Morals -- relative or absolute.

Originally posted by Starrman
From my perspective, growing up in this moral set; of course not. But in a time in which our moral sensibilties were not present, the members of that society may have had no reservations about it.

That's mere begging the question. IF you accept that morals are relative then your answer makes sense, but the question is whether they are or not. Besides, you gave a criteria which this situation would fit; if you accept utilitarianism you cannot merely say someone else might find it moral, you must accept that that is a perfectly valid moral argument. Is that what you believe?

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's mere begging the question. IF you accept that morals are relative then your answer makes sense, but the question is whether they are or not. Besides, you gave a criteria which this situation would fit; if you accept utilitarianism you cannot merely say someone else might find it moral, you must accept that that is a perfectly valid moral argument. Is that what you believe?

If morality is relative (as I believe it is), then I believe that there could have been and may yet be times in which the situation you presented is accepted by society. That does not mean it is morally acceptible now. Neither does it mean that a utilitarian view of society is a static one, what gives the most people the greatest happiness can change.

As to whether or not morality is relative or not, I'm not sure how to go about proving it one way or another, to be honest, though I think relativity is more likely than a universal view.

Originally posted by Halitose
Originally posted by Starrman
[b]If morality is a socially agreed contract, we punish people and reward others on the basis of success. What is good for the success of the group is deemed morally acceptable, what is deemed bad for the success of the group is morally unacceptable.

The above post reminded me of a thread I had been meaning to s ...[text shortened]... ction of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life.


So -- are morals relative or absolute?[/b]

absoutely relative or relatively absolute, does it really matter?

Originally posted by no1marauder
If it gives the "greatest happiness for the greatest number of people" for the tribe to kill any children with blue eyes, is that morally acceptable in your view?

I am a utilitarian also. IF it gives the "greatest happiness for the greatest number of people" for the tribe to kill any children with blue eyes", THEN yes, they should be killed. However this is not a realistic scenario.

How might this scenario be the case? Well, if blue eyes were a symptom of a horrible plague in a primitive society, then maybe this might be necessary as a form of quarantine. There would have to be a damn good reason for it though for your "if" to hold. Casually killing people for superficial physical characteristics is going to decrease happiness inherently in the long term, since people won't feel safe and secure.

This is using a utilitarian definition. If you use a definition of "morality" that is different - for example, based on Fundamental Rights - then you'll get a different answer.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I am a utilitarian also. IF [b]it gives the "greatest happiness for the greatest number of people" for the tribe to kill any children with blue eyes", THEN yes, they should be killed. However this is not a realistic scenario.

How might this scenario be the case? Well, if blue eyes were a symptom of a horrible plague in a primitive society, then ferent - for example, based on Fundamental Rights - then you'll get a different answer.[/b]

I don't find the scenario that unlikely; physical characteristics of children that are "different" from the majority have been used as a rationale for infanticide in the past. As have the mere fact that a child was female. What makes you think that "casual killing" is so unusual?

EDIT: Your last paragraph is my point and why I believe utilitarianism is incorrect, as well as a poor way to run a society.

Originally posted by Starrman
If morality is relative (as I believe it is), then I believe that there could have been and may yet be times in which the situation you presented is accepted by society. That does not mean it is morally acceptible now. Neither does it mean that a utilitarian view of society is a static one, what gives the most people the greatest happiness can change.

e way or another, to be honest, though I think relativity is more likely than a universal view.

I think you are wrong. Cooperation and empathy are part and parcel of what humans do as social animals. Acting in a way to others that we would find unacceptable to how we want to be treated is unnatural and detrimental to humanity in general. Plus a utilitarian view is useless as a check on tyranny; whatever the majority decree, no matter how barbaric, cruel or vicious is transmogrified into what is "moral". Down that road is savagery and Holocausts.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't find the scenario that unlikely; physical characteristics of children that are "different" from the majority have been used as a rationale for infanticide in the past. As have the mere fact that a child was female. What makes you think that "casual killing" is so unusual?

EDIT: Your last paragraph is my point and why I believe utilitarianism is incorrect, as well as a poor way to run a society.

I know infanticide has taken place quite a lot. However I don't think it's realistic to say that it always leads to the greatest happiness.

My last paragraph is based on utilitarianism. If it's right, why does that make you think utilitarianism is incorrect?

I will not argue that utilitarianism is a poor way to run society, since there is no good way to measure happiness in society. Simpler systems such as the Fundamental Rights idea may be more practical; I won't argue with that. But that's only because it's a simpler approximation of utilitarianism which is easier to work with.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I know infanticide has taken place quite a lot. However I don't think it's realistic to say that it always leads to the greatest happiness.

My last paragraph is based on utilitarianism. If it's right, why does that make you think utilitarianism is incorrect?

I will not argue that utilitarianism is a poor way to run society, since there is no goo ...[text shortened]... only because it's a simpler approximation of utilitarianism which is easier to work with.

