Morality without Absolute Morality

[Bradskii]

Moral judgements aren't statements about a state of affairs as to how they exist, but as how the state of affairs ought to be.

I agree. But then we have to decide on what you want the state of affairs to be (the tragedy of the commons springs to mind). So if equality of wealth is the state of affairs then what you ought to do in that case is different if capitalism is the state of affairs.

I'm a moral contextualist/situationalist, though, but I do operate from the idea there are moral principles that are better than others.

Isn't that relativism by another name?

 

[Fervent]

Cite the study please, and explain how it applies to humans.

The most readily accessible and comprehensive discussion of the issue is The evolution of rape: The fitness benefits and costs of a forced-sex mating strategy in an evolutionary context by Apostolou which explains how it seems to have evolved as a way of circumventing parental choice.

And rape is only one example, perhaps the most sensational, that shows that there isn't a straight line between fitness and morality and why the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy.

 

[Fervent]

Isn't that relativism by another name?

Nope, relativism denies that there is a real right and wrong and instead is about frameworks and cultural contexts dictating what is wrong in that particular relative frame. Contextualism/situationalism recognizes that there is an objective right and wrong but that what it is isn't always cut and dry and similar actions could lead to opposite conclusions depending on local factors.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree. But then we have to decide on what you want the state of affairs to be (the tragedy of the commons springs to mind). So if equality of wealth is the state of affairs then what you ought to do in that case is different if capitalism is the state of affairs.

Isn't that relativism by another name?

Not exactly. Relavists tend to think morality isn't ultimately anything but a socially enforced opinion. I believe morality is real, but it's bound up in human relationships and is therefore more complex than "X is always wrong".

 

[Bradskii]

Nope, relativism denies that there is a real right and wrong and instead is about frameworks and cultural contexts dictating what is wrong in that particular relative frame. Contextualism/situationalism recognizes that there is an objective right and wrong but that what it is isn't always cut and dry and similar actions could lead to opposite conclusions depending on local factors.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, well...that's then down to me. So three times is definitely not going to happen. I'm looking for a conversation.

You know, a kinda debate about the topic at hand. Where people put forward their viewpoints and question the other person on their position. Quite often that might take the form of an example that will highlight the topic and a question as to how the other person might respond. It's not like it's quite common in a debate. It's actually how debates operate.

You have excluded yourself from that until that situation changes.

 

[Fervent]

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, well...that's then down to me. So three times is definitely not going to happen. I'm looking for a conversation.

There's no fooling, but conversations require negotiation. Not simply demanding your terms be met.

You know, a kinda debate about the topic at hand. Where people put forward their viewpoints and question the other person on their position. Quite often that might take the form of an example that will highlight the topic and a question as to how the other person might respond. It's not like it's quite common in a debate. It's actually how debates operate.

I offered debate, just putting you on the hot seat instead of allowing you to interrogate me. I presented arguments, you refused to engage and simply tried to bulldoze with questions that were distracting from the thread of our conversation.

You have excluded yourself from that until that situation changes.

Seems to me that rather than being excluded, the hornet's nest got shaken up and atheists came crawling out trying to make it about me rather than defending their positions. Excluded? hardly.

 

[Bradskii]

Not exactly. Relavists tend to think morality isn't ultimately anything but a socially enforced opinion.

I'm not someone who believes that. Lots of things have been and are socially enforced which I think are wrong. What is wrong is entirely up to me, not anyone else. So what society in general decides is irrelevant to my belief that something is wrong or right.

I believe morality is real, but it's bound up in human relationships and is therefore more complex than "X is always wrong".

And as a relativist, I agree with that. You could sum it up by saying that morality is contextual. I think you used the term 'contextualist' earlier. I have no problem in accepting that label myself.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

The most readily accessible and comprehensive discussion of the issue is The evolution of rape: The fitness benefits and costs of a forced-sex mating strategy in an evolutionary context by Apostolou which explains how it seems to have evolved as a way of circumventing parental choice.

Now I have read the article, it is rich in hypotheticals and possibilities but there is not one calculation or simulation that describes the increase in fitness for humans by adopting a forced-sex mating strategy so what conclusions are one to draw from it? Do you know if anyone have put down their concrete assumptions and made any calculations?

An evolutionary approach also requires that the propensity to rape would be heritable, do you know if that have been investigated? Do rapists even on average get more offsprings than non-rapists? Especially for humans.

So now the argument goes from "It's a reproductive strategy that is highly successful" to possibly relevant.

I really wish that evolutionary psychologists would focus on what is explained by evolutionary psychology instead of what can be explained by evolutionary psychology (which of course is almost everything, only limited by the ingenuity of the psychologist).

 

[o_mlly]

Nope I'm not omniscient, but fortunately evolution is. It always knows exactly which things should survive. It's never, ever, made a mistake.

Should survive? Should is a verb in the subjunctive mood. In the context of this thread, its use would -- you guessed it -- refer to an absolute moral demand as in "never, ever, made a mistake".

Ahh, is that it. Never mind the fact that I'm a self-professing Christian. Don't let that "Agnostic" in my profile fool you.

Good grief! So, now you claim to be a self-professed Christian who unapologetically admits to deceiving others about his identity. How can we trust anything you post? So long.

 

[Fervent]

Now I have read the article, it is rich in hypotheticals and possibilities but there is not one calculation or simulation that describes the increase in fitness for humans by adopting a forced-sex mating strategy so what conclusions are one to draw from it? Do you know if anyone have put down their concrete assumptions and made any calculations?

The article is more of a summary of the issues, you'd have to dig into the citations to get more of the research data.

An evolutionary approach also requires that the propensity to rape would be heritable, do you know if that have been investigated? Do rapists even on average get more offsprings than non-rapists? Especially for humans.

Not necessarily, strategies need not be heritable to improve fitness. Nor does it need to result in more offspring. All that is needed is that it increases the statistical likelihood of genes surviving, which is explained by the manner in which rapists are able to copulate with more females by bypassing parental mate selection.

So now the argument goes from "It's a reproductive strategy that is highly successful" to possibly relevant.

It is a successful reproductive strategy that improves fitness. How successful isn't all that relevant, the only issue is whether we can draw a straight line from fitness to morality.

I really wish that evolutionary psychologists would focus on what is explained by evolutionary psychology instead of what can be explained by evolutionary psychology (which of course is almost everything, only limited by the ingenuity of the psychologist).

Considering that there is very little demonstrated regarding heritability of psychology in general, evolutionary psychologists wouldn't have much to talk about if they didn't engage in conjectural discussions and debate.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Thanks again for the info. It is a bonus having someone put forward an argument for moral absolutism rather than simply deny relativism. So...

There is a lot with which I disagree in the highlighted section. But let's not get down into the weeds at the moment. At one point Geisler says: 'either there is a moral absolute or else everything is morally relative.'

I'll go with that. And I also take it to mean that nothing is morally relative and that it's all absolute. The other side of the same coin as it were. Do you agree with that or not?

I agree with the text in that it basically says what I have said before. But is much better articulated. What stood out to me was his comment that relativity requires an absolutes.