Brennon has been taking a lot of abuse over at Debunking Christianity for making the self-evident point that a moral relativist automatically disqualifies himself from moralizing about the conduct of others.
This isn't the first time he's tangled with irate infidels. When he made a passing and perfectly innocuous comment about the demise of Ken Pulliam, infidels pounced on him even though, as he pointed out, they have no foundation for their quivering outrage. And, indeed, many noted secular thinkers openly admit as much.
The problem is that, for militant atheists, rationality is just a pose. They want to project the image of rational superiority, but they can't stand it when you hold them to their position.
If, in fact, there is a fact of the matter about ethics, and if, in fact, what Brennon did was wrong, whether or not atheists/moral relativists/whatever have grounds to condemn your behavior is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteAs you guys assumedly think there is a fact of the matter about ethics, pointing to a supposed hypocrisy in atheists accusing you of bad behavior doesn't mean you didn't do something wrong even if you're right about hypocrisy.
So this charge of hypocrisy is huge red herring when arguing you didn't do something wrong. That's somewhat ironic given the posturing on 'rationality'.
thepolemicalmedic said:
ReplyDelete---
If, in fact, there is a fact of the matter about ethics...
---
Which refutes moral relativism, but thanks for playing.
You continued:
---
...and if, in fact, what Brennon did was wrong...
---
Something which must be proven. Now there are two ways to prove this. 1) You can prove that Brennon is inconsistent with some brute fact of ethics, which requires you to demonstrate how these ethics are brute facts in your own worldview or; 2) you have to prove what Brennon did is inconsistent with his own set of ethics.
Have at it.
You finished the sentence with:
---
...whether or not atheists/moral relativists/whatever have grounds to condemn your behavior is irrelevant.
---
That assumes that pointing out hypocrisy is not, itself, a moral good.
You said:
---
As you guys assumedly think there is a fact of the matter about ethics, pointing to a supposed hypocrisy in atheists accusing you of bad behavior doesn't mean you didn't do something wrong even if you're right about hypocrisy.
---
Of course, you completely ignore the *CONSEQUENCES* of this statement. If any of this behavior is actually wrong, then moral relativism cannot succeed as a philosophy. Let us grant that it is actually wrong. Moral relativists have slit their own throat to condemn us. They have disproven their own belief system.
In other words, any "points" they hope to score by pointing out that anything Paul or Brennon did is wrong are trivial compared to the damage they inflict on their own position. It's like they shoot themselves in the head in the hopes that a bone fragment will splinter off and scratch their opponent--hardly a rational debate technique, no?
It is hardly a red herring to point this out. Any time you have to eviscerate your own position merely to try to land a blow against your opponent ought to tell you something about the frivolous nature of your own position.
If someone makes argument X, and you respond, "Well you don't have any basis for any arguments because you are a relativist", then you may as well have farted in response, as you'd do the same amount of damage to argument X that way, but you would be more entertaining.
ReplyDeleteAt best, it's a red herring, at worst it's an ad hominem. In truth, it's usually both.
If you want to have a discussion about the prospects for accounting for rationality in a naturalistic worldview, that's a discussion waiting to be had, not a universal acid you can throw against any old argument or discussion the naturalist tries to engage.
BDK,
ReplyDeleteEver hear of stolen concepts?
If a moral relativist has to steal from a Christian worldview in order to make a moral charge, then he has shown that his own worldview is insufficient to account for reality. Again, that is far more damaging to the relativist's argument than it would be damaging for the Christian to have done something unethical, if in fact the Christian *did* do something unethical (which hasn't been proven here anyway).
You're making no attempt to be reasonable
ReplyDeletei) The question at issue is not how we respond to some generic argument X. Rather, the argument in question is specifically a moral objection. Avalos is raised a moral objection to Triablogue.
ii) It is hardly red herring or ad hominem to point out the self-contradiction of an avowed moral relativist presuming to render a value judgment regarding someone else's conduct.
iii) Moreover, since you yourself are a moral relativist, I'm not impressed by your disapproval.
iv) We're not discussing "any old argument." Pay attention. Avalos was discussing ethics. Don't you remember? Therefore, the issue of moral realism v. moral relativism is directly germane to the force of his argument.
v) And, yes, as a matter of fact, moral relativism is a universal acid. If there are no objective moral norms, then there are no epistemic duties. Then there's no obligation to be logical or truthful or reasonable.
That follows from your own worldview. Don't bitch and complain when we make you drink your own vial of acid. Thems the breaks.
If you can't live with the nihilistic consequences of your atheistic worldview, then change your worldview to one that's viable.
vi) And while you're at it, learn the difference between different types of "ad hominem" arguments. A tu quoque argument is a perfectly respectable type of argument.
"If a moral relativist has to steal from a Christian worldview in order to make a moral charge, then he has shown that his own worldview is insufficient to account for reality."
ReplyDeleteWell said, Peter. Well said.
It doesn't matter. The same point holds: you aren't addressing X.
ReplyDeleteIf, every time I were to make an ethical claim X, you were to ignore X and say I have no basis for having any morals, you have again done little more than fart into the wind when it comes to engaging in substantive discussion about X.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm a moral relativist, incidentally. That's another argument that could be had: does naturalism entail moral relativism?
But bringing up that topic, assumping a positive answer, doesn't actually get at X. It avoids X while being presumptious and evasive. Which is morally repugnant in the context of good-faith argumentation.
I think God can't provide a foundation for ethics, but you don't find me running around telling religious people that I won't talk about moral matters with them because they have a confused meta-ethics. It would be the same mistake, a sleight-of-hand avoidance of real argument.
Steve said:
ReplyDeleteA tu quoque argument is a perfectly respectable type of argument.
Have fun with that.
Blue Devil Knight said: "If, every time I were to make an ethical claim X, you were to ignore X and say I have no basis for having any morals, you have again done little more than fart into the wind when it comes to engaging in substantive discussion about X."
ReplyDeleteBlue Devil Knight, the issue at stake is why should anyone address your ethical claim X if you, yourself don't believe in an objective basis of ethics? (With no objective basis of ethics your ethical objection is hardly universal)
Although the discussion is not addressing the ethical claim X itself, it is in fact addressing your presuppositions substantively, which clearly is something more than merely a "fart in the wind".
