[Vision2020] Iraq War: Absolutist Or Relativist Ethical Wrong?

[Ted Moffett]

Chas et. al.

Chas wrote:

"Truth has never been decided by the majority, nor by an appeal to
authority.  In other words, no matter how numerous or impressive a
list of Iraqi war opponents Tom conjures, it doesn't make him right.
However, that Tom isn't demonstrably right doesn't make him
automatically wrong, just it doesn't make you automatically right."
---------

A few objections come to mind.

Consider that the truth or falsehood of the statement "A majority of
the citizens of the US want the death penalty." is decided by the majority.
I suppose you could call this a "sociological truth."

Also, in the case of Tom's list of war opponents, if the list results in a
majority on one side of the issue, relativistic ethical theories of truth
give weight to the majority opinion, so indeed in this approach an ethical
"truth" can be decided by the majority.  And in fact we loosely use this
approach to Ethics to determine some of the most profound ethical questions
in US society.

We often pride ourselves in the US as being willing to live with the results
of elections because they express the "will of the people."  And in this
willingness is there not an underlying assumption that in the long run,
allowing the will of the people (or majority rule) to determine the ethical
(and other) rules of society, will result in the best overall ethical
outcome for all, rather than rule by kings, queens or committees of
experts?

Of course, our judicial system can act as a counter to the will of the
people, overturning popular will when it contradicts the US Constitution,
which can be interpreted as an "appeal to authority," that authority being
the authors of the US Constitution.  The reverent references to the
"founding fathers" expresses this sense of "authority."  Thus, our society
appears to operate with both "absolutist" (the US Constitution's fundamental
ethical principles, with some arguing these are ultimately "religious") and
"relativistic" (majority rule expressed in elections) ethical principles.

I'm not sure, Chas, if you believe in absolutist or relativistic ethics, but
in practice in our society it is clear we do apply majority rule to
determining very profound ethical principles.  Look at the death penalty,
which I also oppose, often defended with polls expressing that the clear
majority of the US public support the death penalty.

Regardless of the truth or falsehood of absolutist or relativistic Ethics,
from a philosophical analysis, I am inclined to respect the majority wishes
of a society in determining their ethical rules (the Nazis in Germany are a
classic counter example, given they were voted into power).  This is one
reason I don't believe the West should be overly aggressive in forcing
Islamic nations to adopt our way of life, such as attempting to force
democracy upon Iraq, however much I disagree with many of the practices of
Islamic rule.

The discussion, at this web link, of Relativistic Ethics, was thought
provoking:

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jbeebe2/relativ.htm
---------
Here is a web link with a brief mention of ethical principles being
determined by the majority (Ethical Relativism), with objections to this
viewpoint.  Note the confusion of scientific and ethical truth in the
counter example of the belief that the Earth was flat, which is not an
ethical belief.  One can believe in absolutist scientific truth but not in
absolutist truth in the sphere of Ethics:

http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/relativism.html


C. *Ad Populum <http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html> Objection *to
the relativist's belief that ethics is established by what most people
believe*:*  Simply because most people *think* something is right does not
thereby *make* it right. Simply because most people *think* a statement is
true does not *make* that statement true







a. In the 14th century, most persons thought the earth was flat, but this
belief did not make the earth flat at that time.







b. If different groups determine different meanings to what is right and
wrong, then there is no objective basis for the consistent use of the words.





Counter-objections to the *ad populum* objection (by the relativist):







a. The same difficulty of establishing the meaning of "right" and "wrong"
exits for the absolutist, *pari passu*. The absolutist has been unable to
state a universally agreed upon meaning to the terms.  (Notice that this
response is a variant of the *ad
hominem*<http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html>--"my
point might be bad, but yours is worse.")







b. Other solutions to the questions of the meaning of key ethical terms
according to the relativist are possible by appealing to survival
value, *consensus
gentium*, and so on.

--------

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

--------
On 12/28/06, Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/28/06, Tony <tonytime at clearwire.net> wrote:
>
> > Tom, add all your organizations opposed to the war together and you have
> a minority of vets overall.  My point stands.
>
> Truth has never been decided by the majority, nor by an appeal to
> authority.  In other words, no matter how numerous or impressive a
> list of Iraqi war opponents Tom conjures, it doesn't make him right.
> However, that Tom isn't demonstrably right doesn't make him
> automatically wrong, just it doesn't make you automatically right.
>
> This contentious issue can never be decided with infallibility.
> History won't even tell us; hindsight teaches different lessons
> depending on the agenda/viewpoint of the interpreter.  Sometimes, it
> teaches no lessons at all.
>
> I am opposed to the war because I am a pacifist.  My pacifism is not
> absolute; I am not opposed to the use of violence under ALL
> circumstances, but most of the time.  In this war, I do not believe
> that our participation is moral or justified.  The current
> administration hasn't persuaded me otherwise, and I have no patriotic
> compunction to support our government when I feel it has made the
> wrong decision.
>
> I don't think that you are stupid for supporting the war, nor do I
> think that Tom is clever for opposing it.  I remain as intellectually
> neutral/agnostic as possible on matters than are undecidable.  When
> passions interfere, logic disintegrates, and meaningful dialogue
> becomes an impossibility.  I know, I am frequently incapable of
> reigning my passions, but I do try, honestly.
>
> I will tell you a true story that is perhaps relevant.  Years ago, I
> became friends with a Baptist minister who was willing to discuss
> anything dispassionately, even the validity of his faith.  We politely
> argued for about 18 months, nearly every day, with me championing the
> non-theistic side.  I wasn't interested in persuading him, these were
> mere intellectual games.  However, I finally, and quite accidentally,
> converted him to atheism.  He cried a lot.  I felt bad, and tried to
> turn him back to Christianity.  He had a nervous breakdown shorty
> afterwards, and we lost contact, so I've never known whether his faith
> was ever restored.
>
> I respect that type of Christianity.  Not because he "converted," but
> because of his intellectual integrity.  It is the type of intellectual
> integrity to which I aspire, but have sadly seldom achieved.  Still,
> even though this level of integrity is often beyond my capabilities, I
> still expect it of everyone.  not that they have achieved it, of
> course, but that it is a goal to which they aspire.
>
> When I say "everyone," I am engaging in hyperbole.  I don't really
> mean everyone; not everyone has any intellectual aspirations or
> pretensions at all.  Some, even with the aspirations, aren't
> temperamentally capable of it.  Some are just stupid.  I am NOT
> suggesting that you, or Tom, or even most people on this list fall
> into the latter category (yes, there are a few).  In your case, you
> demonstrate the intellectual ability, but I genuinely don't see the
> intellectual integrity.  You seem more keen on winning the argument at
> all costs than on seeking a facsimile of truth.
>
> So, I ask you this: do you value intellectual integrity?  If Tom's, or
> someone else's, argument persuaded you that the war in Iraq was wrong,
> or that abortion was the woman's choice, would you ever admit it
> publicly?
>
> This question is sincere.  I am not baiting, trolling, or insinuating
> anything.  I ask because I consider Vision2020 an important forum, but
> I only enjoy participating if I believe that my adversaries and allies
> are participating as honestly as I am.
>
> Chas
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061230/64b44660/attachment-0001.html