Norms

[brightlights]

If something is normative it serves as a rule for all other things falling under its jurisdiction. For instance, there are several versions of the Les Miserables musical production, but it's the original production that serves as a norm for all the rest. The original production shows us what the play was intended to be. You could even take it further back and say that the Victor Hugo novel is actually the norm for all variations of Les Miserable. Anyone who tries to retell the story either obeys the norm or deviates from it, but Victor Hugo's novel is unquestionably the norm. Throw out Victor Hugo's work and it's no longer Les Miserables.

Are there any ethical norms? What would this mean? Since ethics deals with persons and an ethical norm would have to be talking about what a person is supposed to be. Since Les Miserables is a story with many different manifestations and retellings the norm is the normative story. In the same way an ethical norm would have to be a normative person. Ethics, therefore, is intensely personal and cannot be reduced to principles, propositions, or laws.

Therefore for ethics to be normative in any way there must exist somewhere and at some time a normative person. So if God does not exist there can be no ethical norms.

 

[Davian]

If something is normative it serves as a rule for all other things falling under its jurisdiction. For instance, there are several versions of the Les Miserables musical production, but it's the original production that serves as a norm for all the rest. The original production shows us what the play was intended to be. You could even take it further back and say that the Victor Hugo novel is actually the norm for all variations of Les Miserable. Anyone who tries to retell the story either obeys the norm or deviates from it, but Victor Hugo's novel is unquestionably the norm. Throw out Victor Hugo's work and it's no longer Les Miserables.

Are there any ethical norms? What would this mean? Since ethics deals with persons and an ethical norm would have to be talking about what a person is supposed to be. Since Les Miserables is a story with many different manifestations and retellings the norm is the normative story. In the same way an ethical norm would have to be a normative person. Ethics, therefore, is intensely personal and cannot be reduced to principles, propositions, or laws.

Human wellness. Or more generally, the wellness of other individuals in your group. A group of animals, in competition with other groups, that eats its offspring and allows for the others within the group to be terrorized should not fare as well as a group that limits that kind of behaviour. Over time - over evolutionary timelines - this behaviour is selected for and becomes more complex and stable, depending on the animals in question. A wolf pack will not need the same level of complexity as a group of humans.

Therefore for ethics to be normative in any way there must exist somewhere and at some time a normative person. So if God does not exist there can be no ethical norms.

No gods required then.

 

[Paradoxum]

Are there any ethical norms? What would this mean?

I think you are using the term 'ethical norms' in an abnormal way. An 'ethical norm' normally means sentences about how one should act. So ethics is pretty much by definition normative. eg: 'Do not murder'. Maybe the way you are using it is normal too though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(philosophy)

Since ethics deals with persons and an ethical norm would have to be talking about what a person is supposed to be.

I'd say it's more about how someone should act... but I suppose it might sometimes include how someone should be.

Since Les Miserables is a story with many different manifestations and retellings the norm is the normative story. In the same way an ethical norm would have to be a normative person. Ethics, therefore, is intensely personal and cannot be reduced to principles, propositions, or laws.

Why a normative person, rather than a normative set of principles? One doesn't need a perfectly rational person for one to be rational or logical. There are just certain reasonable ways to think.

Therefore for ethics to be normative in any way there must exist somewhere and at some time a normative person. So if God does not exist there can be no ethical norms.

If when you use the word 'norm' you mean there must be an existing thing to point to as the original, then yes, morality doesn't have a norm. Something can be right or wrong without having a thing to point to as the perfect version of it.

 

[brightlights]

Human wellness. Or more generally, the wellness of other individuals in your group. A group of animals, in competition with other groups, that eats its offspring and allows for the others within the group to be terrorized should not fare as well as a group that limits that kind of behaviour. Over time - over evolutionary timelines - this behaviour is selected for and becomes more complex and stable, depending on the animals in question. A wolf pack will not need the same level of complexity as a group of humans.

How is this related to the discussion of norms?

 

[brightlights]

I think you are using the term 'ethical norms' in an abnormal way. An 'ethical norm' normally means sentences about how one should act. So ethics is pretty much by definition normative. eg: 'Do not murder'.