The presuppositions that ARE being addressed is that anyone has any type of moral obligation to address X given a view of ethics consistent with your own beliefs (i.e. no such universal moral obligations exist); and that your ethical claim X is indeed ethical in some sense apart from your own relative, arbitrary view-point.
For the sake of argument, if you could somehow explain how claim X is ethical using relativistic ethics, perhaps then Steve would feel some obligation to address your claim.
However, I personally believe, on this point, it is you who can do no more than merely fart in the wind.
Let's say I say raping babies is wrong, use that as a premise in a moral argument to make a different related moral point, and you won't agree with me because I am a naturalist. You refuse to even talk to me. Then I have nothing more to say to you. I'm done, because you are not engaging with the argument I'm making. You are absolutely an intellectual waste of my time.
ReplyDeleteIt's like if I said two is even, and you won't address that, because I am a naturalist and you think naturalism can't account for mathematical truth.
There is enough common ground, even for people with radically different meta-mathematical, meta-rational, and meta-ethical theories, that we can still have substantive discussions about when someone is being immoral, irrational, or mathematically obtuse.
That's why I made the analogy with rationality above; it's the same mistake.
To constantly step back to the meta-level as if that is a trump card is to miss the point, to evade discussion, ignore points of commonality, and generally be an interlocutor not worth my time. I would never do that to one who believed in divine command theory in ethics, because I know that we have enough to agree upon that we can still discuss whether 1+1=2 in the moral sphere. It's like saying I won't talk to someone because they don't have a theory of linguistic meaning that I agree with.
If you don't get that, and it seems many here don't, then you are doomed pragmatically. Good luck getting any legislation passed in collaboration with people who don't share your meta-ethical theories.
BDK,
ReplyDelete"It's like if I said two is even, and you won't address that, because I am a naturalist and you think naturalism can't account for mathematical truth."
It's not like that unless you include that you believe "there is no truth about whether a number is odd or even." Then, if you berated someone for believing two was even, I think it'd be relevant to point out that you'd don't believe there is any objective truth of the matter, so why all the huffing and puffing. It's like if someone grants that favorite flavors of ice cream are matters of taste and then berates someone for liking vanilla. Wouldn't you tell the guy that since he believes that favorite flavors are matters of taste, then it makes no sense to act as if someone has erred for liking vanilla. How would you respond if he told you, "That's a tu quoque ad hominem!, and at best a red herring, so nice try."? I trust you see the problem.
But you could address it even if I was a relativist about mathematical truth (e.g., if I thought that only relative to some axiomatic system, 1+1=2). My claim is that it doesn't matter what my meta-mathematical theory is, as long as we are working within the common ground that we obviously share.
ReplyDeletePoint of post: if Brennan was a callous ass, you can't block that by saying that the naturalists don't believe in morals anyway so you don't have to listen to them.
ReplyDeleteThat's a non-response, a miscarriage of reason. A real response would address the accusation, examing his behavior, determine whether it was callous or not.
BDK,
ReplyDeleteWell, I think it does matter. If the person thinks there is no truth about whether two is even or not, then what sense does it make to chastise someone for saying two is even? This is especially the case with ethical arguments since realists believe that ostensible immoral actionns are *really* wrong, and the outrage in which some relativists couch their disapproval of some action they dub "immoral" is confusing to the realist since he doesn't see the relativist acting like that about a man who parts ways in what ice cream tastes best. We think that the moral outrage is best explained by the fact that the relativist really is a realist deep down. We also think it is a blow to their argument if they have to publicly admit that some ethical action that they are making a big deal about is not really wrong. So we at least want the relativist to admit that he's pulling out his hair over an action he doesn't believe is really wrong. Which does seem to show an inconcistency between belief and action.
Much of this is a species of the realist claim that relativists cannot account for ethical disagreement, which I discussed here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/07/simple-subjectivism-and-moral.html
So, I have no problem debating the actual accusation from a relativist, I'd just like him to speak into the microphone and tell his audience that what he is complaining about isn't really wrong. In fact, what's the big problem with this? We're just asking the relativist to affirm his belief that we think works only in the ivory tower, in the real world as applied to a specific situation.
OK, so you can't let go of your meta-ethical obsession and have a normal conversation with a naturalist about whether someone was callous. You will never win an argument that way, sorry.
ReplyDeleteYes, I can. I even specifically stated I would. But your inability to try to understand my argument or interact with it is odd considering that you're telling us we ought to interact with arguments.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, suppose we apply what you said to my story:
Guy says, "How in the can you think vanilla ice cream tastes good, you're a warped individual! Sick, I tell ya!"
"Well, don't you think there's no truth about matters of taste, and that it is relative? It seems like you think I'm guilty of violating some real standards."
"That's ad hominem, debate me!"
"Okay, I'll try to explain to you how and why I like vanilla, but first tell me that there's nothing really wrong with my taste in ice cream and that your behavior is over the top considering you're expresed beliefs."
"OK, so you can't let go of your meta-creamery obsession and have a normal conversation with a ice cream anti-realist about whether your taste in vanilla is gross. You will never win an argument that way, sorry."
Anyway, BDK, we can aggre to *facts* that someone *was* callous, but what we're not getting is how the relativist can say one *ought* not be callous. Surely you can grasp this simple distinction, right?
btw, BDK, not all naturalists are relativists about ethics.
ReplyDelete"So, I have no problem debating the actual accusation from a relativist, I'd just like him to speak into the microphone and tell his audience that what he is complaining about isn't really wrong."
ReplyDeleteThis is idiotic, easily dismissed by the five dollar argument; if you have five dollars, it is not enough to feed you forever, but is enough to buy you lunch. You are saying five dollars is worthless because it can't feed you forever. By your logic, you will gladly give me five dollars any time, because for you it is worthless.
You appear to be either an idiot, a hypocrite, or both.
Tony, brilliant response. I am undone. Thanks for your insight.
ReplyDeleteBDK, if you don't like our response to the relativist, how much more then do you have an issue with Tony's type of response?
