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

[Ted Moffett]

All-

I should add to my brief comments on ethical absolutism and relativism, that
some argue for universal absolute ethical principles that are not defended
by appeal to authority or God, or the majority, but by logical and/or fact
based means of another kind (perhaps via the world of "universals" as
discussed in philosophy);  and that the US Constitution embodies some of
these ethical principles.

If Chas believes that ethical truth is neither determined by the majority,
nor an appeal to authority, such as God or wise humans,
then perhaps his approach to ethical truth follows the approach described
above.  Or perhaps he thinks each person makes up their own approach to
Ethics as best they can, based on whatever means they choose to use, and
ultimately there is no appeal to authority, the majority, or logic or fact,
than can decide the matter decisively, beyond someones personal beliefs and
choices.

I, for one, find Ethics to be one of the most disturbing and disquieting
subjects to explore in depth, given the incredible importance of the subject
impacting all aspects of life, and the equally incredible difficulties in
rationally determining an absolute universal system of Ethics, without
serious logical flaws.

Ted Moffett

On 12/30/06, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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/20061230/995f7319/attachment.html