What is Philosophy in the form of ethics (morals) other than...

[lesliedellow]

Ethics is probably about first of all trying to determined the theoretical basis for determining whether something is right or wrong, and secondly it is about drawing out the practical consequences which flow from that theoretical basis.

Determining what the basis for morality might be is difficult enough in a pluralistic society, but post modernism adds insult to injury by effectively denying that a theoretical basis can even exist. The upshot of that is that people just end up talking past one another, as they each start out with their own personal prejudices as the basis from which moral discussions should start out.

The danger is that if a society fragments, so that it can't decide for itself what the basis for morality might be, some strong man might emerge to fill the moral vacuum, and decide the matter for them. Post Modernism won't look so smart then.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Determining what the basis for morality might be is difficult enough in a pluralistic society, but post modernism adds insult to injury by effectively denying that a theoretical basis can even exist. The upshot of that is that people just end up talking past one another, as they each start out with their own personal prejudices as the basis from which moral discussions should start out.

I personally find postmodernists short-sighted when they do that. They get so caught up in issues of meaning that they forget that there is a reality that may form the basis for meaning.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Ethics is probably about first of all trying to determined the theoretical basis for determining whether something is right or wrong,

No - that would be meta-ethics.

and secondly it is about drawing out the practical consequences which flow from that theoretical basis.

In my understanding ethics is not a theoretical riddle that needs to be solved.
I´m more of a pragmatist in that respect (and I actually think that everyone silently is): I want ethics to serve a purpose, a goal. Not before this goal/purpose is (at least basically) agreed upon, we can even start taking the next steps.

It seems to me that we aren´t going to accept a theoretical basis the consequences of which are going against our deeply held convictions and feelings. It´s the other way round: We are trying to post-hoc rationalize an ethical basis that confirms those convictions and feelings about what´s - in practice - acceptable and unacceptable.
Even the most die hard objectivists eventually will argue "But were it not for [insert moral authority of choice] Hitler would have been justified in...etc. etc.". Which proves that even they start from the desired results.

Determining what the basis for morality might be is difficult enough in a pluralistic society, but post modernism adds insult to injury by effectively denying that a theoretical basis can even exist. The upshot of that is that people just end up talking past one another, as they each start out with their own personal prejudices as the basis from which moral discussions should start out.

Well, the best way of countering this claim of post modernism would be to demonstrate that and which theoretical basis exists.
But instead you attempt to shoot the messenger.

The danger is that if a society fragments, so that it can't decide for itself what the basis for morality might be, some strong man might emerge to fill the moral vacuum, and decide the matter for them. Post Modernism won't look so smart then.

Until post modernism entered the scene there were no strong men determining morality for those whom they subjugated?

 

[lesliedellow]

Until post modernism entered the scene there were no strong men determining morality for those whom they subjugated?

When there is a consensus, there is no need for a strong man. He will either have to conform himself to the prevailing consensus, or else be ignored, because there is no perceived need for him. On the other hand, when nobody seems quite sure what "right" and "wrong" mean, there is a psychological attractiveness to having somebody remove that uncertainty - and you can be quite sure that the strong man would not consult any agreed basis for morality.

 

[quatona]

When there is a consensus, there is no need for a strong man.

When there is no consensus, there isn´t either.

He will either have to conform himself to the prevailing consensus, or else be ignored, because there is no perceived need for him.

And that would be your description of the monarchies and dictatorships prior to "post modernism"??

On another note, while I agree that there is (depending on the individual, to a greater or lesser degree) some psychological need for certainty, I do not see how this need is typically being pursued at all costs (in other words: there are other psychological needs that prevent people from necessarily behaving according to your analysis).

On the other hand, when nobody seems quite sure what "right" and "wrong" mean, there is a psychological attractiveness to having somebody remove that uncertainty - and you can be quite sure that the strong man would not consult any agreed basis for morality.

Whereas the "strong men" prior to "post-modernism" did consult some agreed on basis for morality??

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's a great question.

I think logically, a materialist worldview does not allow of a truly objective view of ethics.

Nonsense. Objectivity is, in essence, nothing more then drawing logical conclusions based on objective data without having your biases "infect" your assessement. We are perfetly able to rationally deduce objective consequences of actions and decisions. This is how we can say that murder is objectively wrong.

