It's okay if it doesn't affect me.

[Motus]

Some people advocate a relativist position on morality, stating that if someone holds a certain set of values which differs from their own, it's okay as long as the other's values don't infringe on their own. For example, one might think that homosexuality is wrong, but at the same time, someone might be homosexual and find it to be morally insignificant. So as long as you are not forced to be homosexual as well, you find no problem with it for someone else. Live and let live, as it were.

So what if we hypothetically had a president who was openly hostile to homosexuality, and wanted to pass various laws persecuting it. Are we as bystanders obliged to try to stop him from acting against people who may not have our same moral values, but who never wished us any harm?

 

[Garnet2727]

I don't think that is such a hypothetical question. The current president is well entrenched in the anti-gay marriage nonsense. As are many politicians in power. And yes, we shoud be trying to stop things like this.

Take a slightly different slant. Suppose that the current president was openly hostile to communion for women and sought to ban it. Would you take a stance opposed? I certainly would, and I'm an atheist.

 

[seebs]

Some people advocate a relativist position on morality, stating that if someone holds a certain set of values which differs from their own, it's okay as long as the other's values don't infringe on their own. For example, one might think that homosexuality is wrong, but at the same time, someone might be homosexual and find it to be morally insignificant. So as long as you are not forced to be homosexual as well, you find no problem with it for someone else. Live and let live, as it were.

This is not necessarily relativism. I may believe other people to be genuinely and objectively wrong, but this does not necessarily give me the right to coerce them, which is also wrong!

So what if we hypothetically had a president who was openly hostile to homosexuality, and wanted to pass various laws persecuting it. Are we as bystanders obliged to try to stop him from acting against people who may not have our same moral values, but who never wished us any harm?

This is an interesting question, because a strict constructionist reading of your original wording ("it doesn't harm me") would say that we have no basis.

A couple of counters:
1. It affects someone. The argument for, for instance, not regulating homosexuality is that we can't find direct harm done by it to anyone. (And please, let's not sidetrack into whether or not that's true; I'm just pointing out a meaningful difference in the arguments.)
2. If people I know or care about are harmed, I am indirectly harmed. If one of my friends is denied medical coverage he might otherwise have, I am, morally, pretty much on the hook for helping him if he gets hurt, for instance.
3. If I find the law unjust, I am obliged to argue against it.

 

[psychedelicist]

Even if it doesnt directly affect me, I think that it would be a huge infringement on peoples rights, so I would do what I could to prevent it (the passing of the law, not homosexuality).

 

[Silent Bob]

But let me be the devil's advocate for a second although I dont believe in what I am about to say.

Lets say that I am a classic anti-gay Christian.
In a society that openly accepts homosexuality it is easier for people to explore this aspect of their sexuality and its not uncommon for some to realise that they are gay.
This however does affect me indirectly since my goody goody Christian son might come home one day and say that he likes to "hide the sausage" in the mens room with his friends.
I off course in a very Christian way snap and throw the "evildoer" out of my house.
If on the other hand I lived in a anti-gay society this would not happen too often.
My son being a good boy would think twice before experimenting and so he would go on to have a "normal", Christian, homophobic life.

(sorry for the sarcasm and cynisism I just want to make clear that this is all hypothetical)

 

[an7222]

I think that we should avoid legislating morality, specialy when it does not harm others, like human sexuality.

 

[TrueQ]

Hee, delightful, I get to say, "Hey, I'm the Advocate round these parts."

Moving on to serious matters. Say I don't believe I should interfere in a situation unless it affects me or those I care about (Which I do). Let's say the president, who believes that his way of doing things is right and will tolerate no naysaying, starts cracking down on gays nationwide. Now, let's say I'm walking down to the store and I see a few patriots whaling on a guy which, somehow, I already knew was gay. Let's also say that I believe gays are alright people who deserve respect and friendship just like everybody else (Which I do). What would be better? To give in to apathy and walk along, leaving the poor gay to the brutal beating? Or to say to myself, "Hey! I believe my way of doing things is right and will tolerate no naysaying.", run over, and start a fistfight?

Bad choices all around, but really, however pitiable the gay guy might seem, he has loved ones back home to nurse him back to health. And however viciously rageful the patriots might be, they have loved ones as well to preach or praise them afterwards. It is genuinely better, I find, not to butt in to other people's lives for no reason and start changing everything they do. There are friends and family involved, who actually care about the outcome, that can do that just as well.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

"In Germany they came first for the Communists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me--
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

~Martin Niemoller

 

[Mekkala]

"In Germany they came first for the Communists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me--
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

~Martin Niemoller

QFE

As a rule, the friends and family of a persecuted minority can't help them because they have the same problem. TrueQ, you might as well suggest that when Hitler was in power, the families and friends of the Jews were perfectly capable of taking care of them. Didn't happen, though, did it? And when you're the one who is persecuted, how many do you think will flock to your aid, if when they needed aid you refused to give it because that's the job of "their friends and family"?

 

[TrueQ]

Well, hopefully, when I'm in need my friends and family will flock to my aid, since I flocked to theirs when they were in need.

