[mike777]

Relativist vs Objectivist

For those few posters who appear to believe in "Moral Non-Absolutism or Moral Relativisim or Moral Pluralism" it might help if they state their case.


An alternative argument is a view that there is a way things are that is independent of human opinion and that we are capable of arriving at belief about how things are that is objectively reasonable, binding on anyone capable of appreciating the relevant evidence regardless of their social or cultural perspective.

See Rorty, Boghossian, and others.

[mike777]

"I do not recognize the concepts of good and evil as anything more than moral constructs, no more capable of being an accurate or meaningful explanation than is the related god notion."


Fair enough but it is unclear whether you believe in goodness as part of your moral construct. I do.

It does seem you believe that goodness is not capable of being an accurate or meaningful explanation.
------------------
To rephrase do you believe that there are no absolute moral facts which can confirm absolute moral judgements?
Richard Rorty and many others word argue NO!
If I understand his view is that there are many alternative moral frameworks, but no facts by virtue of which one of them is more correct than any of the others for there is no way things are in and of themselves.
-----------------------

I might define following absolute moral facts is good and not following them evil.

[bid_em_up]

The_Hog, on Feb 22 2008, 08:31 PM, said:

Just curious. When is your membership of the John Birch Society up for renewal? How many white gowns with pointy hoods do you have in your wardrobe? Are you what Americans colloquially claim a typical "redneck"?

1) Don't have one, never have, never will.
2) None.
3) No.

So you think that anyone who believes in capital punishment has to be some dumb backwoods redneck? Or a racist? Or an ultra-right wing conservative?

Your questions have absolutely nothing to do with a belief in capital punishment.

[Winstonm]

Getting back to the original question, I have stated I am against capital punishment but for reasons of finality of sentence compard to the inadequacies of the judicial system - if one innocent is killed that is too many.

But I am re-thinking even that.

Laws and punishments are designed to allow the dysfunctional (humans) to function in a less dysfunctional system (societies). Societies would certainly have the ability - and perhaps the right - to eliminate the irreversibly dysfunctional elements for the good of the society.

Eliminating from society does not mean slain, though. Elimination from society is banishment - a loss of all interaction and benefits of the society.

Surely banishment is punishment enough and serves the goal of society.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I might define following absolute moral facts is good and not following them evil

But, Mike, how do you know what are these absolute moral facts? Are they passed down genetically? Who holds these moral truths - is it the sperm or the egg? If both sperm and egg hold complete sets of moral truths, does the offspring then have twice the morality of the parents?

If absolute moral facts are genetically transfered, what is the explanation for the sociopath? A belief in genetically transfered abosolute moral facts is a denial of the concept of the sociopath, as all are born with this inate understanding of morality and ability to chose right and wrong. This appears more arrogance of belief than fact.

If the assumption is made that they are not transfered genetically, how are they known?

[kenberg]

I use "evil" when "flawed" doesn't seem to quite cover the ground. I am flawed. If I am to make a list of my flaws it would be long. I have, however, never gone out with a rifle using people for target practice, or anything remotely like that. Saying such people are flawed somehow, to me, misstates the situation.


Obviously the word "evil" really sets a number of responders off. I use it, roughly speaking at least, for behavior that does great harm and is done for extremely selfish reasons. I guess I could try just saying " behavior that does great harm including death and great sorrow and is done for extremely selfish reasons" instead of "evil". Presumably shooting random people including kids walking to school, whether in the hopes of profit through a ransom or simply for the enjoyment it provides, would qualify as behavior that does great harm including death and great sorrow and is done for extremely selfish reasons. I assume (crossing my fingers) that everyone agrees with this characterization, and if adding in the word "evil" causes problems then I can drop it. I still don't understand, but I can drop the word if we agree with this alternative characterization. If the alternative characterization is still seen as too harsh then I really don't understand.

[Winstonm]

Ken,

I am with you on this. I believe what we are all trying to describe is that which we consider a heinous crime - defining heinous as something outside of our realm of relation.