BLUE DEVIL KNIGHT SAID:
ReplyDelete“It doesn't matter. The same point holds: you aren't addressing X. If, every time I were to make an ethical claim X, you were to ignore X and say I have no basis for having any morals, you have again done little more than fart into the wind when it comes to engaging in substantive discussion about X.”
How can we have a “substantive discussion about X” when there is no foundation for X? To paraphrase Dawkins, that’s an “ethics-stopper.”
BTW, I’m not the one who said Avalos had no basis for morals. Avalos says that about his own position.
If you still want to have a substantive conversation, that would be about the possibility (or not) of moral realism given atheism. We can still have a substantive discussion about the metaethical issue. But there’s no point debating (alleged) immoral conduct with a moral relativist.
“But bringing up that topic, assumping a positive answer, doesn't actually get at X. It avoids X while being presumptious and evasive.”
To the contrary, it’s a moral relativist like Avalos who is guilty of evasion by denying objective moral norms, then proceeding to play the moralist. He’s the one who is weaseling out of the consequences of his own position. And these are not even tacit consequences of his position. He’s quite upfront about his moral repudiation of moral realism.
“Which is morally repugnant in the context of good-faith argumentation.”
Don’t be dense. Absent objective moral norms, there is no epistemic duty to argue in good faith. And, or course, the charge of “moral repugnance” is vacuous when the accuser is an avowed moral relativist (a la Avalos).
“It would be the same mistake, a sleight-of-hand avoidance of real argument.”
It’s hardly “sleight-of-hand” to take the claims of a moral relativist seriously.
“Have fun with that.”
To point out that your disputant is logically inconsistent is a perfectly proper way of discrediting his position and forcing the issue. If he subscribes to a contradictory set of propositions (either in theory or practice), then drawing attention to his inconsistency confronts him with a choice: how does he propose to relieve the point of tension?
“Let's say I say raping babies is wrong, use that as a premise in a moral argument to make a different related moral point, and you won't agree with me because I am a naturalist. You refuse to even talk to me.”
That’s a red herring. Let’s skip the analogies and deal with the issue at hand. Avalos admits to being a moral relativist. Yet he did a post at DC in which he tried to incite the slabbering hounds at DC into paroxysms of indignation. And given the constituency of DC, he was highly successful at making them perform on cue.
But Avalos is just a demagogue who richly deserves to be exposed for the hooded agitator he is.
Cont. “Then I have nothing more to say to you. I'm done, because you are not engaging with the argument I'm making. You are absolutely an intellectual waste of my time.”
ReplyDeleteI don’t know why you should think I’d be swayed by your dictatorial rhetoric. You act as though you’re doing me a personal favor, and the price I ought to pay for this inestimable privilege is to let you (or Avalos) circumvent the fatal consequences of your position. Well, you don’t have that kind of claim on me. You’re no loss to me.
Moreover, I can’t reason with an unreasoning disputant.
“If you don't get that, and it seems many here don't, then you are doomed pragmatically. Good luck getting any legislation passed in collaboration with people who don't share your meta-ethical theories.”
Somehow I doubt that I ever lost Avalos as a political ally in the culture wars.
Moreover, the demographics are on my side. Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds in the global south while secular Europe is aging and dying.
So my side can wait it out. You have the watches, but we have the time (as the saying goes).
Paul: I don't get his argument.
ReplyDeleteBefoe moving on, I'm curious if you can provide a single example of a first-order moral claim that will necessarily be different because of a difference in our meta-ethical views? Just one?
Note you are wrongly assuming that relativists think there is no moral truth. Some believe this, but others just think there are truths, just not truths that hold independent of the human condition (just as you might think moral truths are not independent of God). There are no objective colors in the world, but we can still argue about what color that apple is, develop more nuanced and accurate conceptualizations of color, and even make progress in our descriptions of the world of color. Similarly, the brain paints the world in moral hues that can be the subject of conversation, progress, and increasing nuance and accuracy.
ReplyDeleteSure, there is subjectivity and no fact of the matter in debates about whether vanilla tastes better than chocolate ice cream. However, both are sweeter than lemon juice. And such judgments are different from moral judgments. Nobody thinks you are a bad person because you prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate. It's important to get straight the extension, etc etc..
I realize not all naturalists are relativists, one of my favorite philosophers is David Brink. Somehow Hays got the impression that I was a relativist, but I have never said that: he's just yap yap yappin away with assumptions.
Hays you don't understand tu quoque.
ReplyDeleteI pose my question to you as well. Can you name a single moral claim that will necessarily be different because of a difference in our meta-ethics? One?
Is one of you Ilion, incidentally?I have seen many identical patterns of argument from him.
ReplyDeleteBDK, I think his argument is refuted thus: Every time he asks for $5 I will give him $5 of monopoly money, and he cannot object that there is a fact of the matter about money.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, I have not argued that a relativist will have different first-order moral belief because of a different meta-ethical view, that has nothing to do with my argument. The point is, the realist thinks the relativists grandstanding about some alleged immoral action is inconsistent with his relativism, we believe he really wants or needs the action to really be immoral for his argument to work. This is especially important in the argument from evil. The relativist can only argue against Christianity via internal critique given his relativism. But frequently, the argument against God is highly emotional, demanding that the audience think some horrible immoral act is *really* wrong. If the atheist admits to the audience that atheism = relativism, and the action is not really wrong, that functions as an argument for realism.
In any event, to answer your question specifically: Ted Bundy's first-order moral belief's differed based on his meta-ethical beliefs, taken from Pojman's book, Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong:
"Then I learned that all moral judgments are "value judgments," that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either "right" or "wrong." I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself - what apparently the Chief Justice couldn't figure out for himself"”that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any "reason" to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring "” the strength of character "” to throw off its shackles. ... I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable value judgment" that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog's life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as "moral" or "good" and others as "immoral" or "bad"? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me"”after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.
Finally, I'm not being dictatorial, I was stating a fact. If I come to you to talk earnestly about X, and you refuse because we have a different meta-theory, then you have wasted my time (and insulted my intelligence). That's not being dictatorial, it's not telling you what to do. Have fun in your echo chamber convincing yourselves that you don't need to address arguments from naturalists or take their moral claims seriously because the leap to the meta-level absolves you of intellectual responsibility.
