[Vision2020] What is relative morality

Tue, 3 Feb 2004 04:36:14 EST

--part1_77.21a6dda5.2d50c58e_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

All:

There is always going to be someone who is relativistic, nihilistic, 
absolutist, etc., in their moral thinking or lack thereof, so that there is no way to 
get 100% consensus on any moral issue.  

Consider the moral view that might makes right, believed in by more people in 
one form or another than would admit.  Force, power and success determine 
moral advantage in this view, so if the weak and/or powerless are wiped out or 
exploited, the victors claim their greater power and success proves they inhabit 
a moral high ground.  This "moral " theory is often linked to a kind of 
Darwinist determinism of survival of the fittest, backed by the science of 
evolution, providing the dominators and/or survivors of economic struggle and/or war 
with a moral justification that they have more right to live and prosper than 
those who may be weaker and are easy to defeat or exploit by force or 
circumstances.  After all, this is the way of nature that has led to the progress of 
evolution.

Again, this view or a variant is believed in by many who do not fully admit 
it in polite company, and in fact is often trotted out as a justification for 
the predatory and ruthless capitalist behavior of many in America, and in 
international warfare and economic struggle, though this moral thinking is often 
not formulated into a system.  If challenged, of course a kinder and gentler 
moral view is allowed to temper the extremes of survival of the fittest.  But 
nonetheless some form of "survival of the fittest" moral thinking is still 
adhered to by many individuals and nations when you examine their actual conduct.

Those who lack the means or ability to survive and prosper in a competitive 
capitalist society lack the moral ground to cry foul, because the "losers" lack 
the capabilities to survive in a harsh struggle for success that should 
reward the survival of the fittest.  Therefore there is no obligation from society 
to provide a social safety net, or to try to level the playing field (the evil 
specter of socialism rises), actions that would undermine the logic that 
determines progress based on the survival of the fittest.  

Moral theory can be idealist (Platonic) or empirically (Empiricist) based, 
Utilitarian (consequentialist, or based on outcomes often defined in terms of 
happiness for the greatest number) or deontological (moral obligation comes 
first based on "principles" or other approaches).  

Then there is Kant's Categorical Imperative, an ethical theory that for some 
reason is regarded as of major significance, though I am not sure why (maybe I 
am exposing my ignorance here, but so be it).  

I estimate that most of the world's people believe in an ethics based on pure 
revelation from a supreme being who dictates moral codes that really are not 
open to debate (though the ethics involved may have many theoretical 
justifications), and have as their ultimate grounding the authority of a supreme being 
of one form or another, who has revealed his moral codes in a miraculous book, 
e.g., the Koran or the Bible.

There are other forms of ethical reasoning, but all these different 
approaches to ethical thinking have variations and combinations and subtleties that can 
confound anyone trying to put it all together into a perfect formal system.  

Those who think they have Ethics all figured out are of course inclined to 
impose their view as the one and only true way.  It is no surprise many find 
comfort and simplicity in finding a religion to put all their faith in that 
offers definite moral codes that are not open to debate, where many of the 
difficult problems and apparently insolvable moral quandaries of life are seemingly 
resolved and settled to great relief.  Is this part of what it means to be 
"saved?"

Ted

--part1_77.21a6dda5.2d50c58e_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
 All:
 
 There is always going to be someone who is relativistic, nihilistic, abs=
olutist, etc., in their moral thinking or lack thereof, so that there is no=20=
way to get 100% consensus on any moral issue. &nbsp;
 
 Consider the moral view that might makes right, believed in by more peop=
le in one form or another than would admit. &nbsp;Force, power and success d=
etermine moral advantage in this view, so if the weak and/or powerless are w=
iped out or exploited, the victors claim their greater power and success pro=
ves they inhabit a moral high ground. &nbsp;This "moral " theory is often li=
nked to a kind of Darwinist determinism of survival of the fittest, backed b=
y the science of evolution, providing the dominators and/or survivors of eco=
nomic struggle and/or war with a moral justification that they have more rig=
ht to live and prosper than those who may be weaker and are easy to defeat o=
r exploit by force or circumstances. &nbsp;After all, this is the way of nat=
ure that has led to the progress of evolution.
 
 Again, this view or a variant is believed in by many who do not fully ad=
mit it in polite company, and in fact is often trotted out as a justificatio=
n for the predatory and ruthless capitalist behavior of many in America, and=
 in international warfare and economic struggle, though this moral thinking=20=
is often not formulated into a system. &nbsp;If challenged, of course a kind=
er and gentler moral view is allowed to temper the extremes of survival of t=
he fittest. &nbsp;But nonetheless some form of "survival of the fittest" mor=
al thinking is still adhered to by many individuals and nations when you exa=
mine their actual conduct.
 
 Those who lack the means or ability to survive and prosper in a competit=
ive capitalist society lack the moral ground to cry foul, because the "loser=
s" lack the capabilities to survive in a harsh struggle for success that sho=
uld reward the survival of the fittest. &nbsp;Therefore there is no obligati=
on from society to provide a social safety net, or to try to level the playi=
ng field (the evil specter of socialism rises), actions that would undermine=
 the logic that determines progress based on the survival of the fittest. &n=
bsp;
 
 Moral theory can be idealist (Platonic) or empirically (Empiricist) base=
d, Utilitarian (consequentialist, or based on outcomes often defined in term=
s of happiness for the greatest number) or deontological (moral obligation c=
omes first based on "principles" or other approaches). &nbsp;
 
 Then there is Kant's Categorical Imperative, an ethical theory that for=20=
some reason is regarded as of major significance, though I am not sure why (=
maybe I am exposing my ignorance here, but so be it). &nbsp;
 
 I estimate that most of the world's people believe in an ethics based on=
 pure revelation from a supreme being who dictates moral codes that really a=
re not open to debate (though the ethics involved may have many theoretical=20=
justifications), and have as their ultimate grounding the authority of a sup=
reme being of one form or another, who has revealed his moral codes in a mir=
aculous book, e.g., the Koran or the Bible.
 
 There are other forms of ethical reasoning, but all these different appr=
oaches to ethical thinking have variations and combinations and subtleties t=
hat can confound anyone trying to put it all together into a perfect formal=20=
system. &nbsp;
 
 Those who think they have Ethics all figured out are of course inclined=20=
to impose their view as the one and only true way. &nbsp;It is no surprise m=
any find comfort and simplicity in finding a religion to put all their faith=
 in that offers definite moral codes that are not open to debate, where many=
 of the difficult problems and apparently insolvable moral quandaries of lif=
e are seemingly resolved and settled to great relief. &nbsp;Is this part of=20=
what it means to be "saved?"
 
 Ted</HTML>

--part1_77.21a6dda5.2d50c58e_boundary--