Dispatches from the Creation Wars

yeah, facts have that annoying habit of getting in the way of right-wing rants. Darn!

Posted by: Heinrich Mallison | September 8, 2009 9:45 AM

Obviously, gay marriage is simply causing more heterosexual married couples to remain in bitter, soulless marriages out of fear.

What we never see are statistics on the increase of predatory homosexuals on the streets of Massachusetts, prowling sidewalks and skulking in dark alleys waiting to pounce on the psychologically vulnerable victims of heterosexual marriages broken on the anvil of a morally-relativistic society.

Posted by: gingerbaker | September 8, 2009 9:55 AM

You could look at it this way: if 50% of all marriages end in divorce, that means 50% end in death. by that approach there's no good way out of it.

Makes as much sense as the "gay marriage will doom conventional marriage" crap.

Posted by: dean | September 8, 2009 10:15 AM

I find it funny how the GAY AGENDA so feared by the right essentially amounts to gays wanting to live a heterosexual lifestyle.

Posted by: Louis B. | September 8, 2009 10:28 AM

Would be nice to hear Colson's, Allard's or any other of the homophobic asswipes answer the question: "What happened?" in response to this devastating (for them) news.

Posted by: MikeMa | September 8, 2009 10:49 AM

Obviously, gay marriage is simply causing more heterosexual married couples to remain in bitter, soulless marriages out of fear.

Heh, it seems that gay marriage has accomplished what the Catholic Church has always tried to do.

Posted by: catgirl | September 8, 2009 11:04 AM

Would be nice to hear Colson's, Allard's or any other of the homophobic asswipes answer the question: "What happened?" in response to this devastating (for them) news.

Why, the reporting organizations have a liberal bias, of course. Probably full of gays.

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | September 8, 2009 11:05 AM

Of course morality is relative. The fact that many of us agree on certain moral positions does not make them universal. Nor does the fact that the moral frames of a lot of other people are diametrically apposed to my own, for example, mean that I have to just accept their frame as it concerns them. I can speak out against and even agitate against the moral framework that the Saudis operate under, while recognizing that from their perspective, what they do is entirely moral.

And for the record, there are a lot of Muslim women who accept their repression with the same devotion and gusto as the men in their culture. That doesn't make it right, any more than it was right for both sexes in our own culture to oppress women the way we used to and to some degree still do. But the fact that Saudi culture is the way that it is and that western culture of just fifty years ago, was the way that it was, is evidence to support moral relativism. What is moral is constantly in flux and rightfully so. What I consider moral is not necessarily the same as what my neighbors believe is moral.

Indeed, there are things that I believe firmly are inherently immoral, that a great deal of even western society - especially in the U.S. believe is not only moral but of the utmost importance. I firmly believe that sexual repression is an inherent evil that always does more harm than good. I believe that there is not only nothing wrong with exploring and experimenting with ones sexuality (I am not talking about the hetero/homo dichotomy, though that can certainly be a part), it is unhealthy not to do so.

Morality is absolutely relative...

Posted by: DuWayne | September 8, 2009 11:27 AM

I suppose one could claim that the immediate undermining of traditional marriage would result in higher adultery rates rather than higher divorce rates. It might be worthwhile knocking down that argument as well, but I can't find from a quick google search any data on adultery rates that is recent enough and is broken down by state.

Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | September 8, 2009 12:07 PM

OK, you referenced water instead of coffee. My gaffe. Nonethess, isn't your definition of in simply relative to the coordinate system you choose, and not due to some absolute claim of reality?

Which, I'm saying, is just like any system of morals you, or others, may choose.

Posted by: Q | September 8, 2009 12:16 PM

OK, you referenced water instead of coffee. My gaffe. Nonethess, isn't your definition of in simply relative to the coordinate system you choose, and not due to some absolute claim of reality?

Which, I'm saying, is just like any system of morals you, or others, may choose.

I reject that argument because it ultimately leads to solipsism, which is useless. In order to have a meaningful conversation, we have to tentatively assume that you and I mean the same thing when we say certain words, like "in" (or the words "order", "to", "have", "meaningful", "conversation", "or", "the", and "words", etc.)

Obviously there is no physical law that dictates that the word "in" must refer to being spatially located below (i.e. in the direction of the vector indicating the net force of gravity at this location) the rim of this particular cylinder and within the diameter of the cylinder. But in order to even have this conversation, I have to assume we mean the same thing.

When I opine that morality, while not absolute, is very much a non-arbitrary function of biology and of mathematical laws, I am making an implicit assumption that biology is not all some elaborate delusion on my part. I mean, I suppose it's possible that I am the only human in the universe and you all are a bunch of sapient computer programs put here by the Matrix or something to converse with me. But I don't find that useful.

So yes, if you want to get all solipsist about it, morality is relative. So is the idea that the force of gravity is proportional to the product of masses divide by the square of the distance between them. What do I mean by "mass"? What do I mean by "gravity"? What do I mean by "force"? See, it's all relative!

However, I do feel that if we will only assume the barest framework needed to have a meaningful conversation about the world, those parsimonious assumptions will eventually lead us directly to the realization that morality stems from non-arbitrary principles, and that denying Saudi women the right to drive or American homosexual couples the right to marry is objectively WRONG.

I do think Q has a point though: There really should be coffee in my cup, rather than it being empty or filled with water. And THAT'S an absolute truth! ;)

Posted by: James Sweet | September 8, 2009 12:55 PM

Also, one more thing should be said about the arbitrary-ness of "in": The fact that there is no clear dividing line between state A and state B should never be a reason for rejecting a distinction between A and B.