ReplyDeleteGood luck in the real world with that.
BDK,
ReplyDeleteNote you are wrongly assuming that relativists think there is no moral truth. Some believe this, but others just think there are truths, just not truths that hold independent of the human condition (just as you might think moral truths are not independent of God).
I realize this, many relativists think ethical statements are true: subjectivists think that an ethical statement is "true for them but not for you," cultural relativists think ethical statements are true according to culture. Relativists are *constructivists* about the truth such that the truth is a construction of one or more human mind. Similarly, it is "true for me" that vanilla is the best ice cream in the world, but I hardly think that warrants me flying off the handle and demeaning you and treating you like a sick individual for liking chocolate.
BDK,
ReplyDeleteI think the fact that you have us rational people objecting to your claim about the propriety of challenging a relativist's ability to justify his moral indignation and condemnation with arguments that are not obviously and clearly wrong shows that you were unwarranted in your quick dismissal of that tactic. It seems that the response under dicussion here is something reasonable and rational men may hold, and so isn't something worthy of dismissal by hand waving or fart jokes.
There are Christians who have murdered because they thought God told them to. Quoting bundy is like me quoting them.
ReplyDeleteSo because you seem to agree that our first-order claims don't have necessary differences due to our meta-ethical differences. That is my main point.
I understand your point, you don't need to keep repeating it, it isn't subtle or hard to understand. In practice, your strategy is an insult to people's intelligence who are trying to have meaningful conversations about moral matters, and they will rightly avoid you when they wish to have serious discussions if that is how you will respond. Because they know you will simply waste their time.
Paul: the echo chamber is disagreeing with me, therefore it must be making a good point. How many times have I heard that crap over at debunking christianity lol.
ReplyDeleteI addressed your "ice cream" concern above.
ReplyDeleteIf God wanted you to rape babies, you would do it. I wouldn't, because I trust my moral sense independently of God.
While on the topic of stupid moralizing about food, what do you think of God's views on pork and lobster?
BLUE DEVIL KNIGHT SAID:
ReplyDelete"I pose my question to you as well. Can you name a single moral claim that will necessarily be different because of a difference in our meta-ethics? One?"
If one's metaethical position negates the metaphysical warrant for any and all moral ascriptions, then I'd say that's a pretty fundamental difference.
"Hays you don't understand tu quoque."
Saying so doesn't make it so. Try reading Peter Geach on the subject.
"Finally, I'm not being dictatorial, I was stating a fact. If I come to you to talk earnestly about X, and you refuse because we have a different meta-theory, then you have wasted my time (and insulted my intelligence)."
Not all metaethical theories are created equal.
And BTW, before you complain about someone insulting your intelligence, try putting more intelligence into your replies. Your replies are high on emotive adjectives and low on substantive content. You like to bandy the word "substance," but your actual performance is wanting.
"Have fun in your echo chamber convincing yourselves that you don't need to address arguments from naturalists or take their moral claims seriously because the leap to the meta-level absolves you of intellectual responsibility."
By definition, rejecting moral realism carries with it a correlative rejection of intellectual responsibilities. There can be no intellectual obligations in particular where there are no moral obligations in general.
This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
Resorting to "echo chamber" metaphors is no substitute for reasoned argument.
"Somehow Hays got the impression that I was a relativist, but I have never said that."
Since you constantly dismiss the importance of distinguishing between moral realism and moral relativism, as well as their respective consequences, that, itself, is a mark of moral relativism.
"I understand your point, you don't need to keep repeating it, it isn't subtle or hard to understand. In practice, your strategy is an insult to people's intelligence who are trying to have meaningful conversations about moral matters, and they will rightly avoid you when they wish to have serious discussions if that is how you will respond. Because they know you will simply waste their time.
ReplyDeleteRight, that's my strategy, you got it BDK.
I note your strategy: call the other side dumb and ignorant and impute all manner or ridiculous "motives" to them. And you think us telling a relativist that he has no business acting as if people *ought* not be rude will halt rational debate??? You're in the grip of a delusion. So, I will rightly avoid you.
""Have fun in your echo chamber convincing yourselves that you don't need to address arguments from naturalists or take their moral claims seriously because the leap to the meta-level absolves you of intellectual responsibility."
ReplyDeleteRight:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/07/simple-subjectivism-and-moral.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/07/thc-hector-confusion.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/07/hector-avaloss-non-expertise-exposed.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/02/if-evil-then-god.html
Thanks for the discussion. This post advocated a silly argument strategy, whether you have rationally engaged with naturalists in other posts on substantive first-order ethical claims would be a good case of contradicting the silly claims in this post.
ReplyDeleteIf you see my posts at Victor's blog, I'm not usually this dismissive, but Victor doesn't usually say things so obviously wrong. From looking over the posts here, you guys are always sure of yourselves. Enjoy the echo chamber.
Wait...so you admit you're being dismissive but you're complaining that we aren't jumping through your hoops?
ReplyDeleteGive me ten echo chambers over that crap any day.
Blue Devil Knight said:
ReplyDeleteIf you see my posts at Victor's blog, I'm not usually this dismissive, but Victor doesn't usually say things so obviously wrong. From looking over the posts here, you guys are always sure of yourselves. Enjoy the echo chamber.
1. Of course, BDK's own comments and rhetoric here strike me as nothing if not "always sure of [himself]." For one thing, why would he be so "dismissive" if he himself isn't so sure about what he's dismissing?
2. However, if BDK is actually implying he's making claims or arguments he's not always sure of, then why would anyone take his claims or arguments here any more seriously than he does?
3. One last thing: I wonder if maybe BDK's failure to see any of this here (a blindness to logic coupled with a lot of emotive huffing and puffing) isn't at least in part a consequence of his moral relativism?
"BDK, I think his argument is refuted thus: Every time he asks for $5 I will give him $5 of monopoly money, and he cannot object that there is a fact of the matter about money."
ReplyDeleteOh. So you do get the argument then?
But, no, you have not refuted it. Our $5 isn't really based on anything, not even gold anymore. We agree that it's worth $5, and apparently that's plenty good enough for you unless it contradicts your bad argument. And the logic of your argument appears to be that, unless a thing is tied into something objective (like gold), it's worthless.