But I find that when ethics are not grounded on some faith-based authority, they become subjective and ultimately what is evil in one place (like raping women) is a time honored tradition (bride kidnapping in Turkic regions).

Obedience to a perceived authority is not moral. It's mere obedience. Even if the authority dictates that murder is wrong. Murder is not wrong because the authority says so. Murder is wrong for other reasons. If your authority declares murder to be right, then it is still wrong.

Obedience to authority is not morality. It's psychopathy.

Ultimately, I don't think morality can be reduced to subjectivity and social contexts. I just feel it in my gut, but I can't prove it.

Your gut feelings are subjective. And irrelevant.

 

[lesliedellow]

And that would be your description of the monarchies and dictatorships prior to "post modernism"??

Absolute monarchies have been more difficult to find than icebergs on the equator, since about 1918 onward. As for dictators, they are typical of the strong men I am talking about. Even they can only gain (and hang onto) power so long as they are fulfilling a felt need. Otherwise they are lining themselves up for another coup d'état.

On another note, while I agree that there is (depending on the individual, to a greater or lesser degree) some psychological need for certainty, I do not see how this need is typically being pursued at all costs (in other words: there are other psychological needs that prevent people from necessarily behaving according to your analysis).

That all depends upon how acute the felt need is, doesn't it?

Whereas the "strong men" prior to "post-modernism" did consult some agreed on basis for morality??

What strong men would you be talking about? Like I said, an agreed baseline for morality removes the felt need for a strong man. People may disagree about the inferences which are to be drawn from that basis, but there is no sense of an impending nihilism.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yeah, the Golden Rule, it's 2,000 years old.

It's far, far older. Unlike what a lot of christians believe, christianity is NOT the source of this rule. It merely adopted it. It's as old as civilisation itself. Ever since homo sapiens settled down in societies, this obvious rule saw the light of day. Civilisations all over the world stumbled upon it independently from eachother. Long before judaism even existed. It's a logical consequence of living in a social group where people depend on eachother for their own survival.

Religion has nothing to do with it. No matter how much they claim otherwise.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's far, far older. Unlike what a lot of christians believe, christianity is NOT the source of this rule. It merely adopted it. It's as old as civilisation itself. Ever since homo sapiens settled down in societies, this obvious rule saw the light of day. Civilisations all over the world stumbled upon it independently from eachother. Long before judaism even existed. It's a logical consequence of living in a social group where people depend on eachother for their own survival.

Religion has nothing to do with it. No matter how much they claim otherwise.

A single sentence also falls well short of being a complete basis for a system of ethics. How, for example, would you use it to decide whether abortion should be legal or not?

It would also not be sufficient to come up with a basis which was sufficient according to your own satisfaction. You would, in addition, have to persuade all, or most, of the population to go along with it. The smart set can easily supply the acid to dissolve a consensus, but it is much more difficult to put one together again. They are a bit like Donald Rumsfeld, who wasn't into nation building (difficult), even though he was into nation demolition (easy).

 

[DogmaHunter]

A single sentence also falls well short of being a complete basis for a system of ethics. How, for example, would you use it to decide whether abortion should be legal or not?

It would also not be sufficient to come up with a basis which was sufficient according to your own satisfaction. You would, in addition, have to persuade all, or most, of the population to go along with it. The smart set can easily supply the acid to dissolve a consensus, but it is much more difficult to put one together again.

The single sentence also is rooted in tribalism throughout history. Even within the bible itself. Just look at how it sets different rules for jewish and non-jewish slaves.

And look at how centuries of slavery of africans was justified by waving bibles. The "other" in the sentence throughout history really meant "other people of your own tribe / religion / country".

 

[quatona]

Absolute monarchies have been more difficult to find than icebergs on the equator, since about 1918 onward. As for dictators, they are typical of the strong men I am talking about. Even they can only gain (and hang onto) power so long as they are fulfilling a felt need. Otherwise they are lining themselves up for another coup d'état.

So, history starts at 1918?

That all depends upon how acute the felt need is, doesn't it?

