  people living in a socialist society. There is simply no “fallacy” involved in the way you suggest ,behind the claim that saying murder is wrong is a moral truth.  It most certainly is a moral truth for the person uttering such a claim . You assert that all the statement “murder is wrong” is really saying is “I don’t like murder so don’t do it”.  Well hardly – surely you can see it is saying rather more than something like “I feel squeamish at the sight of blood when the murderer plunges his knife into chest of his victim so please don’t do it front of me”. It is saying that the victim has a life that has value and that it is outrageous that he or she should forfeit that life at the hands of a murderer. The injunction “don’t do it” is intended as a general rule which applies to everyone including those unknown to the individual making this statementOn the face of it your position seems to one of “psychological egoism” in which everything is viewed through the prism of what is perceived to be in the interest of the one’s self. Every act even the most altruistic act such as the willingness to lay down one’s life for someone else is perceived to be fundamentally self interested.  This is what James Rachels has dubbed the egoistic “strategy of redefining motives” (The Elements of Moral Philosophy)  and it is deeply flawed for all sorts of reasons.  I might add that I find it very ironic that a socialist  should be espousing such an individualistic viewpoint. I thought socialism was predicated on the assumption of the social nature of human beings

Ed wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

You are no different.  Let me ask you –  would you regard, say, deliberately running over an old lady crossing the street is a matter of complete indifference?  Of course you wouldn’t.   In fact even if you ran over the old lady by accident you would still feel completely gutted and, quite likely, overcome by a sense of guilt that might last a lifetime even though strictly speaking you may not have been to blame at all. That is, of course, unless you were a clinically diagnosed as a sociopath  But why would you feel like this? The reason is that for you that old lady has value in herself.

This presupposes that the old lady is not Margaret Thatcher. If it were I don’t think I’d feel guilty and I’d probably never have to buy another drink for the rest of my life. So no I’d be quite pleased in certain circumstances. But you also presuppose that I am acting in an irrational way. For what reason am I attempting to run down this old lady? Surely I must have a reason for my actions based on material reality rather than behaving in a completely random manner. And if it were an accident then it would be irrational to proportion blame on myself since by the fact of it being accidental.

Yes of course it would be “irrational” to feel culpable for running over the old lady by accident but that’s the whole point, surely? . People are both rational and irrational; we are not just cold calculating machines assessing the world around us in terms of our own self interest.  The normal reaction to running over an old lady by accident would be one of horror and guilt. All sorts of thoughts  would go through one’s head  like  “If only I had stopped off at the newsagents a minute earlier this might not have happened”.  This is how real people think in real life.  Of course they will also try to rationalize what  happened too.  But whether they feel guilty or not the point is they will definitely not feel indifferent unless they are some clinically diagnosed sociopath.  And why is that?  To say that it is simply a case of you not liking  the idea of an old lady being run over is obviously trite. Its more than this surely. It is because the old lady is perceived to have value in herself. This is the basis of all moral thinking- that others matter and not just ourselves.  Group existence requires it and there is growing body of opinion in the world of evolutionary pstchology which argues that group selection  (which Darwin endorsed) may in fact be a reality.  In other words a capacity for moral thinking – like a capacity for language –  might be hardwired into our very nature

Ed wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

This is what morality is about. It is about our relationship with other people who we care about,  who we see as having value in themselves and not simply as a means to our own selfish ends.  Who those people are who we care about will, of course, vary from society. to society. A nationalist might morally identify with her nation and the citizens who comprise it but not the citizens of some other nation.  A gang member will morally identify the members of his gang  but happily kick the shit out of someone from some other gang.  Minimally, almost everyone cares about and morally identifies with their family and close relativesIn this sense there is no escaping the moral impulse and it is absolutely delusional to think that you can. Human beings are moral animals because they are social animals. PeriodAre you seriously suggesting that socialism will have have no kind of tacit social rules, no code of behaviour, no notion of right or wrong – in short moral nihilism.  So it will be a matter of indifference to the citizens of a socialist community somewhere if one of their members rapes a ten year old girl.  You have seriously got to be kidding. Of course they will care and what is that if not acting on moral impulses

So what you are calling morality I call acting in perceived self interest. Now when I said self interest before you started thinking ZOMG Stirner, Rand, Individualism this must be evil. However as we are indeed social animals our interests are linked and cannot be separated. If something negatively affects one of us it can have far wider implications affecting all of us. So it is in our best interests to prevent harm and negative impacts on one another even if it does not affect us directly. However, as I feel I’ve demonstrated many times morality itself is an empty phrase with no meaning based in reality. So people may act in their best interests and say it’s a moral act but as I said the action may be correct but not for the right reasons. The real reason they are doing something is due to their own perceived self interest.Moral Nihilism is simply saying that morals don’t exist and explaining why. It’s not promoting a view where everyone should go out and murder each other.