You owe me 5 American dollars.
Tony,
ReplyDeleteMy argument does not assume this universal and absolute thesis you impute to me:
[W] = Unless a thing is tied to something objective (like gold), it is worthless.
In the course of the discussion, I have clearly denied [W]---see my comments on ice cream, for example. So, your claim is false.
I also do not deny that relativists say some things are wrong, and that I think those things are wrong---though 'wrong' isn't being used univocally here, and that's part of the problem.
Realists believe that ethics are objective and not the construct of human minds. If you were familiar with the literature, you would know that realists think our moral discourse and intelligibility at least prima facially presupposes some version of realism. We also believe that anti-realists cannot live consistently with the consequences of their relativism. We think that is is very hard to "come clean" and admit that molesting children for fun is not "really" wrong. So, when a relativist expresses indignation over a case of child molestation, the realist could share in that indignation (and there surely are proper times and places for that). But in an intellectual debate within the blogosphere, the realist can "heartlessly" try to push the relativist onto his uncomfortable ledge. In fact, that you guys are having such a hard time admitting that there is nothing whatsoever really wrong with acting like a crude, callous, heatless, smug, self-righteous, arrogant spoiled ass, is evidence in and of itself of the realists intuition.
This is about a bigger and more important debate than joining hands with a relativist and agreeing, "Yes, Mr. Smith was a real big meany to you. I'm sorry, would you like a cookie?"
With the money thing, a country agrees and sets a standard. So you've already refuted subjectivism about ethics---good job. But so what that we all agree on what $5 is? Suppose the relativist catches on and says, "Big deal that we all agreed. That's not an absolute moral principle to which I am obligated to obey. If I am fast enough and quick enough, I can use my sleight of hand and rip off stores by showing them a twenty but slipping them a five. So I'll rob from people and take food off their table. There's nothing whatsoever really wrong with that. I know there are no real ethical standards, and as a relativist I know I am free to escape the shackles of my society. but of course I'll play along with everyone else, just so that they keep acting like cattle."
You need to get with the dialectical situation before you and quite asking for realists to sing cumbaya with the relativists and say, "Yes, June, wasn't Wally quite rude to the Beav when he chizzled him out of his birthday money. Oh, shame on him."
I said: I also do not deny that relativists say some things are wrong, and that I think those things are wrong---though 'wrong' isn't being used univocally here, and that's part of the problem.
ReplyDeleteYou you and I use the term "five dollars" in America, we use it univocally. You say, "You owe me five dollars." And I say, "Here is the five dollars I owe you." We both agree because we use the terms similarly. We use it univocally.
With the relativist, he may say, "Smith's deception was wrong," and this is linguistically similar to the realist who says, "Smith's deception was wrong." However, the realist and the relativist are not using "wrong" univocally, they are using it equivocally. The realist does not think there is any moral wrongdoing on relativism, even if he does on realism. And the relativist does not think there has been any realist wrongdoing. So, "X is wrong" does not have the same meaning between realist and relativist as does "You owe me five dollars."
Hence, your Monopoly money is in the mail.
Hope that helps you and BDK out.
TONY HOFFMAN SAID:
ReplyDelete“Our $5 isn't really based on anything, not even gold anymore. We agree that it's worth $5, and apparently that's plenty good enough for you unless it contradicts your bad argument. And the logic of your argument appears to be that, unless a thing is tied into something objective (like gold), it's worthless.”
Your comparison undermines your position. Sure, a community can always agree to an arbitrary code of conduct. The Politburo can stipulate that all citizens must use a pogo stick to commute to work, and anyone caught using a bicycle will be summarily executed.
Or take those totalitarian dystopias, like the Village (in the Sixties TV series, The Prisoner). Number One can decree a set of rules to live by. If you break the rules, Rover will come after you.
But if morality is just a social construct, then accusing a citizen of “flagrant ethical violations” because he rode a bicycle to work rather than a pogo stick work rings pretty hollow.
I fail to see how you are doing more than repeat just a set of assertions:
ReplyDelete"The realist does not think there is any moral wrongdoing on relativism, even if he does on realism."
It sounds like you are confusing yourself with all realists. You are free to think what you like, but I don't know why another moral realist would so easily confuse moral relativism with amoralism. Let me make this clear -- moral relativists think that some things are morally wrong, and some things are morally right. They base their determination on a variety of factors, but they come to a moral decision nonetheless. This seems like very basic stuff.
"And the relativist does not think there has been any realist wrongdoing."
This makes no sense to me. I just can't imagine why you would write that.
"So, "X is wrong" does not have the same meaning between realist and relativist as does "You owe me five dollars."
I think you are still confused. You appear like someone who will not pay a debt of five dollars until the creditor agrees that five dollars has intrinsic value. (I don’t think that five dollars has intrinsic value, but I do believe it has instrumental value.)
You have to answer this basic question: why does morality have to be objective to have value? So far you have done nothing but say, “Moral relativists have no values.” That’s incorrect, and a non sequitur. Good luck taking that argument on the road, outside the friendly confines of this blog.
"But if morality is just a social construct, then accusing a citizen of “flagrant ethical violations” because he rode a bicycle to work rather than a pogo stick work rings pretty hollow."
ReplyDeleteI think you need to come up with an argument for why this rings hollow. Is it because it seems to you that it's silly? That's an argument from personal incredulity, and it's famously weak.
For starters, I think you'd also want to address how it was that people should be enslaved didn't ring pretty hollow when it was an instruction straight from the god who is the source of both goodness and objective morality.
TONY HOFFMAN SAID:
ReplyDelete"I think you need to come up with an argument for why this rings hollow."
i) If you don't have a problem with executing someone who rides a bicycle to work (rather than a pogo-stick), then my reductio has already succeeded. It's sufficient for my purposes to illustrate what your position amounts to.
ii) And why do I need to come up with any argument for anything? That would only be the case if I had epistemic duties to acquit. But you reject universal epistemic duties, since you reject universal duties, period. You're a relativist. You don't have the right to impose your relativism on a second party.