For example, a spouse who finds a cheating partner plots for two weeks and then kills. We do not view this as particularly heinous as we have all felt anger, jealousy, rage, and held a grudge too long - we can relate to the feelings that ignited the murder, even if we believe the murder wrong. We may even see how we ourselves could be capable of that transgression under specific circustances.

However, when it is outside our realm of understanding the emotional motivations, it becomes aberant and heinous.

Thankfully most of us cannot relate to the crimes of Jeffrey Dahlmer, so we view those murders as most heinous; but I would bet that to Ted Bundy or another serial killer, there was nothing heinous about them.

Perhaps the discussion can be furthered with the concept that the person is flawed, but his crimes are heinous.

[kenberg]

"heinous" is a good word. I like it.

[TimG]

When I think of evil in the good and evil context, I think of some cosmic force (which I don't actually believe exists). I don't believe that those who perpetrate vile acts are possessed of an evil force that makes them do these acts (anymore than I think that those who do kind things are possessed by a good force).

I also think that today's usage of the adjective evil describes despicable things, but does not necessarily imply a cosmic force at work.

[TimG]

kenberg, on Feb 23 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

"heinous" is a good word. I like it.

MW online give "hatefully or shockingly evil " as the definition of heinous. It doesn't seem a good choice if the objective is to remove evil from the equation.

[jdonn]

TimG, on Feb 23 2008, 04:44 PM, said:

kenberg, on Feb 23 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

"heinous" is a good word. I like it.

MW online give "hatefully or shockingly evil " as the definition of heinous. It doesn't seem a good choice if the objective is to remove evil from the equation.

My impression is 'heinous' is being used to describe an act whereas the usage of 'evil' that we are trying to remove describes the nature of a person.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Feb 23 2008, 01:23 PM, said:

Quote

I might define following absolute moral facts is good and not following them evil

But, Mike, how do you know what are these absolute moral facts? .... Who holds these moral truths -how are they known?

See my previous post, I explained this.

IF you believe that no facts by virtue of which one is more correct than any other fair enough. If you believe there are no moral facts which can confirm absolute moral judgement, ok but you need to argue that.

I will rephrase though granted this is really a summary.

Objectivist:
Under the appropriate circumstances, our exposure to the evidence alone is capable of explaining why we believe what we believe.

Constuctivism:
It is never possible to explain why we believe what we believe soley on the basis of our exposure to the relevant evidence; our contingent needs and interest must also be invoked.

There are books and books written on both sides.

As for whether to believe in Capital Punishment as moral or good or evil or whatever word you think is best, you can pick the logic you prefer to use.

However I think it is tough to say retribution or its synonyms are rejected by mass of society or culture. If posters have evidence I have not seen it.
I grant a few governments have outlawed capital punishment but even the why is not clear in this forum.

[finally17]

sceptic, on Feb 23 2008, 01:37 PM, said:

Quote

It doesn't seem like an emotional rant to me. It's a very valid question with a very valid example. But since we already have, at least in the US, life imprisonment with no possibility of parole," I don't understand why that's not an acceptable alternative when your problem is: "we must make sure this perpetrator doesn't do this again."

The reason I think it is not acceptable, is it does not seem to work, I can assure you if sending someone to jail worked, I would not feel a need to want the death penalty

There's a lot of other stuff to wade through and I'll get to it eventually, but what's your standard for "work" if "life imprisonment with no possibility of parole" doesn't work? We put a guy in jail for the rest of his life, no one else is killed, how is this not successful?

[mike777]

As I said in my previous post I think there are four possible reasons someone might say it is moral:
1) There is evil in the world, I believe it is moral to use capital punishment to stop/overcome evil
2) Deterence is important, capital punishment is a deterence.
3) Justice is important, capital punishment ok to carry out justice
4) Retribution is important, capital punishment is retribution.

Perhaps others can come up with more reasons.

In any case I think if you are in favor of capital punishment you need to believe one of these reasons is true or factual.

Of course if you think all of these reasons are not true or factual...then ....

I think saying I am just against killing then, what genes or group of genes is it ok to kill/harm and why? It seems some say it ok to kill/harm some genes because I say so.