 Morality is not about perceived self interest.  This is Randianism pure and simple . Rand would not disagree with a single word you have written thus far and would endorse your claim about your interests being linked with the interests of others and this being a reason for you to cooperate with them  – because they serve your own selfish ends.  Actually no –  even Rand wouldn’t go quite as far as you since although she utterly rejected the  Kantian idea of a moral duty she did nevertheless concede that other have some value in themselves but this value could never supersede ones own worth  (see her writing on the subject of benevolence)If you feel you have “demonstrated many times morality itself is an empty phrase with no meaning based in reality” this is because you yourself have drained it of meaning . The real reason people are doing something according to you is not because they feel under some kind of moral compulsion to do it but because it is due to their own perceived self interest.  So a volunteer who rushes into burning house without a seconds thought to save the life of stranger is doing this out his perceived interest and not out of any sense of moral compulsion, huh? Come off it, Ed . You must know this is ridiculous argument.And, again,  I put it  to you – if your perceived self interest is all that motivates you  – and note I’m not saying self interest is not a source of motivation and that it does not have a role to play  – why not strive to become a capitalist or simply a better paid worker?.  Why not become a scab when your workplace goes on strike because obviously it is in your perceived self interest that you should continue getting paid while others are striking and, indeed, you might even get a leg up on the career ladder later on as a result by a grateful management.  How is advocating socialism in your perceived self interest when we are still a million miles from socialism and when you could be utilising all that energy to advancing your “perceived self interests in the here and now much more effectively and for a much bigger ” return”The truth of the matter is that there is much more to life than your  “perceived self interest” and you as a socialist, of all people, should know that

[Anonymous]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

“Are you seriously suggesting that socialism will have have no kind of tacit social rules, no code of behaviour, no notion of right or wrong – in short moral nihilism.  So it will be a matter of indifference to the citizens of a socialist community somewhere if one of their  members rapes a ten year old girl.  You have seriously got to be kidding. Of course they will care and what is that if not acting on moral impulses”

I will not be against rape of a ten year old girl because of some idea that it is morally wrong or a ‘sin’ I will be against rape because it is pain that I feel, empathy. I do not want to be raped! Not because of an inbuilt ‘morality’ or because of the ten commandments! Preventing the rape of children is in our genes. Self preservation, survival. Is it ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ to be hungry? Or to allow a 10 year old child to go hungry? Hunger can kill!

robbo203 wrote:

Firstly, morality is not necessarily linked with religion at all.  So the notion of  “sin” is irrelevant to this discussion.  Most atheists I know of are extremely morally sensitive individuals Secondly, the issue is not whether you don’t want to be raped because it is painful.  The issue is precisely that someone else is being raped and you obviously disapprove of it.  Morality as I said is an other-oriented disposition and one way or another , the disapproval you evince towards someone else being raped is a moral response.  You regard it as morally unacceptable.  Why not simply call a spade a spade?   I cannot understand why some socialists pussyfoot around the word morality as if even to utter it is to condemn yourself  in the venerable comnpany of  ..ahem… “scientifc materialists” who have no truck with such “idealist” nonsense   Whether your response is “inbuilt” or not is neither here nor there and I’m not quite sure what you mean by that anyway though I imagine you mean “genetically determined”. I doubt that it is but what cannot be doubted is that it is a moral response that is being demonstrated by your display of moral disapprobation towards the act of raping a ten year old child

You have misinterpreted my words. Nowhere have I said that I find rape morally unacceptable. I do not like rape, I do not like hunger. It is YOU that implies I believe them to be a moral issue. It used to be religious people who thought that their beliefs were the only basis of a civilised society now it is the moral brigade. Socialism will remove the need for both

[robbo203]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Secondly, the issue is not whether you don’t want to be raped because it is painful.  The issue is precisely that someone else is being raped and you obviously disapprove of it.  Morality as I said is  an other-oriented disposition and one way or another, the disapproval you evince towards someone else being raped is  a moral response.  You regard it as morally unacceptable.  Why not simply call a spade a spade?   I cannot understand why some socialists pussyfoot around the word morality as if even to utter it is to condemn yourself  in the venerable company of  ..ahem… “scientific materialists” who have no truck with such “idealist” nonsense 