“i) If you don't have a problem with executing someone who rides a bicycle to work (rather than a pogo-stick), then my reductio has already succeeded. It's sufficient for my purposes to illustrate what your position amounts to. “
ReplyDeleteBut I do have a problem with that. And I have a story for it: that evolution and society have equipped us with tools for handling cooperate interactions based largely on reciprocity and the golden rule. Under evolutionary theory, we should most of us share an innate grasp of these concepts, modified to some extent by our upbrining. And you have…?
“ ii) And why do I need to come up with any argument for anything? That would only be the case if I had epistemic duties to acquit. But you reject universal epistemic duties, since you reject universal duties, period. You're a relativist. You don't have the right to impose your relativism on a second party.”
You appear to be making the claim that moral values (and not epistemic duties) do not exist if they are not grounded in an objective god. You need to understand the burden of proof for that position.
But the rest of your thinking gets even more bizarre regarding that you think that you need not justify your argument if you think someone else does not share your foundations? I am asking for your argument. If you think you don’t need to provide one to convince me I wonder why you bother commenting.
Lastly, I didn’t say I was a moral relativist. I don’t know why you would declare that I am. This happens sometimes when people misunderstand that discussions like these are about arguments, and not the people behind them.
Tony,
ReplyDelete"It sounds like you are confusing yourself with all realists. You are free to think what you like, but I don't know why another moral realist would so easily confuse moral relativism with amoralism. Let me make this clear -- moral relativists think that some things are morally wrong, and some things are morally right. They base their determination on a variety of factors, but they come to a moral decision nonetheless. This seems like very basic stuff."
Not in the realist's sense, Tony. Try and catch up.
All moral relativists know that relativists call things wrong, it's just that we all disagree with what "wrongness" is on their scheme. For example, take subjectivism. That an action is wrong is analyzed as: "The subjectivist doesn't like it." Wrong gets cahsed out in descriptive terms rather than normative. So, we know relativists don't assert that nothing is wrong, but we think their notion of wrong is, well, wrong.
"This makes no sense to me. I just can't imagine why you would write that.
Well, put on your thnking cap for a second. A realist wrongdoing is a wrong that is wrong quite apart from whether any human mind(s) thinks it is. Get it now?
"I think you are still confused. You appear like someone who will not pay a debt of five dollars until the creditor agrees that five dollars has intrinsic value. (I don’t think that five dollars has intrinsic value, but I do believe it has instrumental value.)
I don't care about what you think or your assertion. 'Wrong' is different when analyzed relativistically or realistically. You're so trapped in your relativism that you keep confusing a common *description* of what is wrong with an agreed upon analysis of wrongess, or what *makes* something wrong.
I never said anything about $5 needing intrincic value. I said when you and I use the term we speak univocally, based on the conventions of our society. But to say this is the case with morality is to clearly beg the question. Your smug arrogance would get you further if you could grasp counter arguments and conceptual distinctions.
"You have to answer this basic question: why does morality have to be objective to have value? So far you have done nothing but say, “Moral relativists have no values.” That’s incorrect, and a non sequitur. Good luck taking that argument on the road, outside the friendly confines of this blog.
I never said morality had to be objective to have subjective value attached. I also never said "moral relativists have no values" (quote me!). Good luck with your reading comprehension skills anywhere. Good luck with your ability to grasp another's argument, anywhere.
TONY HOFFMAN SAID:
ReplyDelete“But I do have a problem with that. And I have a story for it: that evolution and society have equipped us with tools for handling cooperate interactions based largely on reciprocity and the golden rule. Under evolutionary theory, we should most of us share an innate grasp of these concepts, modified to some extent by our upbrining. And you have…?”
Assuming, for the sake of argument, your evolutionary narrative, knowing how the present derives from the past hardly obligates me to respect the process or the end-product. Knowledge of the past hardly dictates my future course of action. Suppose I defy precedent. So what?
Take the Bourne Identity. Jason is conditioned to become an assassin. But when he becomes aware of his conditioning, he no longer feels bound by his conditioning. He can break the program.
A historical description of how we allegedly acquired our moral instincts doesn’t obligate me to do what natural selection prescribes. I don’t have a duty to do whatever natural selection prescribes. At best you’re explaining the origin of our moral sensibilities. That, however, in no way justifies our moral sensibilities–any more than explaining how mind-control makes Jason Borne an assassin affords moral warrant for his conditioned proclivities.
“You appear to be making the claim that moral values (and not epistemic duties) do not exist if they are not grounded in an objective god. You need to understand the burden of proof for that position.”
i) Moral values and epistemic duties are inseparable.
ii) I’m not arguing on my own (Christian) grounds. Many atheists openly concede that atheism can’t ground objective moral values. Indeed, Avalos is a case in point. That’s the point of reference in this discussion.
“If you think you don’t need to provide one to convince me I wonder why you bother commenting.”
To expose your incoherence.
“Lastly, I didn’t say I was a moral relativist. I don’t know why you would declare that I am.”
When you spend all your time defending moral relativism, insisting on the irrelevance of objective moral norms, that’s a pretty good clue. But if you are a moral realist, despite all that, then you’re deeply conflicted.
“I also never said "moral relativists have no values" (quote me!)”
ReplyDeleteI thought it was clear that I was paraphrasing what I thought your position to be. And I understand your position from what you have written, such as:
“So we at least want the relativist to admit that he's pulling out his hair over an action he doesn't believe is really wrong.”
and
"So, I have no problem debating the actual accusation from a relativist, I'd just like him to speak into the microphone and tell his audience that what he is complaining about isn't really wrong.”
These two quotes from you indicated to me that you believe that moral relativists must admit that without being moral realists they cannot declare any action wrong. If you disagree, I think you should clarify what it is that you mean.
Then you wrote,
"And the relativist does not think there has been any realist wrongdoing."
Which I said did not make any sense to me. Then you explained that the sentence above means:
“Well, put on your thnking cap for a second. A realist wrongdoing is a wrong that is wrong quite apart from whether any human mind(s) thinks it is. Get it now?”
No. The first sentence and your explanation appear to have nothing to do with one another. Maybe there was a typo in your first sentence? Do you really think that those two sentences mean the same thing? Do you really think that another reader would think that the first sentence and the second are equivalent?