Posted by: James Sweet | September 8, 2009 1:01 PM

What's the p-value on one observation?

Posted by: anomalous | September 8, 2009 1:29 PM

DuWayne said:

Morality is absolutely relative...

Which is true if one is discussing incest.

As to our topic, doesn't the evidence ted to show that hetero couples are rejecting divorce now that the definition of that institution has been changed to allow same-sex divorces?

Posted by: kehrsam | September 8, 2009 2:08 PM

DuWayne;

What is moral is constantly in flux and rightfully so.

Doesn't that statement contradict itself? Or is the "rightfullness" of morality's constant flux not an objective moral statement, ie. itself subject to flux?

Of course morality is relative. The fact that many of us agree on certain moral positions does not make them universal.

Indeed, there are things that I believe firmly are inherently immoral, that a great deal of even western society - especially in the U.S. - believe is not only moral but of the utmost importance. I firmly believe that sexual repression is an inherent evil that always does more harm than good.

Don't those statements contradict each other? How can your moral position be relative if there are "inherent evils" that "always (do) more harm than good"? It sounds like you're making objective moral statements while simultaneously holding that morality is relative.

Posted by: Fortuna | September 8, 2009 3:21 PM

James Sweet -

I am arguing that morality is not relative because of a) our shared biology, and b) certain mathematical truths related to game theory.

And I am saying that is bullshit. Especially given that you don't explain - even in short, how biology or math create universal moral axioms.

This is not to say that morality is absolute, either. It's just not purely relative. Or at least, it is not relative to the individual or to the culture (it may be species-relative).

Name one single universal moral axiom - just one.

Relative to the culture though, there don't seem to be any. Pedophilia? Ancient Greeks engaged in pederasty as a matter of course and no one seemed to have a problem with it. In some cultures, though it is rare enough today, it is acceptable to have relations with a wife as soon as she begins to menstruate. Absolute protection of one's children? In many cultures even today, children are chattel to be used in trades as wives and in some places as slaves and/or prostitutes. Likewise, in times past and even today, honor killings of children and/or other family members is a matter of course for certain transgressions - sometimes not even particularly egregious offenses. Rape? It's acceptable in a lot of cultures as a weapon of war. While the victims are certainly not keen on it, it isn't particularly immoral in those cultural paradigms, any more than any other weapon of war. Murder? Depends on what the murder is for, relative to the culture. Incest? Generally taboo in virtually every culture, but there are those who are only concerned about potential offspring. And how closely related two people must be to make it incest is nowhere near universal. And there are exceptions that were not only not considered immoral, but for them to break from their incestuous relations in the name of continuity of the divine expressed through their line would transcend immorality and even heresy.

We won't even get into more minor moral framework.

I don't understand this argument. Maybe we are using the word "moral" to mean two different things?

The Saudis have incredibly repressive attitudes about the place of women in society. To them - including most women in their culture - it is immoral for women to do certain things, wear certain things and even perform certain basic tasks. In our own culture things weren't a whole lot different a mere fifty years ago. Though women were not as oppressed as they are there, for the most part they were still little more than chattel of their husbands or male relatives - though the law was changing things slowly. And again, it was considered a moral issue.

Yet today, we in the west consider that kind of treatment of women as immoral. The Saudis believe that our attitudes about women are immoral - including many, if not most of the women in their society. This would indicate that morality is quite relative.

For that matter, there are a lot of practices that I listed after the second quote, that happen today and in the cultures they are happening they are still considered perfectly normal.

I have a coffee cup sitting on my desk right now. It is empty. Two hours ago, it was filled with water. Therefore, the amount of liquid in my coffee cup is relative?!?

What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Rick -

Absolute relativism is just so much intellectual masturbation. People who champion relativism in an absolutist fashion must view themselves as somehow disconnected from the universe they live in.

Not in the least. I just have yet to find a single universal moral axiom. Maybe instead of being an insulting asshole, you could just name one for us?

Why do the constraints of moral relativism not also apply to the rules of rhetoric?

What constraints are you talking about? The point of moral relativism is that there are no constraints. That morality is relative to the individual and the culture.

There are some moral absolutes that are basically accepted culture wide. There may be individuals within that culture who do not consider them in their moral frame, but enough people do that they have taken the shape of social conventions and the law. Then there are aspects of moral frameworks that are absolutely relative to the individual - such as my example from my first comment, sexual morays.

James Sweet -

However, I do feel that if we will only assume the barest framework needed to have a meaningful conversation about the world, those parsimonious assumptions will eventually lead us directly to the realization that morality stems from non-arbitrary principles, and that denying Saudi women the right to drive or American homosexual couples the right to marry is objectively WRONG.

So everyone, in every culture throughout history who has oppressed women (including willingly oppressed women) was inherently immoral, rather than using the moral framework of their time and place? And every culture throughout history that has denied homosexuals the right to marry was immoral, rather than using the moral framework of their time and place?

Do you not comprehend how very ethnocentric and ultimately useless your attitude is? How exactly do you suggest trying to change the very destructive attitudes of cultures that subsist in a repressive moral frame, when you are refusing to view that culture as a product of it's culture, rather than your own? I am not saying that you need to accept what they do as right or even moral. But when you refuse to accept that you simply can't judge them wholesale, through the lens of your own culture, you will never be able to do anything but alienate them. Without recognizing that to them, they are moral and where we contradict their moral frame we are immoral, all you have is useless rhetoric.

It's a lot like saying that our earliest modern human ancestors were immoral because men would fight over women and if another tribe or band invaded another's territory, quite often horrendous violence would ensue - and rape wasn't an uncommon method of propagation.