Norm (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are all sorts of different approaches to ethics. Normative ethics are just one approach. Ethics, true, does have to do with how we should live but there are varying degrees of ethical authority. For instance - are ethical norms categorical or hypothetical? What makes: "you shouldn't murder" authoritative for anyone? Is it authoritative no matter how you feel or what your goals are? Or is it only hypothetically authoritative based on certain personal goals you might have? Like: If you want a normal relationship with society then you shouldn't murder.

I'd say it's more about how someone should act... but I suppose it might sometimes include how someone should be.

Why should ethics be confined to our behavior? The human person is so much more complicated than his or her behavior. There's also character, emotion, commitments, desires, fears, thinking, etc... If ethics is about how we should live then why not include all of life into ethical discussion? If ethics is purely concerned with behavior then I don't see it as particularly interesting or helpful.

Why a normative person, rather than a normative set of principles? One doesn't need a perfectly rational person for one to be rational or logical. There are just certain reasonable ways to think.

If we're talking about what a person is supposed to be then only a person could serve as a norm. How could a set of principles possibly be normative for a person?

If when you use the word 'norm' you mean there must be an existing thing to point to as the original, then yes, morality doesn't have a norm. Something can be right or wrong without having a thing to point to as the perfect version of it.

If this is the case then "right" and "wrong" lose normative authority. They no longer really mean what they sound like they mean. "This is right" simply means "I like this and I think you should like it too". Which is fine, but not authoritative. It thus fails to properly be ethics.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I would say Norm MacDonald is an ethical Norm.

 

[Paradoxum]

There are all sorts of different approaches to ethics. Normative ethics are just one approach. Ethics, true, does have to do with how we should live but there are varying degrees of ethical authority. For instance - are ethical norms categorical or hypothetical? What makes: "you shouldn't murder" authoritative for anyone? Is it authoritative no matter how you feel or what your goals are? Or is it only hypothetically authoritative based on certain personal goals you might have? Like: If you want a normal relationship with society then you shouldn't murder.

I'm not sure morality is authoritative. It is wrong to kill innocent people for fun, but if you don't care about morality, then you wont care if what you're doing is wrong. That's true if there's a God or not. If someone really doesn't care, there's no reason you can give for them to care.

You have to want to be moral. I'd say one of the best reasons is empathy and concern for others. Also being moral is a more meaningful and happy way to live.

I do think there are moral 'truths', by the way.

Why should ethics be confined to our behavior? The human person is so much more complicated than his or her behavior. There's also character, emotion, commitments, desires, fears, thinking, etc... If ethics is about how we should live then why not include all of life into ethical discussion? If ethics is purely concerned with behavior then I don't see it as particularly interesting or helpful.

I'm not sure it is about how we should live though. People are more than behaviour, but that doesn't mean all of life is relevant to morality.

You don't think an ethics about behaviour is interesting or helpful? Are you a sociopath then? You don't care how you treat others?

(Maybe ethics is somewhat about attitudes, and feelings, but I'd say those are secondary to how you treat others).

If we're talking about what a person is supposed to be then only a person could serve as a norm. How could a set of principles possibly be normative for a person?

And I'm saying that there is no need for a norm, if a norm has to be a 'thing'. If one wishes to be a good person, you just have to follow good principles.

If this is the case then "right" and "wrong" lose normative authority. They no longer really mean what they sound like they mean. "This is right" simply means "I like this and I think you should like it too". Which is fine, but not authoritative. It thus fails to properly be ethics.

One doesn't require a thing to be copied for something to be right or wrong. We can act (or think/ feel) trying to follow reasoned principles. It's about caring about others, and not violating them. You don't need someone to copy to respect others.

If all we are doing is copying some guy with a big crown, why would that be worth copying? If God's opinion on morality is more than mere opinion (if it is correct in some sense) then it must have some basis in reason. But if it has a basis in reason, then the God isn't required.

If God's morality isn't based on reason, then there's no reason too do what he says. He's just a guy with a big throne.

 

[brightlights]

I'm not sure morality is authoritative. It is wrong to kill innocent people for fun, but if you don't care about morality, then you wont care if what you're doing is wrong. That's true if there's a God or not. If someone really doesn't care, there's no reason you can give for them to care.