Sure does. Exactly my point: it depends - on this and on other factors.
Interestingly, theism would be way less appealing to people were it not for the need you are talking about here.

What strong men would you be talking about?

All the kings, dukes, princes, kaisers, emperors and other potentates that populate history.

Like I said, an agreed baseline for morality removes the felt need for a strong man. People may disagree about the inferences which are to be drawn from that basis, but there is no sense of an impending nihilism.

What I am objecting agaist is your analysis that this has been brought to us by "post modernism". Rather, what you are describing as a risk under "post modernism" has been the norm in the authoritarean past.

 

[lesliedellow]

What I am objecting agaist is your analysis that this has been brought to us by "post modernism". Rather, what you are describing as a risk under "post modernism" has been the norm in the authoritarean past.

Would your definition of "authoritarian" happen to be a democracy in which the prevailing moral norms were other than you would like them to be?

Whatever other short comings the Middle Ages may have had, and it undoubtedly had plenty, a sense of impending moral nihilism wasn't one of them. In Europe, everybody took it for granted that God ecisted, everybody took it for granted that he was the eternal law giver, and everybody took it for granted that they would one day be answerable to him.

All the kings, dukes, princes, kaisers, emperors and other potentates that populate history.

In other words about as relevant to the present day as the doings as Henry VIII.

Interestingly, theism would be way less appealing to people were it not for the need you are talking about here.

Rubbish. Monotheism carries with it moral implications, but it is not primarily about morality - it is primarily about God.

 

[quatona]

Would your definition of "authoritarian" happen to be a democracy in which the prevailing moral norms were other than you would like them to be?

No, of course I don´t - I have told you what I meant by that: I was referring to the "strong men" reigning and imposing their morals upon "their" people throughout ancient history, long before "post modernism" had even been thougth up.

Rubbish. Monotheism carries with it moral implications, but it is not primarily about morality - it is primarily about God.

I didn´t make a statement what monotheism is about (after all, "strong men" aren´t primarily about morality), but - just like you did - I made a statement about psychological needs and what people grab for in the attempt to fulfill them. Strong Gods usually work even better than strong men (and most efficient are strong men who supposedly are God´s representatives): that´s the cloth oppression traditionally has been made of.


Btw., I notice that you have a tendency to leave the core points unaddressed and prefer to respond to the side notes. Am I right in assuming that you concede those parts that you don´t address?

 

[quatona]

Whatever other short comings the Middle Ages may have had, and it undoubtedly had plenty, a sense of impending moral nihilism wasn't one of them.

Exactly my point: With no "moral nihilims" or "post modernism" around you had the very thing you now would us believe "post modernism" is leading to: strong men dictating morality and societal norms.

In Europe, everybody took it for granted that God ecisted, everybody took it for granted that he was the eternal law giver, and everybody took it for granted that they would one day be answerable to him.

Exactly my point: back then strong leading figures (be they human or supposedly divine) were widely spread reality. The very phenomenon you warn "post modernism" is opening the door to. That´s as ironic as it gets.

 

[lesliedellow]

No, of course I don´t - I have told you what I meant by that: I was referring to the "strong men" reigning and imposing their morals upon "their" people throughout ancient history, long before "post modernism" had even been thougth up.

So? That doesn't alter the fact that post modernism could be paving the way for their return. I suspect that, before that happens, some kind of consensus regarding the basis for morality will return.

I didn´t make a statement what monotheism is about (after all, "strong men" aren´t primarily about morality), but - just like you did - I made a statement about psychological needs and what people grab for in the attempt to fulfill them.

And as a statement about what motivates religious belief, it is wrong.

Btw., I notice that you have a tendency to leave the core points unaddressed and prefer to respond to the side notes. Am I right in assuming that you concede those parts that you don´t address?

I do not leave anything unaddressed.

Exactly my point: With no "moral nihilims" or "post modernism" around you had the very thing you now would us believe "post modernism" is leading to: strong men dictating morality and societal norms.

Absolute crap. Post modernism is a product of the last two or three decades.

Exactly my point: back then strong leading figures (be they human or supposedly divine) were widely spread reality. The very phenomenon you warn "post modernism" is opening the door to. That´s as ironic as it gets.