“I don't care about what you think or your assertion. 'Wrong' is different when analyzed relativistically or realistically.”
It appears you are becoming undone. I had previously explained that I thought you were confused, that you appeared in a certain way, and how it is that I thought five dollars had value. To which you wrote the above.
You scold me for making assertions (?), then make your own assertion -- that wrong is different when analyzed under different worldviews. But how is it different? Is it better? Is it clearer? Is it fairer? If any of these, how?
“I never said anything about $5 needing intrincic value. I said when you and I use the term we speak univocally, based on the conventions of our society. But to say this is the case with morality is to clearly beg the question.”
This appears to be another assertion without an argument, but at this point I am not even sure what it is you’re asserting. I thought I said that I don’t think that $5 has intrinsic value, but that it has instrumental value. And you have not even bothered to form an argument how establishing the value of $5 based on the conventions of our society is different than the same society establishing the wrongness of rape based on similar conventions. How is that different?
“I also never said "moral relativists have no values" (quote me!)”
ReplyDeleteI thought it was clear that I was paraphrasing what I thought your position to be. And I understand your position from what you have written, such as:
“So we at least want the relativist to admit that he's pulling out his hair over an action he doesn't believe is really wrong.”
and
"So, I have no problem debating the actual accusation from a relativist, I'd just like him to speak into the microphone and tell his audience that what he is complaining about isn't really wrong.”
These two quotes from you indicated to me that you believe that moral relativists must admit that without being moral realists they cannot declare any action wrong. If you disagree, I think you should clarify what it is that you mean.
Then you wrote,
"And the relativist does not think there has been any realist wrongdoing."
Which I said did not make any sense to me. Then you explained that the sentence above means:
Well, put on your thnking cap for a second. A realist wrongdoing is a wrong that is wrong quite apart from whether any human mind(s) thinks it is. Get it now?”
No. The first sentence and your explanation appear to have nothing to do with one another. Maybe there was a typo in your first sentence? Do you really think that those two sentences mean the same thing? Do you really think that another reader would think that the first sentence and the second are equivalent?
cont'd...
“I don't care about what you think or your assertion. 'Wrong' is different when analyzed relativistically or realistically.”
ReplyDeleteIt appears you are becoming undone. I had previously explained that I thought you were confused, that you appeared in a certain way, and how it is that I thought five dollars had value. To which you wrote the above.
You scold me for making assertions (?), then make your own assertion -- that wrong is different when analyzed under different worldviews. But how is it different? Is it better? Is it clearer? Is it fairer? If any of these, how?
“I never said anything about $5 needing intrincic value. I said when you and I use the term we speak univocally, based on the conventions of our society. But to say this is the case with morality is to clearly beg the question.”
This appears to be another assertion without an argument, but at this point I am not even sure what it is you’re asserting. I thought I said that I don’t think that $5 has intrinsic value, but that it has instrumental value. And you have not even bothered to form an argument how establishing the value of $5 based on the conventions of our society is different than the same society establishing the wrongness of rape based on similar conventions. How is that different?
Tony,
ReplyDeleteI think it's time to stop, you're insufficiently prepared and both of us, I assume, have lives. The exchange isn't even since it's all give on my end. You're not even compensating me with Monopoly money!
I thought it was clear that I was paraphrasing what I thought your position to be.
I corrected your view, W
[W] = Unless a thing is tied to something objective (like gold), it is worthless.
I said:
In the course of the discussion, I have clearly denied [W]---see my comments on ice cream, for example. So, your claim is false.
Now, let's look at the quotes you think shows I think "relativists have no values." You said the relvant quotes were:
“So we at least want the relativist to admit that he's pulling out his hair over an action he doesn't believe is really wrong.”
and
"So, I have no problem debating the actual accusation from a relativist, I'd just like him to speak into the microphone and tell his audience that what he is complaining about isn't really wrong.”
Tony, not the word "really." relativism is a form of anti-realism, and I specifically tied this anti-realism to the context of denying that anything is mind-independently wrong.
Cont.
Cont.
ReplyDeleteOn to your next blunder:
I wrote,
"And the relativist does not think there has been any realist wrongdoing."
Which you said did not make any sense to you. Then I explained that the sentence above means:
“Well, put on your thnking cap for a second. A realist wrongdoing is a wrong that is wrong quite apart from whether any human mind(s) thinks it is. Get it now?”
And you replied:
No. The first sentence and your explanation appear to have nothing to do with one another. Maybe there was a typo in your first sentence? Do you really think that those two sentences mean the same thing? Do you really think that another reader would think that the first sentence and the second are equivalent?
Yes, if the reader were familiar with the relevant terms of the debate. As atheistic realist Russ Shafer-Landau writes,
"Realists believe that there are moral truths that obtain independently of any preferred perspective, in the nsense that the moral standards that fix the moral facts are not made true by by virtue of their ratification from within any given actual or hypothetical perspective. . . . But realism insists that the truth of any first-order normative standard is not a function of what anyone happens to think ot it. . . . Toget a better understanding of realism's committments, consider the following contrast. An ethical relativism of the sort embraced by Harman or Wong claims that what moral reality there is is fixed entirely by certain social agreements. The reality---what really is right or wrong, for instance---is constructed from the content of these agreements. No agreements, no reality. Realists, by contrast, will claim that what is really right and wrong is conceptually and existentially independent of any such agreements." (Shafter-Landau, Moral Realism, Oxford, 2005, 15, 16).
I wrote:
“I never said anything about $5 needing intrincic value. I said when you and I use the term we speak univocally, based on the conventions of our society. But to say this is the case with morality is to clearly beg the question.”
You responded:
This appears to be another assertion without an argument, but at this point I am not even sure what it is you’re asserting. I thought I said that I don’t think that $5 has intrinsic value, but that it has instrumental value. And you have not even bothered to form an argument how establishing the value of $5 based on the conventions of our society is different than the same society establishing the wrongness of rape based on similar conventions. How is that different?
That's right, I asserted what my position was and how your misrepresented me.