Posted by: DuWayne | September 8, 2009 3:48 PM

Fortuna -

Doesn't that statement contradict itself? Or is the "rightfullness" of morality's constant flux not an objective moral statement, ie. itself subject to flux?

I consider it right, that morality should be in flux. I am not making a moral claim about that rightness - though it certainly is good to see that our generalized social morays have changed since the days when people of color were generally considered subhuman and women were chattel. Those are both things that are diametrically opposed to my own moral framework and thankfully, for the most part in our shared cultural paradigm.

Don't those statements contradict each other? How can your moral position be relative if there are "inherent evils" that "always (do) more harm than good"?

That is MY OWN moral position, not a universal one. And it is not what I have always believed. Indeed most of my own moral frame has changed rather dramatically as I have grown and matured. That I happen to hold moral absolutes doesn't contradict the notion that morality is relative - especially as I sincerely doubt that I am done growing and changing at thirty three. While I doubt there will be any fundamental changes to my moral frame, I have little doubt that it will continue to evolve.

Posted by: DuWayne | September 8, 2009 3:57 PM

DuWayne What is moral is constantly in flux and rightfully so. What I consider moral is not necessarily the same as what my neighbors believe is moral.

You confuse what is named with the thing itself. I would say that "what I consider moral" refers to ethics, which are highly relative. Morality is what the thing is, not what it is called; cue the White Knight.

James Sweet: Maybe we are using the word "moral" to mean two different things?

Yes, I would say. The discussion does not appear to be differentiating between "morals" (the relation of good/evil associated with particular choices) and ethics (finitely expressible rules, used to make approximate evaluations of "moral").

Morality is an ordering on the set of possible choices as a function of the entity choosing (with possibly a time component). Since the function varies relative to these (and certain thermodynamic properties of the universe), it may be considered relative; since the function may be absolutely defined (if not computed) on these, it is absolute.

James Sweet: But what is "me" is NOT relative... clearly, my liver is part of me, but this coffee cup (there it is again!) is not part of me.

It's not as clear as you think. You don't think of the coffee cup as part of you, and you do think of the liver as part of you; however, that's using a particular demarcation function: the one which is generated by your brain. Philosophically, any arbitrary demarcation function defines an equally arbitrary and valid philosophical entity. The question is of how useful any arbitrary defined entity is....

Furthermore, "me" is relative in another sense, in that what "me" refers to depends on who says it.

DuWayne And I am saying that is bullshit. Especially given that you don't explain - even in short, how biology or math create universal moral axioms.

Robbins axioms to give rise to a Boolean logic lattice for connection of propositions.
Joint affirmation of ZF axioms (independent Choice) taken as TRUE to give rise to most of math.
Mutual information to resolve the Ship of Theseus Riddle and the nature of identity; minimum description length induction on experience to solve Epicurus' Problem of Deduction and Hume's problem of Induction (and incidentally give rise to science); bypass Hume's Guilotine by noting that having a property of choosing to have nothing the same yields choosing to change the property "choosing to have nothing the same".
Second law of thermodynamics results from information theory via statistical mechanics; in turn, natural selection arises (see doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178).

Ergo, natural selection for persistence of similarity; essentially, morality as set-ordering per above results.

"Good" corresponds to "makes more likely for something like me existing in the future".

DuWayne Name one single universal moral axiom - just one.

"Having something at least somewhat like me around in the future would be a good thing."

The suicidally depressed might appear a counter-example at first glance; however, they seldom bother to wipe out their entire species, much less all life on earth. The most they usually muster is destruction of a micro-subculture Jonestown-style. As such, the counterexample is superficial.

DuWayne This would indicate that morality is quite relative.

The given examples are examples of ethics, not morality.

Posted by: abb3w | September 8, 2009 4:55 PM

Gay marriage has so devastated the institution of marriage that straight couples aren't even bothering with divorce anymore. What the data doesn't show is that they're just abandoning each other and dumping their kids by the side of the road. If they still had respect for marriage they'd show it by getting a proper divorce.

/snark

Posted by: James Hanley | September 8, 2009 5:18 PM

DuWayne;

I consider it right, that morality should be in flux. I am not making a moral claim about that rightness -

I respectfully disagree. It seems to me that you are making a claim about the appropriateness of moral flux for everyone, not just your own preferences on the matter. Otherwise why co-opt the language of objective morality by saying I consider it right, rather than saying I like moral flux?

though it certainly is good to see that our generalized social morays have changed since the days when people of color were generally considered subhuman and women were chattel.

Again, this seems to be describing more than just your opinion on the matter. It certainly is good...certainly sounds like you're describing a condition outside of your own mind. Or am I mistaken? Should I read that as saying that "it certainly is good" only for those of us who think...that it certainly is good?

That is MY OWN moral position, not a universal one. And it is not what I have always believed. Indeed most of my own moral frame has changed rather dramatically as I have grown and matured. That I happen to hold moral absolutes doesn't contradict the notion that morality is relative - especially as I sincerely doubt that I am done growing and changing at thirty three. While I doubt there will be any fundamental changes to my moral frame, I have little doubt that it will continue to evolve.

I know that your opinion, which I share, is not universally held. I know that moral positions may change; mine certainly do.

What I am trying to say is simply this; it is a contradiction in terms to hold moral absolutes that you wish to apply universally while simultaneously holding that morality itself is relative. It totally destroys the moral force of any prescriptions you might make, and I seriously doubt that you wish to hold any moral beliefs that aren't prescriptive. That itself would also be a contradiction in terms; if your belief that women aren't chattel isn't binding on everyone else, then what point is there in holding it as a "moral" position? If it's only binding on you, then it's really more of a preference, like taste in music; it would make no sense to say that other people should hold your purely personal preferences.

