Morality pt 2: subjectivity and relativism August 17, 2006
Posted by Evil Bender in Morality.trackback
I’ve been doing my best to ignore further comments from Josephnadir, since the debate has increasingly become about distortions of my points. But one issue from that conversation seems relevant to the overall discussion here. Nadir believes that my claim that everyone’s view of reality is subjective makes me a moral relativist:
You said: “I would like to begin by pointing out that what I’ve been asked for is ‘objective morality,’ but of course this no-one can provide. ”. Hence, you have taken the leap of faith to believe there is no such thing as an objective morality; this is moral relativism. By your own admission you are a moral relativist despite your hesitation to accept it.
Aside from noting nadir’s obsession with the strong tag, we can see that he thinks that subjectivity is a death-knell for morality. But admitting that we are subjective takes no “leap of faith”; whether there is an objective morality is irrelevant. What is relevant is that, even if there was an objective morality, we could not have complete confidence that we a) knew what it was and b) understood it correctly.
What should be clear is that we’re imperfect, and our understanding of things is imperfect. Yes, we can posit a being that has perfect knowledge of “the good,” but what would this get us? How could we be sure we knew that being and that our understanding of the being let us in to the moral secret? If anything, this assumption creates a moral quandary, for we have no position to tell which understanding of supreme being(s) we ought to follow.
On the other hand, subjectivity does not equal relativism, pure and simple. Relativism’s claim is that we don’t have a framework for evaluating other cultures’ morality, and, more generally, that no moral claim is any more right than any other. Subjectivity says that our own experiences and biases affect the way we view the world, and that we must take this into account when making choices.
Perhaps a metaphor will help with this: say a man is taking a walking survey of a huge mountain. His goal is to learn–to a minute level–as much as he can about the mountain. At no point does he have perfect knowledge of the mountain, for as soon as part of it is out of sight (as he explores another part) he cannot be sure the part he has already seen is as he remembers it: something may have changed. This man acknowledges that his view of the mountain is imperfect. But he does not need to reach the conclusion that all views of the mountain are equally valid. He knows he does not know everything, but if someone says “the mountain has no pine trees” and he sees pine trees, he knows that person is wrong.
The man has a subjective position, but not a relativist one. Aknowledging that we are imperfect does not mean that we must believe that all positions are equally valid. In fact, it should do the opposite: remind us to work very hard to verify the veracity of our positions, since there always exists the possibility we might be wrong, and therefore we should desire as much certitude as possible.
Nadir himself admits that perfect knowledge is not required for moral action. For someone who understands subjectivity, this has to be true, since if it were false, even those who claim to not be relativists would have to be. If subjectivity = relativism, all humans are relativist. But since they are not equivalent, we can note that understanding the tentative nature of human understanding should drive us to consider carefully the morality of our choices.
Those fools who do not aknowledge subjectivity tend to believe they have access–unfettered–to the Source of Morality. And for this reason they are far more dangerous than those who understand subjectivity, for they have no reason to question themselves, and therefore will have no logical basis for changing their mind. After all, they know the truth and cannot be wrong.
> since the debate has increasingly become about distortions of my points
While this may seem like a distortion I have articulated the logical consequences of your stated and implied premises. In the process I have shed light on the bankrupcy of moral relativism.
> my claim that everyone’s view of reality is subjective
You are digging yourself into a larger hole. Do you realize what you just said is self-refuting? Let me demonstrate…
Let statement A == “my claim that everyone’s view of reality is subjective”
If A is true then its meaning applies to itself and therefore anyone can reasonably consider A to be false.
I don’t think it is reasonable to adhere to self-refuting positions.
But wait it gets worse for those who hold that A is true; for anyone who does so has no way of objectively defending against those who believes A is false. That is a very weak position to be in.
> we can see that he thinks that subjectivity is a death-knell for morality
Any worldview which is incapable of differentiating on objective grounds the difference between Mother Theresa and Hitler or incapable of objectively:
1. accuse others of wrongdoing
2. complain about the problem of evil
3. place blame or accept praise
4. make charges of unfairness or injustice
5. improve their morality
6. hold meaningful moral discussions
7. promote the obligation of tolerance
is extremely frail.
> But admitting that we are subjective takes no “leap of faith”;
But it does , for you have no objective evidence to provide to the contrary.
> even if there was an objective morality, we could not have complete confidence that we a) knew what it was and b) understood it correctly.
First off since you are using the word “complete” it is worth noting that strictly speaking the only thing that any person can know with a 100% certainty is that they exist; everything else is a matter of degree. If you dont’ believe me I can demonstrate the truth of what I said via reductio ad absurdum (i.e., proof by contradiction).
I will assume your intention was not to be speaking in these strict terms and therefore you are asserting that if there were an objective morality we could not have confidence that we knew what is was or that we understood it correctly. But on what objective grounds have you based your assertion?