I could offer an argument for how moral facts are different from socially agreed upon facts (realists think it is absurd to claim that raping children for fun can be morally acceptable, which it can if it's a social convention, also, moral relativism leads to epistemic relativism (cf. The Normative Web, Cuneo, Oxford 2008), and then there's the reformer's dilema, and then there's the disputed anthropological evidence, and then there's the distinction between moral beliefs and factual beliefs) but that isn't what we're debating. Nice goal post shifting.
“A historical description of how we allegedly acquired our moral instincts doesn’t obligate me to do what natural selection prescribes. I don’t have a duty to do whatever natural selection prescribes. At best you’re explaining the origin of our moral sensibilities.”
ReplyDeleteYup, yup, and yup. The whole Jason Bourne thing you lose me.
“I’m not arguing on my own (Christian) grounds. Many atheists openly concede that atheism can’t ground objective moral values.”
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. You are seriously confused if you think that atheism can provide any moral values; it cannot. An atheist needs to look somewhere else for a moral system.
Me: “If you think you don’t need to provide one to convince me I wonder why you bother commenting.”
You: “To expose your incoherence.”
And my questions appear incoherent where…? Please try and be specific.
“When you spend all your time defending moral relativism, insisting on the irrelevance of objective moral norms, that’s a pretty good clue. But if you are a moral realist, despite all that, then you’re deeply conflicted.”
One can also be agnostic about moral realism, which I am. Specifically, I am unsure if a morality, which is based on the relationship between real things, is considered real because it is based on real things, or not real because it is affected by a reality that is changing. I don’t think there’s a clear answer to that.
“A historical description of how we allegedly acquired our moral instincts doesn’t obligate me to do what natural selection prescribes. I don’t have a duty to do whatever natural selection prescribes. At best you’re explaining the origin of our moral sensibilities.”
ReplyDeleteYup, yup, and yup. The whole Jason Bourne thing you lose me.
“I’m not arguing on my own (Christian) grounds. Many atheists openly concede that atheism can’t ground objective moral values.”
Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. You are seriously confused if you think that atheism can provide any moral values; it cannot. An atheist needs to look somewhere else for a moral system.
Me: “If you think you don’t need to provide one to convince me I wonder why you bother commenting.”
You: “To expose your incoherence.”
And my questions appear incoherent where…? Please try and be specific.
“When you spend all your time defending moral relativism, insisting on the irrelevance of objective moral norms, that’s a pretty good clue. But if you are a moral realist, despite all that, then you’re deeply conflicted.”
One can also be agnostic about moral realism, which I am. Specifically, I am unsure if a morality, which is based on the relationship between real things, is considered real because it is based on real things, or not real because it is affected by a reality that is changing. I don’t think there’s a clear answer to that.
Tony Hoffman said...
ReplyDelete"Yup, yup, and yup. The whole Jason Bourne thing you lose me."
How unsurprising.
"Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. You are seriously confused if you think that atheism can provide any moral values; it cannot. An atheist needs to look somewhere else for a moral system."
And many atheists admit there is nowhere else to look.
"And my questions appear incoherent where…? Please try and be specific."
Start with the first thing you said here and continue uninterrupted until you reach the last thing you said here. Is that specific enough?
"Do you really think that another reader would think that the first sentence and the second are equivalent?"
ReplyDeleteI can quite easily see that they are equivalent. Odd that you do not Mr. Hoffman.
Tony,
ReplyDeleteHere's what another relativist just said in one of our threads here
"And for the record, if we meet by accident and you punch me in the face and steal my wallet, I'll have you prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Not because I believe you really wronged me in an objective sense, but because I'm enraged at you.
See, different conceptions of 'wrong.' On his more correct understanding, 'wrong' means something like 'I dislike that!' You really need to understand your position better. And, if your not a relativist, you should try to understand the opposition better.
I mean "more correct *relativist* understanting"
ReplyDeleteMy comments stopped going through last night. Looks like my responses are being held up. Imagine the surprise.
ReplyDeleteTony said: "My comments stopped going through last night. Looks like my responses are being held up. Imagine the surprise."
ReplyDeleteMine do that sometimes too but I don't make the mistake of thinking myself more important than I really am.
People who run blogs on Blogger aren't in control of everything and sometimes things get dropped or stalled. My impression of the TBloggers is that they value their integrity enough not to sell it for the paltry price of invisibly censoring their critics.
Tony whined:
ReplyDelete---
My comments stopped going through last night. Looks like my responses are being held up. Imagine the surprise.
---
Personally, I love the salty taste of a relativist's tears.
BTW, before your "responses" could be "held up" they'd actually have to *BE* responses.
Now whether your mindless meandering drivel is being held up somewhere is something I do not know. I would assume it's in the spam folder, which I do not have access to. But even if I did, I can hardly say that you warrant me spending even thirty seconds to go look and see if your posts are in there.
On the subjective worth scale, you rank about the same level as the water ring around the old bathtub. If you don't like it, well, it's not exactly like YOU matter. You're just one more semi-random sack of loosely bonded quarks that accidentally became self-aware and immediately gained a delusion of importance. But you came from nothing, you will go to nothing, and for all the sound and fury you mount now, that's all nothing too.
So if you don't want me to treat you like the nothing you are, perhaps you better come up with a reason to show you actually aren't nothing. Until then, keep on crying them salty tears!
Tony, perhaps your post got stuck in the BAF, the "Bad Argument Filter." That happens to atheists sometimes.
ReplyDeleteTony Hoffman said:
ReplyDeleteMy comments stopped going through last night. Looks like my responses are being held up. Imagine the surprise.
Hm, if your responses "are being held up," how did this one get through?
However, I've just checked and the truth is that it looks like Blogger thought your comments were spam. Imagine the surprise. Fortunately for you, I've reinstated them.
That said we reserve the right to remove your comments as we choose. Although we already have a fairly open combox, it's not as if at the same time we owe it to you to post anything and everything you have to say. Remember, you're a guest here.
Tony,
ReplyDeleteBlogger has a lot of glitches. Putting people's posts into the spam folder for no good reason is one of them. It's happened to me at other blogs. It's happened to Christian posters here who weren't disagreeing with us about anything. It doesn't make sense for you to assume that we were preventing your posts from appearing or removing them, as you recently suggested at Debunking Christianity.