Posted by: Fortuna | September 8, 2009 6:00 PM

Fortuna -

I respectfully disagree. It seems to me that you are making a claim about the appropriateness of moral flux for everyone, not just your own preferences on the matter. Otherwise why co-opt the language of objective morality by saying I consider it right, rather than saying I like moral flux?

I am saying that I believe it is good that morality isn't static. I am not claiming that everyone believes that - I am saying that I do. And because I think it is right, I am more than happy to be glad for everybody, that morality is in a state of flux. Just like I think it is great that more and more people are being convinced that treating women like chattel, for example, is immoral.

You seem to be mistaking my acceptance that others operate according to moral frames that are diametrically opposed to my own as acceptance of their moral frame wholesale. While there are certainly aspects that I just don't think are worth the conflict, there are others that I consider absolutely reprehensible and will do what I can to change.

Again, this seems to be describing more than just your opinion on the matter. It certainly is good...certainly sounds like you're describing a condition outside of your own mind.

Of course I am - my moral position on this matter, meshes with the opinions of a hell of a lot of people. And because it is an aspect of my moral frame, I am pretty damned certain about it. I am just as certain about my moral position on sexuality, which a lot of people are quite apposed to. Doesn't make me any less certain that their position is unhealthy.

Should I read that as saying that "it certainly is good" only for those of us who think...that it certainly is good?

No. You can read that as I believe that is is good for everyone, even those who believe that my position is the one that is immoral. That morality is relative, doesn't mean that I accept the moral frames of others for fucks sake. I merely accept that they have a different moral frame than my own.

What I am trying to say is simply this; it is a contradiction in terms to hold moral absolutes that you wish to apply universally while simultaneously holding that morality itself is relative.

Not in the least. That I accept other people have other moral frames, doesn't change my belief that what someone else may believe is moral and just, is just plain wrong and immoral. I am merely accepting that to them and in some cases their cultural norms, what they are doing and how they are behaving is moral. I am recognizing that simply because I believe something is immoral or something is moral, doesn't make it so for everyone.

That itself would also be a contradiction in terms; if your belief that women aren't chattel isn't binding on everyone else, then what point is there in holding it as a "moral" position?

Because it is going to be a governor of my actions. Just like my moral stance on sexuality is a governor of my actions. And I can try to convince others that my moral stance on sexuality is superior to theirs and indeed I have done so on several occasions when it comes up. But I am doomed to fail in the attempt, if I fail to recognize that their position, is to them the moral stance - not mine.

But back to the women as chattel. Two hundred years ago, women were basically chattel in this country, with few enough exceptions. Women had virtually no rights, outside of those granted them by the men in their lives. Women, for the most part were expected to submit to the men in their lives - not doing so was considered immoral and wrong. According to the moral frames of the vast majority at that time, this was right.

Now we can easily say that this was actually immoral, from our cozy seats, looking through two hundred years of hindsight. But can we take any individual product of that time and hold them up as immoral, because they followed the social morays of their time and place? Likewise, can we hold up any individual product of Saudi culture, who has been steeped in their very strict moral frame that says they must behave this way? How would that be just? How is it right for us to judge someone raised in another culture with another standard, by our own cultural norms?

Keep in mind that I am not saying we can't or shouldn't try to bring an end to those behaviors. I am not saying that we should accept them and just leave it at that. I am saying that there isn't a chance in hell that we are going to change anyone's mind by ignoring the cultural context for their behavior and judging them accordingly. There is a huge difference between an American treating a women the way that the Saudis treat women and the Saudis doing it. And there has to be a huge difference in the way that it is dealt with.

If it's only binding on you, then it's really more of a preference, like taste in music; it would make no sense to say that other people should hold your purely personal preferences.

It is very much like that actually. And I have convinced people that, for example, my moral stance on sexuality is better than repressive posturing. I haven't, note, convinced others to wholesale adopt my sexual morays. But I have convinced people to integrate aspects (the important ones) of my sexual morays into their own. If I can convince enough people and they in turn can convince enough people and onward, then it may someday become a social convention - much like not treating women like chattel has in western culture. And indeed, the core aspects of my sexual morays are not unique to myself - though I really did come to them on my own. A lot of people have very similar stances to my own on the morality of sexual repression and those ideas are well on their way to becoming more widespread social conventions. It is certainly giving the moral posturing of sexual repression a run for the money.

And the social conventions regarding homosexuality have been doing the same damned thing. While different people have different moral stances in regards to homosexuality, just among those who support gay rights, we all accept that inequality is immoral. But this is not because of some universal moral axiom. It is because individuals came to believe that this inequality was immoral and convinced other onward until it became a social convention (though far from perfect, particularly in the U.S.). That doesn't mean there aren't still people who believe that homosexuality is an abomination, much less immoral. It just means that a great many of us believe that their attitude is what is immoral.

Posted by: DuWayne | September 8, 2009 7:11 PM

No, Saudi Arabia is a barbaric country because a father can legally call for a tub of water and drown his teenaged daughter if he doesn't like her behavior.

Posted by: Monado | September 8, 2009 9:54 PM

Well, most of the moral relativists in this thread know very little about moral theory, and I am not in a mood to start from the basics. I'll just pose a question to the relativists to find out whether they have consistent beliefs:

If in some U.S. state X, the majority of the population was opposed to gay marriage, would that make it morally wrong?