> If anything, this assumption [that a being has perfect knowledge of "the good"] creates a moral quandary, for we have no position to tell which understanding of supreme being(s) we ought to follow.
The quandary is no different than the quandary you face when selecting (knowingly or unknowingly) the worldview to believe in. Despite our limited knowledge we have logic and the scientific method to help us choose the worldview which most closely correponds to reality.
Here is an example of the use of logic (i.e., the law of non-contradiction) to shed light on an issue that is so often muddled by moral relativists…
All religions can not be true since Christianity makes an exclusivity claim that it is the only true religion. Hence the only logical possibilities are the following:
1. Christianity is true and all other religions are false
OR
2. Christianity and a subset of other religions are false and another subset of religions are true
OR
3. all religions are false
It simply cannot be the case that more than one of these options is true at once.
> subjectivity does not equal relativism
I never said it did. What I said is that moral relativism is based on the premise that absolute moral truths (i.e., objective moral truths as opposed to subjective moral truths) do not exist. Your premise is that “no-one can provide” an “objective morality” and have I concluded that the reason you hold this position is that you believe absolute moral truths do not exist.
By all means if you believe that absolute moral truths exist, but are unknowable please say so.
> Relativism’s claim is … that no moral claim is any more right than any other
That is another self-refuting/untenable statement.
Let statement A == “no moral claim is any more right than any other”
Statement A is itself a moral claim (since it makes a claim about morality). If A is true then its meaning applies to itself and therefore A is no more right than a claim that contradicts it. I don’t think it is reasonable to adhere to self-refuting positions.
The same thing I said earlier applies here again. Not only is the position self refuting, but it is untenable as well since anyone who believes A is true has no way of objectively defending against those who believes A is false. That is a very weak position to be in.
Re: Mountain metaphor
> The man has a subjective position, but not a relativist one.
I’m not sure how your metaphor addresses my criticisms of moral relativism, but I’ll comment on it anyway. The mountain absolutely exists and is something objective anyone can go to to evaluate whether their survey of the mountain is accurate/true (i.e., corresponds to reality).
So I don’t think it is meaningful to say that the man in your metaphor has a “subjective position”. He has simply created a survey and its accuracy is verifyable given that there is an objective standard to measure its truth claims against (i.e., the mountain exists).
> Those fools who do not aknowledge subjectivity tend to believe they have access–unfettered–to the Source of Morality.
I think you are building a straw man and/or attempting to distract away from the weakness of the moral relativist position. I have never said that subjectivity does not exist. Subjective decisions take place every day. That is not the question though. The question is whether absolute moral truths exist. The moral relativist believes they don’t.
In closing, think about the following for a minute. No matter how sophisticated and nuanced an argument a moral relativist makes in favor or against something (e.g., the war on Muslim terrorists, abortion, conservatism, gay marriage, prayer in school, socialism, affirmative action, etc.) the argument is ultimately built on quicks and since the moral relativist has no absolute moral truth to appeal to.
I just wanted to butt in for a moment, because this is starting to get on my nerves. Josephnadir, I agree with Evil Bender that you are either misunderstanding or misconstruing the latter’s position. He is not making any attempt to defend moral relativism. You seem to think he is, and while you’ve stated that you are not equating relativism and subjectivity, there does seem to be some confusion on that part. Relativism and subjectivity are not the same thing. Similarly, absolutism and objectivity are not the same thing. I recommend you carefully re-read the following paragraph:
The fact that I recognize that my perception of reality is subjective does not mean that I believe all moral positions are equally valid (which is, again, the definition of moral relativism). All your arguments against moral relativism are quite simply a waste of everyone’s time given that no one here is arguing in favor of moral relativism. I just wanted to take a moment to point that out. Thank you. (Sorry about all the bolds, EB…)
> Similarly, absolutism and objectivity are not the same thing
I have used the terms “absolute” and “objective” interchangeably when qualifying “moral truths”. I’ve done this because a moral truth which is absolute is true independent of anyone’s perspective and when something is true independent of anyone’s perspective it is true, by definition, in a non-subjective way (i.e., in an objective way)
> The fact that I recognize that my perception of reality is subjective does not mean that I believe all moral positions are equally valid
I agree, but how is this relevant? I never stated anything to the contrary.
> (which is, again, the definition of moral relativism).
What you describe is not the definition of moral relativism. Moral relativism is a worldview which (according to wikipedia) “takes the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth. ““. You can be a moral relativist and believe that your definition is superior to all others. This appears to be what a lot of you are doing in this blog despite the fact that the moral relativistic worldview is built on quicksand.
> no one here is arguing in favor of moral relativism.
Let’s recap how we got here. I challenged EvilBender to tell me on what objective grounds he made a particular moral judgment and he replied that “no-one can provide” an “objective morality”. This is a tacit admission that he believes there is no objective basis for making moral judgments. Or to use the terminology from wikipedia, it is a tacit admission that “no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth”. Those who adhere to this perspective fit the definition of moral relativists.