You have to want to be moral. I'd say one of the best reasons is empathy and concern for others. Also being moral is a more meaningful and happy way to live.

It sounds like what you're advocating is a hypothetical imperative. "If you want to be moral then you should be moral." And "if you want to live a meaningful and happy life then you should be moral."

I do think there are moral 'truths', by the way.

Here you are advocating for a categorical imperative. If there are moral truths then there are things that we are actually obliged to obey. This would make them authoritative. In the same way that empirical data or logic is authoritative. If a belief that I hold is demonstrated to be logically inconsistent with another belief then I am logically obliged to change my beliefs.

I'm not sure it is about how we should live though. People are more than behaviour, but that doesn't mean all of life is relevant to morality.

All of life can be evaluated from a moral perspective. If murder is wrong and within the realm of moral evaluation then why isn't the bigotry, anger, and hatred that leads to murder not subject to the same moral evaluation? Why only look at behavior? This is too simplistic.

This was also the Pharisees' problem. From a behavioral perspective they were righteous. But Jesus said: "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." They had it all together on the outside but inside they were full of self-righteousness, bitterness, anger, hatred for others, etc... True goodness is about the heart, mind, and behavior.

You don't think an ethics about behaviour is interesting or helpful? Are you a sociopath then? You don't care how you treat others?

I'm concerned about a more holistic approach. Behavior alone isn't enough.

And I'm saying that there is no need for a norm, if a norm has to be a 'thing'. If one wishes to be a good person, you just have to follow good principles.

But at the end of the day these principles have to be embodied in a normative person. Otherwise they are either meaningless or they lack authority. For instance: "love your neighbor as yourself" is a good principle. But why should this be authoritative for anyone? Only if this principle is derived from the person of God. God is love and we are created in his image. Therefore his love is normative for us. If there is no divine person from whom this principle is derived then it's just a nice piece of advice but there's nothing that obliges me to obey it.

If all we are doing is copying some guy with a big crown, why would that be worth copying?

Because we are copies of God whether we want to be or not. We're made in his image. So the only thing that we can look at to tell us what it is that we're supposed to be is the one whose image we bear. Being a "good human being" is simply being a "normal human being". Normal human beings are those that conform to the norm and the norm is God himself.

If God's opinion on morality is more than mere opinion (if it is correct in some sense) then it must have some basis in reason. But if it has a basis in reason, then the God isn't required.

God doesn't have an opinion on morality. Moral truth is derived from the person of God himself. "Love your neighbor" is a moral truth only because God is love.

 

[jayem]

Otherwise they are either meaningless or they lack authority. For instance: "love your neighbor as yourself" is a good principle. But why should this be authoritative for anyone? Only if this principle is derived from the person of God. God is love and we are created in his image. Therefore his love is normative for us. If there is no divine person from whom this principle is derived then it's just a nice piece of advice but there's nothing that obliges me to obey it.

Now that is theological voluntarism. The linked article is lengthy and a bit technical, but it's a good discussion of the arguments for and against.

Theological Voluntarism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The argument of divine obligation is also weak. Are you really saying that if there was no God, you would have no hesitation on stealing from your employer, abusing animals, molesting children, and beating your wife?

 

[durangodawood]

...For instance, there are several versions of the Les Miserables musical production, but it's the original production that serves as a norm for all the rest....

Pretty sure that original art is a bad analogy for norms of human behavior/achievement.

Seems to me that a healthy norm of "the wise or right-living person" could simply emerge over time, as we observe and record what kind of life is deeply satisfying.... and what isnt.

 

[Davian]

How is this related to the discussion of norms?

It was directed at this line in your post: "Ethics, therefore, is intensely personal and cannot be reduced to principles, propositions, or laws."

Ethics can be reduced to the wellness of individuals in a group for the benefit of the group. Ethics are anything but personal - they are all about how we interact with others. Your conclusion is faulty.

 

[Davian]

It sounds like what you're advocating is a hypothetical imperative. "If you want to be moral then you should be moral." And "if you want to live a meaningful and happy life then you should be moral."

Do you place value on empathy and concern for others?