The point is that moral relativism implies that it is. Moral relativism is based on the view that what is morally right in a given culture is determined by the moral views actually held by that culture (as opposed to, say, nihilism, which entails that there are no right and wrong, simpliciter). And that means, of course, that gay marriage is indeed wrong a lot of places (Falwell et. al are completely right about that). In effect, moral relativism entails that if you disagree with the prevalent view on morality in your society, then you are automatically wrong (since what is right and wrong consists in what the prevalent view says is right and wrong). Are the relativists here happy about embracing that conclusion?

I suspect not. I suspect that moral relativists fail to practice what they preach. Just as the rest of us, they have a tendency to endorse certain basic principles of morality (tolerance, individual rights etc), and don't really believe that their validity is due to popular vote alone.

Posted by: G.D. | September 8, 2009 10:59 PM

All this talk about moral relatives et al misses the point- morals are simply an abstract of the human mind. All we have are behaviours that we assign a value to and a value that changes from culture to culture, society to society, time to time.

What is 'morally' right is really irrevelant other than to stay in the good graces of the herd.

Posted by: GH | September 8, 2009 11:24 PM

G.D.: If in some U.S. state X, the majority of the population was opposed to gay marriage, would that make it morally wrong?

No; ethically bad.
Which is evidently at least two somewhat subtle differences.

Posted by: abb3w | September 9, 2009 1:21 AM

Teh Gays are in ur Massachusetts...saving ur marriages.

Posted by: Richard Eis | September 9, 2009 3:54 AM

What about perceptual relativism* - it took over twenty comments to notice I said 'deviation' & 'marriage' [cue Bevis & Butthead] in the same sentence (deliberately, as it happens). I would have expected a faster recognition result than that.
Come on people, FOCUS! :) - DJ
______________
*See "SEP Field", various papers by Adams, D N
PS: Now checking backup hard-drives for spreadsheet. You may have to discount my comment, 'due to lack of evidence'. (Sorry)

Posted by: DingoJack | September 9, 2009 4:10 AM

Now, Tim, I'll try to explain this to you in short, simple words so that you will understand: you have the right to hold your opinions, speak about them and teach them to your kids, a right that I will defend and uphold, and, similarly, I have the right to call you a morally illiterate asshole. We both also have the right to do these things in reverse.

You will not be imprisoned, you will not be differentially taxed, you will not be given different treatment under the law by government if I have anything to say about it, but, rest assured, I, personally, will point a finger at you and laugh at your moronic opinions until every last bit breath is gone from my body. You can do the same with me.

This is the nature of a country in which individual freedoms, including those of speech and conscience, actually mean something, rather than being pretty phrases we can insert into movie dialog.

Posted by: Valhar2000 | September 9, 2009 5:33 AM

abb3w:

"...for I am you and we are one, and we have done this many times before...

(OK, probably obscure.)"

Sorry, I couldn't find that one. Is this okay?

"I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. See how they run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly. I'm crying."

Posted by: democommie | September 9, 2009 6:57 AM

I can't catch up on this thread, but just a couple quick comments to abb3w just because I really enjoyed reading some of your blog a couple of weeks ago:

James Sweet: Maybe we are using the word "moral" to mean two different things?

Yes, I would say. The discussion does not appear to be differentiating between "morals" (the relation of good/evil associated with particular choices) and ethics (finitely expressible rules, used to make approximate evaluations of "moral").

Yeah, I almost said at one point maybe I should differentiate more clearly between morals and ethics. At this exact moment (i.e. the last few months) I don't find the distinction particularly useful, but perhaps I will change my mind in the future.

You are probably right that most of my arguments would be more convincing if I replaced "morality" with "ethics".

James Sweet: But what is "me" is NOT relative... clearly, my liver is part of me, but this coffee cup (there it is again!) is not part of me.

It's not as clear as you think. You don't think of the coffee cup as part of you, and you do think of the liver as part of you; however, that's using a particular demarcation function: the one which is generated by your brain.

I think I mentioned a couple of times that many of these things may be (and most probably are) species-relative. Absolutely body boundary is determined by some brain mechanism (I could probably even look up which region of the brain if I wasn't feeling so lazy; the book I am reading right now discussed it at one point).

However, it appears fairly clear (to me at least) that we can make some generalizations about the normal behavior of that brain mechanism within the better part of the phenotypical range expressed by Homo Sapiens. The vast majority of human brains the vast majority of the time would say that the coffee cup is not me, but my liver is.

I do not believe that is a purely social construct, but rather I believe it is due to an innate structure in the brain that is the product of evolution and development. And I believe there is strong evidence to support this position.

For instance, characteristic brain wave activity is visible during an out-of-body experience (i.e. an experience during which the body boundary mechanism is disrupted and/or functioning in a non-standard way). If body boundary were purely a social construct, than the difference in brain wave activity between normal body experience and out-of-body experience should be the same as the difference between someone liking Coke and someone liking Pepsi. That's just one piece of evidence.

That was somewhat of a digression, but to bring it back around: Given the biology of our species I do not think that body boundary is neither relative nor completely arbitrary. It may be abstract, and the precise boundary may be arbitrary -- but the general boundary is not arbitrary.

Posted by: James Sweet | September 9, 2009 8:21 AM

Tad Early (no relation to Jubal, I presume?) -
Sure I'm open to other explanations, and these explanation would be...? What else changed in Mass. at the time? How would these changes affect divorce and marriage rates in the state of Mass.? - curiously DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | September 9, 2009 9:48 AM

Hm. A post got stuck in the moderation queue last night; probably due to a couple hyperlinks (Haidt and Lewis Carroll). Maybe it will be knocked loose later.
Main points IIR:
1) My definition is not "contrary", but "alien". Most of the expected traits of ethics (Haidt's FAIR, HARM, INGROUP, AUTHORITY, and PURITY) fall out as particular corollaries to this definition of what "good" and "evil" (and thus "morality") are.
2) The human maps are not the territory.