This is why I have labeled EvilBender a moral relativist. If he disagrees with that label I would like to hear why.
[...] The debate has continued here. Here are some highlights. > moral relativist: my claim that everyone’s view of reality is subjective [...]
Things that annoy me about Josephnadir:
1.) Bad hair (I assume that since he argues on the Internet for fun, he doesn’t have a lot of personal hygiene time)
2.) Unnecessary Capitalization Of Other People’s Statements In His Quotations
3.) Taking said quotations out of context, often setting up strawmen in the process, and then cutting through those strawmen through the use of remarkably awkwardly structured, often sophistic pseudophilosophical sequences that make no sense to anyone but himself
4.) Not nearly as smart as he thinks he is
5.) Overuse of the strong tag
6.)Never uses the strike tag at all7.) Completely fails to understand the distinction between saying, “every person is a subject” and saying, “everything is just as good as everyone else”
8.) Gets whisker crumbs in the sink and DOES NOT clean them up no matter how often or nicely you ask him
8.) There are two number eights
8.) No there aren’t
8-1.) Yes there are
9.) Shut up, fairy
10.) You are so offensive
11.) Whatcha gonna do about it nancyboy
12.) Make it stop please oh it hurts me so bad
13.) fin
luaphacim :)
You should see the “debate” we had on YouTube.
http://youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=LNK4byQkn7w&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DLNK4byQkn7w
As you can see, I’m not a debater, but he likes to pick fights.
BTW, I stumbled upon this site because I was discovering that he uses the same points–almost verbatim–in practically every board he baits people–er, debates with people.
Welcome back to the debate Torgman!
As you can see, I’m not a debater
Yes we can see that.
he likes to pick fights.
This is what I said: “For many moonbats/leftits abortion is a sacrament of the Church of Liberalism.
As is so clearly illustrated in this video many of them will attack you with dogmatic zeal if you dare question their worldview.”
You declined to dispute what I said and you proceeded to resort to personal insults. You apparently wanted to fight. I wanted to debate.
So typical of lefties to complain about the very thing they are doing.
I stumbled upon this site
As in you searched for my name or visited my blog (http://josephnadir.wordpress.com )? I am flattered.
I was discovering that he uses the same points–almost verbatim
And your point is? As long as people continue to adhere to the same bankrupt worldviews I will relentlessly continue to point that out. There is a reason why my blog’s tagline is “Shining the light of Truth on bankrupt world views”
>Welcome back to the debate Torgman!
I was involved in a debate?
>You declined to dispute what I said and you proceeded
>to resort to personal insults.
Wrong. I made a joke about your statement, you proceded to badger me into a debate about it, I dismissed it, you conitnued to badger me, I resorted to clever remarks when I realized that you have no sense of humor, you conitnued to badger me, THEN I said “you’re either batsh*t crazy or a lemming of the extreme right” (Was I Supposed To Put That In Caps Or Some Other Form Of Piss Poor Emphasis, Like *asterisks*?), which, depending upon the person, could be taken as a compliment. :)
BTW, I noticed that you *declined* to challenge it. Is it your position that you’re either batsh*t crazy or a lemming of the extreme right? :)
>You apparently wanted to fight.
No, it was more apparent that I made a comment.
>I wanted to debate.
No, you wanted to be a nag.
>So typical of lefties to complain about the very thing they are doing.
Your ad-hominem attack about lefties does nothing to advance anything you have said so far. I know it’s easier to attack the man instead of the ideas advanced by the man, but here’s a word of advice: spend the additional effort to attack the idea and that way you’ll actually have a chance at advancing your position. :)
BTW, making a comment is not picking a fight.
>>I stumbled upon this site
>As in you searched for my name or visited my blog?
>I am flattered.
Yeah, I was curious to see if you were ever arrested for criminal harrassment or something. I determined that, though a partisan baiter, you’re harmless.
> And your point is?
That you have no originality, no sense of humor, and oblivious to how hypocritical your arguments sound.
> As long as people continue to adhere to the same bankrupt
> worldviews I will relentlessly continue to point that out.
So, you make it a life goal to bully people and refuse to stop when they either don’t fight or ask you to stop?
> There is a reason why my blog’s tagline is “Shining the light
> of Truth on bankrupt world views”
I thought the reason was because you’re a fanatical wingnut (thanks for that word, EvilBender!)
Besides, aren’t “world views” subjective? (Note: that was not a invitation to debate me; you’ll have to deal with it.)
You guys can have him. I’ll sit back and watch the fun.
Torgman,
I too have spent much time trying to explain to josephnadir the difference between a real discussion and continual misrepresentation and stupidity. Now I find it’s much more effective–and more fun–to simply ignore everything he says. In the end, that’s the only reasonable response to stubborn idiocy.