Belief in God does not equate to submission to an authoritarian human government.

 

[quatona]

So? That doesn't alter the fact that post modernism could be paving the way for their return.
I suspect that, before that happens, some kind of consensus regarding the basis for morality will return.

You are completely misattributing causalities here.
It all starts with your argument being an argument from consequence: If "post modernism" is true and there is no theoretical ground for a universall binding morality you are just shooting the messenger.
It´s like saying "If gravity were true everything would fall down and disassemble, therefore gravitationalism paves the way to destruction."

Apart from that, there is a remarkable and sufficient consensus regarding morality - it just may not be to your liking. Much of what forms this broad consensus isn´t to my liking, neither - but that doesn´t make it less of a consensus.

And as a statement about what motivates religious belief, it is wrong.

I have been a regular poster here on E&M for many years, and I assure you that it often pops up for an argument for religion. You yourself have participated in threads in which this happened.
If I´m not entirely mistaken, you were even one of those who praised the benefits of an "absolute morality" provided by God.

I do not leave anything unaddressed.

 

[quatona]

Absolute crap. Post modernism is a product of the last two or three decades.

Do you even read what I write? That´s exactly what I said, and it was crucial part of my point.

Belief in God does not equate to submission to an authoritarian human government.

And I never claimed it was.

 

[lesliedellow]

Apart from that, there is a remarkable and sufficient consensus regarding morality

There might be, but that is no thanks to the efforts of post modernist philosophers, and that consensus is on shaky ground when it is based upon no underlying theory.

If I´m not entirely mistaken, you were even one of those who praised the benefits of an "absolute morality" provided by God.

I may have said that belief in God provides a rationale for saying that the Nazis were absolutely evil, and that is not matter of opinion - it is just a fact. But moral relativists have no such rationale. Their very mantra is that there is nothing beyond mere opinion. Even the murder of 6 million Jews is a matter of opinion, and, in order to be consistent, they have to say that the Nazis were perfectly well entitled to their opinion.

 

[quatona]

There might be, but that is no thanks to the efforts of post modernist philosophers,

...which, of course, nobody claimed (rather, you claimed that "post modernist philosophy" was a threat to this consensus)...

and that consensus is on shaky ground when it is based upon no underlying theory.

Now, Hitler´s successful career was based on a broad consensus on his underlying theory.
Thus, if a broad acceptance of "post-modernism" prevents a binding morality that would be to your or my liking, it also prevents a binding morality that is detrimental to your or my liking.
"Post modernism" isn´t the problem - the problem is that people who postulate a theoretical basis for a universally binding morality fail to come up with such and/or to convince everyone of it.

I may have said that belief in God provides a rationale for saying that the Nazis were absolutely evil, and that is not matter of opinion - it is just a fact. But moral relativists have no such rationale. Their very mantra is that there is nothing beyond mere opinion. Even the murder of 6 million Jews is a matter of opinion, and, in order to be consistent, they have to say that the Nazis were perfectly well entitled to their opinion.

Yes, thanks for summarizing the argument of yours that I was referring to.

 

[lesliedellow]

...which, of course, nobody claimed (rather, you claimed that "post modernist philosophy" was a threat to this consensus)...

Which it is. In Europe we are living off of the residual consensus left behind by Christianity. If there are no absolute truths, except, of course, the absolute truth that there are no absolute truths, then each person, or every group, is free to decide for himself/itself what it will base his/its own version of morality on.

Now, Hitler´s successful career was based on a broad consensus on his underlying theory. Thus, if a broad acceptance of "post-modernism" prevents a binding morality that would be to your or my liking, it also prevents a binding morality that is detrimental to your or my liking.

It prevents any sort of consensus at all, and where no consensus exiosts chaos reigns. You would cure a tooth ache by cutting off somebody's head.

the problem is that people who postulate a theoretical basis for a universally binding morality fail to come up with such and/or to convince everyone of it.

Consensus, almost by definition, emerges of itself. As I said in response to somebody else a few posts back, it is easy for the smart set to supply the acid which disolves a consensus, but it is much more difficult to construct a new one. They resemble Donald Rumsfeld, who wasn't into nation building (difficult), even though he was into nation demolition (easy).