James Sweet I do not believe that is a purely social construct, but rather I believe it is due to an innate structure in the brain that is the product of evolution and development.

Agreed. It's not purely a social construct, in that there is an underlying principle of physics (the tendency of a human body to usually remain topologically connected) that provides foundation for this. However, the selection of entity-as-demarcated-by-human-brain over other classes of demarcation is arbitrary (albeit very useful). At least mathematically, one can work with the class of all possible demarcation functions, and all entities so defined; the human definitions fall out as particular cases.

Once you specify that you're working from a human perspective, yes, the demarcation is no longer arbitrary; however, even if while the domain may be useful, the restriction raises the question as to whether the perspective is correct. =)

Posted by: abb3w | September 9, 2009 11:11 AM

Tad Early--
Sure, there are lots of explanations of the low divorce rates in Massachusetts-- lots of Catholics, lots of people who got advanced education before they married, relatively few very poor people, who tend to have higher divorce rates, etc.

But the prediction from the far right wasn't that divorce rates would stay the same or decrease; it was very specifically that if gay marriage was legalized, divorce rates would skyrocket. They did NOT say, "well, it may be one factor leading to increased divorces, but it could get drowned out by other variables... [blah, blah, hedge, hedge hedge].

No. Far right commentators made a very clear prediction; if gay marriage was legalized, the very institution of marriage would be threatened and divorce rates would skyrocket. That did not happen. The far right was far, far wrong.

In the traditional wingnut manner, however, you completely missed the point of the thread. Ed was not trying to prove that legalized gay marriage necessarily caused lower divorce rates. He was merely showing evidence that it did NOT cause higher divorce rates, as the far right had predicted.

If you cannot understand that simple point, perhaps you can get your boss at the sheltered workshop to explain it to you, speaking slowly and clearly and using small words.

Or, alternatively, you can start behaving like a thinking adult instead of participating in the endless, mindless temper tantrums currently being thrown by the Bush base because the other side had the nerve to win an election.

Posted by: hoary puccoon | September 9, 2009 1:49 PM

DuWayne;

But that (making a statement only about one's own mind) is exactly what I am doing.

I'm afraid I disbelieve that, for reasons I've pointed out and to follow.

I am glad that you agree with me and I am pretty certain that I am right. But I also accept that being human, I could also be wrong. When it comes to this issue and several others, my assumption that I am right is akin my assumption that there are no interventionist gods - i.e. my assumption is pretty damned strong. But I am not arrogant enough to dismiss wholesale the possibility that I am actually incorrect.

I'm really not interested in debating whether you are certain or not, or whether I'm certain or not. I'll just take you at your word that you're not 100% certain; for what it's worth, neither am I. Settled? OK. Certainty is not at all what I'm driving at; what I want to know is whether you think your moral beliefs describe (or could describe) actual, objective moral circumstances outside of your own mind.

Because several of your statements indicated that (I had misunderstood you).

Perhaps you could indicate which ones? I'm not following.

While I think they are objectively wrong, I accept that they don't believe they are.

OK, so again, it seems that you believe in objective moral facts, independent of personal opinion. The non-bolded part is irrelevant; again, I agree with you that there are lots of differing moral systems that exist, and that it makes sense to assume others are sincere in accepting them unless they demonstrate otherwise.

Why are you even asking that question (why popular opinion is relevant), when I answer it in the same comment?

I'm asking it because you maintain that popular opinion does not determine the rightness or wrongness of particular things, ie. that certain things are objectively morally wrong, while simultaneously holding that morality is relative. I do not think that any of your comments to date have adequately adressed that contradiction, but feel free to point out how I'm wrong, please.

Absolutely and without hesitation, no, there are no moral facts that exist independently of the vagaries of culture and opinion. Not a single one.

If that is the case, on what basis can you conclude that misogynists are objectively wrong about the morality of their actions? If I am reading you correctly, it is fair to conclude that they may have their own moral facts derived from their opinion and culture, and you lose the ability to say that they are objectively wrong, as you have been doing.

I believe there are ways that people can treat one another that will make everyone within a given culture more comfortable, but that there are none that will make everyone feel that way. But that is not morality.

Indeed not.

While individual morays may be involved and often are - even in a particular cultural paradigm individual morays just that - individual. While many people have moral frames that are similar to my own, I don't know of anyone who's moral frame is identical to my own. And honestly, life would be fucking dull if that wasn't the case.

I'm sure it would, but I don't see what the relevance of that fact is, to our conversation at least. I'm not asking you about what would be exciting or not, I'm asking you about what you think is true wrt. to moral facts.

Culture and environment will always profoundly impact morality. It is easy to say, from our cozy western world existences, that there are objective moral truths.

Perhaps it is, but I haven't said that there are. I'm interested in the apparent contradiction in your stated beliefs, and if you have a resolution for them, that's all. It makes no matter to me if you believe in moral facts or not, I just want to know if your beliefs on the matter are consistent. I really, truly would be gratified if they were; power to you, if so. I simply suspect that they are not, but perhaps you will dissuade me.

I don't have any bone to pick with the rest.

That is not what I asked.

Fair enough. The answer to your question is that no, I don't think it makes sense to hold up individuals as acting immorally from within the context of pervasive moral systems.

I do wish it (equal rights) to be applied universally, but I do not take it as being axiomatic.

If you wish it to be applied universally, does that not destroy your position that moral beliefs are really just preferences that only ought to be binding on your own personal behaviour?