Fundamental Rights theory is completely contrary to utilitarianism, not an "simpler approximation of it". Unless you want to claim that people's rights being respected makes the maximum number of them happier in the "long run", but that would render utilitarianism in and of itself a tautology.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Fundamental Rights theory is completely contrary to utilitarianism, not an "simpler approximation of it". Unless you want to claim that people's rights being respected makes the maximum number of them happier in the "long run", but that would render utilitarianism in and of itself a tautology.

Unless you want to claim that people's rights being respected makes the maximum number of them happier in the "long run", but that would render utilitarianism in and of itself a tautology.

Maximum or close to the maximum, yes.

Tautologies are self evident truths, that require no assumptions to determine their veracity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28logic%29

Yes, it is a tautology. You seem to imply that this means it's inferior or something.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Unless you want to claim that people's rights being respected makes the maximum number of them happier in the "long run", but that would render utilitarianism in and of itself a tautology.

Maximum or close to the maximum, yes.

[i/]Tautologies are self evident truths, that require no assumptions to determine their veracity.

http://en.wi ...[text shortened]... /i]

Yes, it is a tautology. You seem to imply that this means it's inferior or something.[/b]

A tautology is true by its form alone. But utilitarianism as you have defined it is meaningless; one can always say that the greater number will be happier "in the long run" if X or Y occur. Therefore, it is useless as a guide to what is "moral" and what is not.

EDIT: I prefer standard dictionaries to wikipedia.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A tautology is true by its form alone. But utilitarianism as you have defined it is meaningless; one can always say that the greater number will be happier "in the long run" if X or Y occur. Therefore, it is useless as a guide to what is "moral" and what is not.

EDIT: I prefer standard dictionaries to wikipedia.

one can always say that the greater number will be happier "in the long run" if X or Y occur.

One can say anything; one can say that people have the Fundamental Right to X or Y as well. That doesn't mean it's true. At some point one's intuition and conscience will become involved in any moral theory to weed out that which is moral from that which is not.

Unless you want to claim that people's rights being respected makes the maximum number of them happier in the "long run", but that would render utilitarianism in and of itself a tautology.

How would this make utilitarianism a tautology? I don't understand.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I think you are wrong. Cooperation and empathy are part and parcel of what humans do as social animals. Acting in a way to others that we would find unacceptable to how we want to be treated is unnatural and detrimental to humanity in general. Plus a utilitarian view is useless as a check on tyranny; whatever the majority decree, no matter how barbaric, ...[text shortened]... or vicious is transmogrified into what is "moral". Down that road is savagery and Holocausts.

I mentioned earlier that there were certain core morals, which seem to me to be more heavily rooted in society's history; not killing innocent people, children etc. Perhaps there is a little of both of our views in this. That certain morals are for the most part unchanging, while other lesser ones are redefined on the basis of cultural need.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]one can always say that the greater number will be happier "in the long run" if X or Y occur.

One can say anything; one can say that people have the Fundamental Right to X or Y as well. That doesn't mean it's true. At some point one's intuition and conscience will become involved in any moral theory to weed out that which is moral from that ...[text shortened]... a tautology.[/b]

How would this make utilitarianism a tautology? I don't understand.[/b]

I think what no1marauder is trying to say is that if society says that something is "good" for society, it then becomes a moral, no matter how "evil" you may view it on a personal level. It then becomes a tautology. Society can claim that the maximum number of people will benefit from an action to help justify that action, but who is really to say? The Nazi's claimed that the Jews were the cause of most of societies problems. The Nazi's then indoctrinated people into this kind of thinking to enable them to carry out their barbaric social policies and it worked! This is a tautology.

Originally posted by whodey
I think what no1marauder is trying to say is that if society says that something is "good" for society, it then becomes a moral, no matter how "evil" you may view it on a personal level. It then becomes a tautology. Society can claim that the maximum number of people will benefit from an action to help justify that action, but who is really to say? The Na able them to carry out their barbaric social policies and it worked! This is a tautology.

The fact that anyone (or a society) can (wrongly) claim that a particular course of action will generate the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number is not an argument against utilitarianism.

It may be that no one ever correctly calculates the course of action that will create the greatest happiness of the greatest number; utilitarianism merely states that action WOULD be the best course.

The problem with utilitarianism, as No1 has pointed out, is that it leads us to completely counter-intuitive conclusions. (Imagine that killing and carving up my grandad to harvest his organs could save 10 children's lives.) Some utilitarians have tried to counter this by reverting to "rule-utilitarianism", but there are good arguments against this as well (Anscombe, etc.)

Originally posted by dottewell
The fact that anyone (or a society) can (wrongly) claim that a particular course of action will generate the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number is not an argument against utilitarianism.

It may be that no one ever correctly calculates the course of action that will create the greatest happiness of the greatest number; utilitarianism me ...[text shortened]... to "rule-utilitarianism", but there are good arguments against this as well (Anscombe, etc.)

So I take it your not an utilitarianists?