Here you are advocating for a categorical imperative. If there are moral truths then there are things that we are actually obliged to obey. This would make them authoritative. In the same way that empirical data or logic is authoritative. If a belief that I hold is demonstrated to be logically inconsistent with another belief then I am logically obliged to change my beliefs.

Excepting your belief in a god, correct?

All of life can be evaluated from a moral perspective. If murder is wrong and within the realm of moral evaluation then why isn't the bigotry, anger, and hatred that leads to murder not subject to the same moral evaluation? Why only look at behavior? This is too simplistic.

What else is there other than behaviour? Other than how we behave towards others, and expect them to behave?

This was also the Pharisees' problem. From a behavioral perspective they were righteous. But Jesus said: "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." They had it all together on the outside but inside they were full of self-righteousness, bitterness, anger, hatred for others, etc... True goodness is about the heart, mind, and behavior.

Better to stick with examples from real life.

I'm concerned about a more holistic approach. Behavior alone isn't enough.

What else is there other than behaviour? Other than how we behave towards others, and expect them to behave?

But at the end of the day these principles have to be embodied in a normative person. Otherwise they are either meaningless or they lack authority. For instance: "love your neighbor as yourself" is a good principle. But why should this be authoritative for anyone? Only if this principle is derived from the person of God. God is love and we are created in his image. Therefore his love is normative for us. If there is no divine person from whom this principle is derived then it's just a nice piece of advice but there's nothing that obliges me to obey it.

So how did we all manage to get along prior to the invention of gods?

Does God also do the same for the wolf packs, so that the adults do not eat the young or prey on each other?

Because we are copies of God whether we want to be or not. We're made in his image. So the only thing that we can look at to tell us what it is that we're supposed to be is the one whose image we bear. Being a "good human being" is simply being a "normal human being". Normal human beings are those that conform to the norm and the norm is God himself.

I can't make any sense of this.

God doesn't have an opinion on morality. Moral truth is derived from the person of God himself. "Love your neighbor" is a moral truth only because God is love.

Presuppositional apologetics fail.

 

[brightlights]

It was directed at this line in your post: "Ethics, therefore, is intensely personal and cannot be reduced to principles, propositions, or laws."

Ethics can be reduced to the wellness of individuals in a group for the benefit of the group. Ethics are anything but personal - they are all about how we interact with others. Your conclusion is faulty.

It sounds like ethics is incredibly personal. It's about persons interacting with other persons. What's more personal than that?

 

[Davian]

It sounds like ethics is incredibly personal. It's about persons interacting with other persons. What's more personal than that?

Personal - of, affecting, or belonging to a particular person rather than to anyone else.

In the next sentence you say "persons interacting with other persons." Would that not be the juxtaposition of "incredibly personal"?

 

[Paradoxum]

It sounds like what you're advocating is a hypothetical imperative. "If you want to be moral then you should be moral." And "if you want to live a meaningful and happy life then you should be moral."

Perhaps.

Here you are advocating for a categorical imperative. If there are moral truths then there are things that we are actually obliged to obey. This would make them authoritative. In the same way that empirical data or logic is authoritative. If a belief that I hold is demonstrated to be logically inconsistent with another belief then I am logically obliged to change my beliefs.

I would say that morality is sort of like logic or reason. You don't have to act logically, or reasonably, but if you do want to, there are certain principles or rules to follow.

When I say that there are moral truths, I mean that there are things that we can reasonably say are universal goods or bads. But someone could just decide that they don't care. You can't say that someone 'should' be moral, because that already assumes that they care what they 'should' do. If someone just doesn't care, then I doubt you can rationally convince them to think otherwise.

That's true with or without a God.

All of life can be evaluated from a moral perspective. If murder is wrong and within the realm of moral evaluation then why isn't the bigotry, anger, and hatred that leads to murder not subject to the same moral evaluation? Why only look at behavior? This is too simplistic.

This was also the Pharisees' problem. From a behavioral perspective they were righteous. But Jesus said: "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." They had it all together on the outside but inside they were full of self-righteousness, bitterness, anger, hatred for others, etc... True goodness is about the heart, mind, and behavior.