In a similar vein, I don't think you yet answered me when I asked if stepping on other peoples' personal preferences would be OK in the name of preventing moral abuses like female slavery. Would it?

Posted by: Fortuna | September 10, 2009 12:27 AM

DuWayne;

My apologies, I feel compelled to respond once more, hopefully before that blog post has been started.

Why should it? You seem to continually make the assumption that simply because I see the most important value of morality as being a governor on an individual's behavior, that this somehow precludes wanting to see those same values applied more broadly or even universally. I don't understand why one would preclude the other.

Well, I haven't been trying to debate with you about what we personally want to see applied broadly. I've been asking you about what, if anything, is objectively morally binding, on everyone. So far, your answer has been that nothing is, if I'm not mistaken, although confusingly you seem to make an exception for certain things like female slavery.

So, I think you're comparing apples to oranges in the paragraph above. It seems to me that you're equivocating between that which should "govern an individuals' behaviour" and stuff we "want to see applied broadly".

The former would be morality, would it not, and the latter would be..what, a subjective taste, or what have you? I daresay we want our most fundamental morays to govern everyone's behaviour, whether they agree with us or not, as with murder or slavery. I don't really give a damn whether Joey Q. Hypothetical thinks slavery is dandy, I'm going to step extremely hard on his personal morays if he tries to implement it.

The latter, on the other hand, is really its own thing, isn't it? I want to see the personal value of thriftiness adopted more broadly, universally even, but I'm not about to give it the status of a moral imperative because I simply can't see how it ought to be binding on everyone else, against their will or not.

In a nutshell, I think if you are speaking about preferences, as you maintain you are doing when you talk about morality, I honestly don't see how you can actually be talking about morality. I can't see how it makes sense to talk about morays that govern your behaviour and that you'd really rather prefer other people take up. We don't merely prefer that people in our community refrain from murder, plunder and rape, we force such restraint on them where necessary. We declare them to be bound by our morality whether they acknowledge it or not.

Do I make the assumption that you are precluded from wanting your values applied universally? Not at all. I make the assumption that you are precluded from speaking of your values as being morally binding on others if morality itself just reduces down to preferences. That is, in my mind, what we're talking about here.

Again, recognizing that other people have different moral frames, does not mean I or anyone else, has to accept it or consider it a valid reference for deciding how to treat people.

For the life of me, I cannot see how you then avoid the conclusion that people with invalid frames are objectively mistaken with respect to certain relevant moral facts.

Posted by: Fortuna | September 10, 2009 1:46 PM

I always love reading the interesting comments here! Would it be fair to say that those who are afraid of same sex marriage think that the social ills predicted will be caused by SSM's example alone? Most right wingers would have us assume the harm without visiting the "how" of the equation.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s book "Strength to Love" talks about the dangers of being "soft-minded" and simply believing everything one is told. How do we help society check their facts and get informed opinions when so many are as readily led by the nose as were throughout history?

Posted by: John Hosty-Grinnell | September 10, 2009 6:28 PM

Seems like you'd declare cold-blooded murders accountable to your moral frame, regardless of their ideas on the matter.

Look at the context of that statement - I make it very clear that it is MY moral frame and that for some, it is ONLY the law that prevents them from committing cold blooded murder. And yes, I would say first and foremost that they have broken the law. At the same time, from my perspective they have committed an immoral act. That doesn't mean I don't accept that from their own, they may not have.

Right, but there are aspects of my moral frame that I do not merely "prefer be adopted by others", and I venture that you're the same way.

Absolutely correct and when enough people agree on that, laws are made to enforce what those in power agree with. Only it is also important to recognize that said agreement is not necessarily based on a consistent moral frame - it may also simply be based on the fact that those in power believe that making a law about this or that, is merely essential for a society in which most people are going to be able to reasonably function.

I want female slavery forcibly outlawed when necessary, and I'm not content to have a little chat with misogynists, I want my moral conduct imposed on them, when needed.

And where have I even implied my position is otherwise? Seriously, are you actually reading a damned thing I have written? What part of "we declare them bound by law," don't you understand? Does that imply having a clever little chat to you?

Well, OK then. Doesn't that mean you believe in the existence of moral facts, contra-yourself-from-earlier?

In regards to me personally? Yes, I believe that my moral frame is loaded with objective truths. I have not come by my moral framework willy nilly, I have made mistakes, hurt people, been hurt and seen a lot of what the world has to offer. Likewise, I have read a great deal and delved deeply into a lot of issues - including doing my best to stretch the boundaries of my moral frame. Trying to conceive of circumstances that would lead me to commit all manner of heinous acts.

Through that, I have come to believe that I have quite definitely hit upon some objective moral truths, in the context of my own life. But one of them is the inconceivability of ever putting one of my children, or indeed, any child deliberately into harms way. However, I have also found contexts in which doing that would be moral for someone else. So it is not a universal objective moral truth.

And again, I cannot accept that merely because I am incapable of conceiving a context in which certain other aspects of my moral frame would become acceptable, doesn't mean they don't, can't or haven't existed. Indeed, there is a context in which most, if not all of my moral frame was not the least bit applicable.

I'm just curious to know how you resolve the apparent contradiction between holding that morality is relative while also holding that some people are objectively wrong about certain moral issues.

What contradiction? Like I said - though I was actually ignoring an important factor - just because I can't conceive of a context in which aspects of my moral frame become moral, doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't see a context in our modern world that makes slavery, rape and cold blooded murder acceptable. Even there, it could be a failure of imagination. But I can believe that it is objectively wrong, without it being a universal moral truth. Because there are contexts where it simply isn't.