But yeah, you're right, the religion and race thing doesn't work well with this philosophy, since most people in the same family are the same religion, and almost all are the same race. Which is why it is important to be open enough to befriend people from all walks of life. Truly though, if you feel like you have a stake in the outcome of something, go ahead and support whatever cause you desire. But it is a good thing to be aware that, unless it directly affects you, you're just trying to impose your will on what others do and think.

Then again, being 'directly affected' is a pretty loose thing. I would say that a Nazi with a Jewish friend would be 'directly affected' if his friend was taken to a camp, and the same might be said for his friend's family, and the same might be said for his friend's friends, and on and on. So, consider, how many Jews were smuggled out of Germany by Germans with no Jewish relations, and how many Germans were willing to rescue their friend, his family, his friend's, their friend's, and so on?

Also, QFE? Does that have a meaning?

 

[Mekkala]

Also, QFE? Does that have a meaning?

Yes, it does. Quoted For Emphasis. It may be strictly a GAT thing, which would explain why you've never seen it. Yes, GAT also has a meaning, but it's a secret. And the aliens would be mad if I told.

 

[TrueQ]

The 'A' stands for 'Athiest, doesn't it?

 

[Mekkala]

The 'A' stands for 'Athiest, doesn't it?

Nope. Nothing to do with atheism.

 

[Ananel]

Some people advocate a relativist position on morality, stating that if someone holds a certain set of values which differs from their own, it's okay as long as the other's values don't infringe on their own. For example, one might think that homosexuality is wrong, but at the same time, someone might be homosexual and find it to be morally insignificant. So as long as you are not forced to be homosexual as well, you find no problem with it for someone else. Live and let live, as it were.

So what if we hypothetically had a president who was openly hostile to homosexuality, and wanted to pass various laws persecuting it. Are we as bystanders obliged to try to stop him from acting against people who may not have our same moral values, but who never wished us any harm?

The very fact that a person can say "It doesn't affect me," they have given themselves the lie. It has already impacted them enough to draw out a response from them. They may not care about the results on a theological, philosophical or legal level, but they are still impacted in some fashion.

The relativistic position is folly, as is. The very reality of such things as Carl Jung's findings on the collective unconscious and Kant's categorical imperative clarify the existence of an objectively moral code. True, our codes are often approximations of this, but it is still our place to seek to be ethical because it is an ethical thing to do. Live and let live can only be taken so far before it loses all meaning in the process.

Ultimately relativism collapses because of the implications of belief. It is a non-viable system, no matter how pretty one makes it sound.

 

[Mekkala]

The very fact that a person can say "It doesn't affect me," they have given themselves the lie. It has already impacted them enough to draw out a response from them. They may not care about the results on a theological, philosophical or legal level, but they are still impacted in some fashion.

The relativistic position is folly, as is. The very reality of such things as Carl Jung's findings on the collective unconscious and Kant's categorical imperative clarify the existence of an objectively moral code. True, our codes are often approximations of this, but it is still our place to seek to be ethical because it is an ethical thing to do. Live and let live can only be taken so far before it loses all meaning in the process.

Ultimately relativism collapses because of the implications of belief. It is a non-viable system, no matter how pretty one makes it sound.

Uh-huh. You're blatantly using the fallacy of redefinition.

When people say, "It doesn't affect me," in the context of "victimless crime", they mean that it doesn't harm them. You know this, and I know this, and everyone in this thread most certainly knows this. There is no controversy over what people mean when they say that -- it is a universally known and accepted fact that this common phrase doesn't mean, "My life would be exactly the same in every possible way whether or not this happens." Rather, it means what everyone in the entire world knows it to mean, which is, "My life is not less pleasant or happy because this (the victimless crime) happens."

Since you know what is meant by this phrase (as evidenced by, if nothing else, the fact that you know what moral relativism is), where do you get off pretending that it means something else, and using that strawman to argue against it?

 

[Philosoft]

The relativistic position is folly, as is. The very reality of such things as Carl Jung's findings on the collective unconscious and Kant's categorical imperative clarify the existence of an objectively moral code. True, our codes are often approximations of this, but it is still our place to seek to be ethical because it is an ethical thing to do. Live and let live can only be taken so far before it loses all meaning in the process.

Wow. Are you really comfortable with Kant here? I mean, to me, the CI always seemed like militant subjectivism. But it fails in any case, as evidenced by problems like the enquiring murderer.

Ultimately relativism collapses because of the implications of belief. It is a non-viable system, no matter how pretty one makes it sound.

I agree. I think, however, that people too often confuse relativism and subjectivism.

 

[Ananel]

Uh-huh. You're blatantly using the fallacy of redefinition.

When people say, "It doesn't affect me," in the context of "victimless crime", they mean that it doesn't harm them. You know this, and I know this, and everyone in this thread most certainly knows this. There is no controversy over what people mean when they say that -- it is a universally known and accepted fact that this common phrase doesn't mean, "My life would be exactly the same in every possible way whether or not this happens." Rather, it means what everyone in the entire world knows it to mean, which is, "My life is not less pleasant or happy because this (the victimless crime) happens."