I think I did say that those things are perhaps secondary. So yes, it makes sense to avoid things like hate, if they make you more likely to murder. But still, I'd think that how you act is the main thing.

I can see how attitudes could be important for morality, I just think how you act is of primary importance.

I'm concerned about a more holistic approach. Behavior alone isn't enough.

Maybe it is better to consider it all, but behaviour is the most important thing. ie: It's better to hate someone and not kill them, than to love them and kill them against their will.

But at the end of the day these principles have to be embodied in a normative person. Otherwise they are either meaningless or they lack authority.

Why? We don't need a perfectly logical person for logic is make sense and be worth following.

I don't see why there being a person makes a difference. Why should I follow what some person did?

For instance: "love your neighbor as yourself" is a good principle. But why should this be authoritative for anyone? Only if this principle is derived from the person of God. God is love and we are created in his image. Therefore his love is normative for us. If there is no divine person from whom this principle is derived then it's just a nice piece of advice but there's nothing that obliges me to obey it.

Why does being 'created in his image' oblige me to do anything? I could just say, 'That's nice... but I'm going to do my own thing now'. Being created in his image is just an interesting fact.

Because we are copies of God whether we want to be or not. We're made in his image. So the only thing that we can look at to tell us what it is that we're supposed to be is the one whose image we bear. Being a "good human being" is simply being a "normal human being". Normal human beings are those that conform to the norm and the norm is God himself.

Why would being a copy of God tell us how we're supposed to be? A human clone wouldn't have an obligation to live like the person they are a clone of. It's their own life to live.

I don't see why I should care about being 'normal'. I care about being a decent person who respects and loves others. If that makes me abnormal, I'm fine with that.

God doesn't have an opinion on morality. Moral truth is derived from the person of God himself. "Love your neighbor" is a moral truth only because God is love.

Well I obviously disagree.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Perhaps.



I would say that morality is sort of like logic or reason. You don't have to act logically, or reasonably, but if you do want to, there are certain principles or rules to follow.

When I say that there are moral truths, I mean that there are things that we can reasonably say are universal goods or bads. But someone could just decide that they don't care. You can't say that someone 'should' be moral, because that already assumes that they care what they 'should' do. If someone just doesn't care, then I doubt you can rationally convince them to think otherwise.

That's true with or without a God.



I think I did say that those things are perhaps secondary. So yes, it makes sense to avoid things like hate, if they make you more likely to murder. But still, I'd think that how you act is the main thing.

I can see how attitudes could be important for morality, I just think how you act is of primary importance.



Maybe it is better to consider it all, but behaviour is the most important thing. ie: It's better to hate someone and not kill them, than to love them and kill them against their will.



Why? We don't need a perfectly logical person for logic is make sense and be worth following.

I don't see why there being a person makes a difference. Why should I follow what some person did?



Why does being 'created in his image' oblige me to do anything? I could just say, 'That's nice... but I'm going to do my own thing now'. Being created in his image is just an interesting fact.



Why would being a copy of God tell us how we're supposed to be? A human clone wouldn't have an obligation to live like the person they are a clone of. It's their own life to live.

I don't see why I should care about being 'normal'. I care about being a decent person who respects and loves others. If that makes me abnormal, I'm fine with that.



Well I obviously disagree.

How about that 'Sambia Tribe' of Papua New Guinea? I guess they're good to go morally all by themselves, aren't they? We should just 'universally' recognize that people are 'good' without God, right?

 

[Paradoxum]

How about that 'Sambia Tribe' of Papua New Guinea? I guess they're good to go morally all by themselves, aren't they? We should just 'universally' recognize that people are 'good' without God, right?

What? I'm not claiming that all people are perfect. I agree that not all people are good... god or no god. What's your point?

 

[Davian]

How about that 'Sambia Tribe' of Papua New Guinea? I guess they're good to go morally all by themselves, aren't they? We should just 'universally' recognize that people are 'good' without God, right?

From an evolutionary perspective, they were "successful" (at least to the point of encountering modern civilization) "without God". The unsuccessful groups may have died out, moved away, or been integrated into their society.

The definition of "good", like history, gets to be written by the victors.

What they call good may be different than what others call good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxix8UteOTo