If it was, the human race as we know it wouldn't exist. Or are you going to try to tell me that the fact that our early ancestors were often inclined to wage battle over who gets to impregnate the women was immoral? That the fact that the winner was going to impregnate the female/s, whether they wanted to have the sex or not was immoral? That the fact that territorial disputes might be brutal and that the victors might take unwilling females was immoral?

It is through this very process that the strongest and smartest survived and reproduced. It is by this process that those who were most likely to be capable of adapting to a constantly changing world were the ones who were the foundation for the human race. It is partly by this process that the weak and complacent were weeded out. While I wouldn't go as far as to say they were moral, they certainly weren't immoral - indeed it is good for us that they were the way that they were.

Posted by: DuWayne | September 10, 2009 9:34 PM

Fortuna -

Or then again, perhaps I'm not reading a damn thing you say, in which case, you can impugn my intelligence again.

I have yet to impugn your intelligence - trust me, if I do you will know it. I am not one for subtlety.

Their perspective on the matter does not affect the truth or falsity of that situation.

No, but it does affect the fact that morality is relative to the individual. And the espoused position is an extreme one, there is a whole lot of room for nuance between, for example, my stance on how a women should be treated and slavery. Then there are stances that are even further from that position than my own, because my moral frame espouses the position that men and women are equal. There are those who's moral frame would take the position that women are actually superior to men and should be taken as such.

It is only someone with a very narrow mind, who refuses to recognize that their own moral frame, while pretty absolute for them, is not necessarily the correct one - even in the context of their own culture. Certainly not in the context of every culture.

Did you miss the sentence that immediately prefaced the quote you're responding to here where I said that I venture you're the same way? I think perhaps it is you, sir, who have not taken care to understand me before hitting the "post" button. In case it has not become crystal clear to you, the paragraph, in its entirety, was supposed to be illustrative of both of our behaviours.

Sure, you "venture" that I feel the same way and then imply in the sentence I quoted, that the natural consequence of my position would imply that one can't force others to follow their moral frame. Now what the hell am I supposed to think about the actual quoted text? You said you would rather have your moral frame imposed on them, than simply have a little chat? The clear implication is that a simple little chat is all that is possible or plausible from my position.

Well sweet tap-dancing Jebus. It seems you think there can be such things as moral facts after all, like I've been saying all along.

Again, Mr. Quoting out of Context...I also accept that there may be and in many cases, absolutely are contexts in which my moral facts - what I perceive to be moral truths are not applicable and in some cases immoral. I have not been arguing there are objective moral truths - I have been arguing that there are no universal objective moral truths. That there aren't even universal objective moral truths within a given culture. And I would add to that, there are also no universal objective moral truths within a given individual. Because morality is relative to time, place, culture and the individual. What I perceive as objective moral truths, are relative to the time in which I perceive them - fifteen years ago my own objective moral truths were quite different. I accept as well, that while I doubt they will look as dramatically different as they do now, compared to fifteen years ago, they will look still different in another fifteen years.

OK, fine. I've only been arguing that you seem to believe that there can be moral facts; at no point have I insisted that different situations can't lead to their own unique moral calculus.

No, you have been arguing that morality is not relative. If it is not relative, then differing contexts shouldn't matter - something is either moral or it isn't.

If morality is relative, then no-one can be objectively correct or mistaken about the morality of any given action.

Bullshit. On an individual level they most certainly can. They can also be incorrect about it. The belief that one's position is objectively correct, is not the same as actually being objectively correct. And it is impossible, outside the individual, to be objectively correct. My own moral stance on a great many issues may be much the same as yours in the end result - see the example of the death penalty, while our moral reasoning that leads to that result may be very different. That being the case, which is the objective truth? Assuming that you believe there are absolutely no circumstances in which the state could morally execute someone, in spite of implying the same outcome, our positions are not only different, they are extremely different. From my perspective, my own position is an objective truth - from your perspective yours is. And being relative to time, my position may change in the future or yours might - at which point the perception of objective truth is relative to time.

Depends on whether the ancestors in question were sophisticated enough to understand morality.

Why? If there are universal objective moral truths, then those actions are either moral or immoral if committed by sentient, cognizant beings. Whether they understand the concept of morality or not should be irrelevant.

The ultimate consequences of their actions determine the morality of said actions? That seems an odd stance to take.

It might be, if that were my position. It isn't though and I fail to see why you would think it is.

Posted by: DuWayne | September 11, 2009 10:12 AM

I did, btw, post the first part of my post about morality...

Posted by: DuWayne | September 11, 2009 8:02 PM

I am really not sure what my perceived inconsistency is then.

I'm trying to think of a way to put this as simply as possible, and I mean that without any condescension.

You've claimed that misogynists, for instance, are wrong to abuse people. Objectively wrong. They are mistaken with respect to certain relevant moral facts. Objective moral facts, that simply exist as they are, without respect to what the opinions of said misogynists might be.

On the other hand, you've claimed that there are no objective moral facts. None that exist independently of the vagaries of culture and opinion. Morality is relative to those things, among others.

I can't see how to square those. The latter claim undercuts the former, the way I see it. If the latter is true, then I don't see how you can say that misogynists are actually objectively mistaken; they have their opinions, and you have yours, and your respective morays emerge as a consequence, and no one is objectively right or wrong.

But hey, I could be wrong. I look forward to your blog posts.

Posted by: Fortuna | September 11, 2009 11:13 PM

Jeff@#2:

The statistics for divorce are identical in Massachusetts for Catholics and Protestants, so the "Catholicism" meme was debunked years ago. This was discussed extensively back in '04, like in this article.

Posted by: FlyingToaster | November 19, 2009 10:45 AM