You have misinterpreted my words. Nowhere have I said that I find rape morally unacceptable. I do not like rape, I do not like hunger. It is YOU that implies I believe them to be a moral issue. It used to be religious people who thought that their beliefs were the only basis of a civilised society now it is the moral brigade. Socialism will remove the need for both

 Well, no, that’s not quite what I meant although I concede my wording was unclear.  What I should have said is that you deny that rape is morally unacceptable but that your stated opinion on the subject implies just that – that rape is morally unacceptable. This should have been obvious in the context and from my remark “why not simply call a spade a spade” There is,  of course, absolutely no chance whatsoever that socialism or any kind of human society will ever remove the need for morality.   Why do you and Ed persist with this absolutely ridiculous and balmy idea?  I just don’t get it. Morality simply means some socially accepted code of behaviour comprising certain social rules about the “do’s” and “don’ts” of living together in a society.  It so simple and straightforward and yet you make such a big hooha about it as if it were some kind of mystical mumbo jumbo descending from the heavens to baffle and confuse us mere mortals. It’s not.  It’s a completely human made social product designed to ensure people get along with each other in with the business of living in a society. The idea that socialism is not going to have a list of do’s and dont’s implies that you think a socialist society would be completely neutral on the subject of, say,  rape. In that event one could imagine the response of a citizen of a socialist society along the lines of  “well its not my cup of tea but you go ahead and rape that person down the road if you want to, Its not my business” Its banal to say that you reject rape simply because “you don’t like it”. If you don’t  like it then surely for heaven’s sake what goes with that is the imperative that people ought not to rape one another. It is the existence of that implied imperative – don’t rape another person! – which makes your attitude to rape morally-based. You don’t just say “I don’t like rape” and leave it at that.  That is absurd!  What you try to do, precisely because you don’t like rape, is to PREEMPT  rape by the formulation of  a tacit rule “don’t rape another person” and this most definitely is a moral response!

[Ed]

Robbo you’ve created an army of rather insulting strawmen if you’re no longer going to even attempt to debate I see little point in continuing.Calling me Randian is out of order and is quite ignorant. I saw a great article once from a former Objectivist who denounced Rand’s philosophy through the use of a scenario. I’ve quite clearly said that Self Interest = Class interest now Rand says that self interest is only bourgeois interest and then turns that into a MORAL argument.The scenario:You are on a plane with a few hundred people which crashes on a desert island. On this desert island there lives alone one man in a huge mansion surrounded by some fields and the only water source on the island which is all walled off from the rest of the island.You walk up to the gates and press the intercom and ask the man for some help.He says he will give you all some rations of water and some food if you all work the fields for him essentially becoming slaves. And if you don’t you will all starve to death.Now you only have 2 optionsyou can submit to being the man’s slave and try to cozy up to him to become his favourite in the hope that you can maybe gain a supervisory role and perhaps a larger ration of the produce.Or you can talk to the other survivors and together you can scale the walls kill the man and work the land together.Which is in your self interest?Taking the first option where there is only a small chance of success that the man will grant you a position of authority and a larger ration.Or recognising that your self interest is exactly the same as the other survivors and you can only be sure to get what’s in your interest by working together with all of them to defeat the man.Now Rand would say that the man in the mansion is completely morally justified in doing whatever he wants with the property and that the best interests of the survivors would be to respect the moral right of the man to own his property and submit to slavery and through hard work and servitude you should hope to earn yourself a better position with a view to becoming the man in the future. As it is immoral to take away someone’s property.The moral Nihilist position is that the man is neither justified or unjustified in using the property any way he sees fit. However, it is also neither moral or immoral to kill the man and take his property and that this would be the option which is in your interests as it has the higher chance of success.The scenario is usually presented as a moral question “is it right to kill the man and take his property?” and people for the most part choose the second option. Unless they’re just trying to be difficult. Those who deeply believe in a moral truth sometimes choose a third option which is death by starvation.I also need to take on another of your strawmen. I actually DID say that a moral statement can be true but cannot be true for moral reasons. We call these truth-apt statements. The statement may be true however it’s true for the wrong reasons. Like a pre-civilization man saying the world is round. He has no way of knowing whether it is round or flat or shaped like a banana. The statement is true but it is subjective opinion stated as fact. This is the same way that morality works.

[Author]

Posts