Since you know what is meant by this phrase (as evidenced by, if nothing else, the fact that you know what moral relativism is), where do you get off pretending that it means something else, and using that strawman to argue against it?

1) You are not a mind-reader.
2) Considering the universality of this concept, you could at least have drawn the definition out, instead of telling me what I know and what everyone else knows. It's not nice to tell someone what's in their head.
3) You know what? "It doesn't hurt me" holds the same condemnation out of me as "It doesn't affect me." It's lazy. They don't care because they're not hurt by it?

What? Did you honestly expect a self-professed deontologist to actually view that opinion as valid and appropriate? You call it a straw man all you want, but a true deontologist will likely view anyone who decides that what impacts them personally is the only thing to have an ethical opinion is being lazy and ethically dangerous, if not flat out disingenuous.

"It doesn't affect me" = "It doesn't hurt me" So what. Here's the variation of what I said that specifically restates my viewpoint under your requirements:

The very fact that a person can say "It doesn't hurt me," they have given themselves the lie. It is not that it doesn't hurt them, as there are relative degrees of pain and they cannot be fully aware of all of the possible implications that the issue has on their life. They are either ignorant of the negative impact or positive impact a particular issue in their lives, or the issue is of insufficient strength in impact to get them to hold an opinion about it.

Very little actual change in the argument. The next time you feel like splitting hairs because someone said something you didn't like, and accusing them of straw men, consider carefully what they actually said. You're not nearly the mind reader you think you are, and Red Herrings aren't precisely good tactics either.

4) My commentary on relativism still relates: There are very few moral relativists out there who can honestly say that a person's moral stances are equal when it finally comes down to crunch time. Relativism collapses when the gun is pointed at your head. The system does not apply well in a universal sense. Even the more responsible varieties that view different national ethical/legal structures as equal still falls flat when the nastiest dictators start pointing their militaries at you.

Relativism is a cheap cop-out, one that crumbles under the weight of reality. Subjectivism falls with it for similar reasons. An ethical system must be able to stand up to reality, or it is essentially worthless.

Wow. Are you really comfortable with Kant here? I mean, to me, the CI always seemed like militant subjectivism. But it fails in any case, as evidenced by problems like the enquiring murderer.

Of course Kant fails. I view him as an approximation as well. I simply see his failed efforts as signs pointing to an underlying reality. The CI is a limited theory at best, and fails specifically under certain conditions (in that it produces undesired results, not in that it is inconsistent necessarily).

Deontologist =/= Kantian. I value Kant, but I do not follow in his footsteps. I would not qualify him as truly subjective. The CI was intended to point towards clearly objective moral truths. It was later theorists who abused his viewpoint to lead towards a more subjective attitude. The CI itself is not so much subjective, but it was the pandora's box in this regard for the modern era.

 

[Philosoft]

Of course Kant fails. I view him as an approximation as well. I simply see his failed efforts as signs pointing to an underlying reality. The CI is a limited theory at best, and fails specifically under certain conditions (in that it produces undesired results, not in that it is inconsistent necessarily).

Well, we already have a word that resembles "approximating objectivity" - subjectivity. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to distinguish between them.

Deontologist =/= Kantian. I value Kant, but I do not follow in his footsteps. I would not qualify him as truly subjective.

I don't know how "truly subjective" differs from "not truly subjective." If Kant is even a little bit subjective then he is not at all objective.

The CI was intended to point towards clearly objective moral truths. It was later theorists who abused his viewpoint to lead towards a more subjective attitude. The CI itself is not so much subjective, but it was the pandora's box in this regard for the modern era.

I see what you're saying, and you're right on a superficial level. But the CI entails a state-of-affairs wherein we have an objective method of determining moral behavior, except we're personally disgusted by some of the individual moral imperatives. Kant would say that's by design - morality should be determined by reason rather than emotion. I think the more obvious conclusion is that morality is inextricably linked with feeling and is, thus, ultimately subjective.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So what if we hypothetically had a president who was openly hostile to homosexuality, and wanted to pass various laws persecuting it. Are we as bystanders obliged to try to stop him from acting against people who may not have our same moral values, but who never wished us any harm?

This is one big problem with moral relativism -- values don't stop within one's personal sphere of liberty. One can have values that extend to society, and then there is no way to tell someone on the basis of morality that they should stop using the government for X purpose.

Personally, I favor something like a "live and let live" politics (I'm a libertarian), however, I'm not a moral relativist. I think that individual rights are justified by their role in protecting the conditions of individual flourishing, however the liberty that people need to flourish contains the same freedom that one could use to act in a self-destructive manner. And so I don't think that it is always "okay" (morally) for other to have the values that they do, but it may be "okay" (politically) with me as long as I don't have my rights violated as well.

 

[chalice_thunder]

I don't think that is such a hypothetical question. The current president is well entrenched in the anti-gay marriage nonsense. As are many politicians in power. And yes, we shoud be trying to stop things like this.

Take a slightly different slant. Suppose that the current president was openly hostile to communion for women and sought to ban it. Would you take a stance opposed? I certainly would, and I'm an atheist.

Thank you - this is a great post!