[jdonn]

mike777, on Feb 23 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

In any case I think if you are in favor of capital punishment you need to believe one of these reasons is true or factual.

But, as I've tried to emphasize, you also would need to believe:

- Someone is able to 'accurately' and 'fairly' in some way decide who receives it.
- That same someone has the right to make that decision.
- Someone has the right to carry out the act.

It is my objection on at least some level to all of these points that fuels my opposition, regardless of what I may think of your list of reasons.

[mike777]

jdonn, on Feb 23 2008, 05:44 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 23 2008, 05:38 PM, said:

In any case I think if you are in favor of capital punishment you need to believe one of these reasons is true or factual.

But, as I've tried to emphasize, you also would need to believe:

- Someone is able to 'accurately' and 'fairly' in some way decide who receives it.
- That same someone has the right to make that decision.
- Someone has the right to carry out the act.

It is my objection on at least some level to all of these points that fuels my opposition, regardless of what I may think of your list of reasons.

I agree, where do these or for that matter any rights on "punishment" come from. Wherever that is where we need to go there to justify capital punishment.

Where does fair or accurate judgement on "punishment" comes from...we need to go there to justify capital punishment.

If no one has rights or they are just made up, fair enough.
If no one has fair or accurate judgement or it is just made up, fair enough.

You in fact seem to argue that point 3 cannot be true or factual in the case of capital punishment, fair enough.

I think your argument is covered in point 3 though. "Justice" If you believe there are facts or evidence to justify point 3 then I think your concerns are covered, in fact must be covered, otherwise no Justice or a miscarriage of justice occurs.

[jdonn]

mike777, on Feb 23 2008, 05:52 PM, said:

I think your argument is covered in point 3 though. "Justice" If you believe there are facts or evidence to justify point 3 then I think your concerns are covered, in fact must be covered, otherwise no Justice or a miscarriage of justice occurs.

That's a reasonable sounding argument but I disagree. To me what you just said is equivalant to claiming that "person X does not deserve to be alive" is the same as "we have the right to kill person X", when really they are not at all the same thing.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 23 2008, 09:11 AM, said:

Quote

maybe it's been unclear in this and all other threads i've posted in, but i judge myself harsher than i judge ted bundy...

We can never change the fact that we are humans, therefore imperfect. What is the reason to judge yourself for being what you are?

ok, i misspoke... i don't judge bundy at all... i judge (by that i mean that i try to understand rightly) myself so that i can see my need for salvation... if i don't so judge myself, God will do it for me

Quote

Absolutism creates a standard against which you judge yourself and everyone else, and it is the basis of conflict, both inner conflict and outward conflict.

i'm not clear on this... absolutism in what sense? and as i said, i misspoke re: bundy or anyone else (except myself)

Trinidad, on Feb 23 2008, 11:10 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 22 2008, 01:17 PM, said:

do you believe in good and evil?

Only evil people do...

Seriously, good and evil are religious terms. Most western, non-religious people believe in good and bad behavior and most of these people are well aware of the fact that what they themselves see as good or bad behavior, might not be viewed the same by someone else.

If you support that point of view, it is quite obvious that there is no universal good and evil. But if you are religious, then your spiritual leader will have told you that there is good and evil and that might settle it.

Rik

if there is no evil there is no good... if there is no good there is no God

jdonn, on Feb 23 2008, 04:46 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 23 2008, 04:44 PM, said:

kenberg, on Feb 23 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

"heinous" is a good word. I like it.

MW online give "hatefully or shockingly evil " as the definition of heinous. It doesn't seem a good choice if the objective is to remove evil from the equation.

My impression is 'heinous' is being used to describe an act whereas the usage of 'evil' that we are trying to remove describes the nature of a person.

and i think that sums it up nicely

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on Feb 23 2008, 11:10 AM, said:

Seriously, good and evil are religious terms.

No, they're not.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on Feb 23 2008, 12:56 PM, said:

Surely banishment is punishment enough and serves the goal of society.

Certainly. But... to where will you banish them?