In
article <g2an1u0jnn3mlp83vbm3p0ubrlh17bqu00@4ax.com>,
nikitta@aub.spammustdie.dk
wrote:
> The
alien which happened to be occupying the body of Heathen Bastard
>
<heathen_bastard@heathenbastard.com> on Wed, 12 Dec 2001 23:02:41
>
-0800 wrote:
> >
>
>Don't be silly. "Objective
morality" is a fiction and always has been.
>
>Morals are born of culture, primarily of the religious aspect of any
>
>given culture. There are *ho*
morals that are equal across all known
>
>cultures - so all moral judgments are subjective.
> >
> >Personally,
I have no morals. I have
_conditional ethics_, instead.
>
> I hope you don't mind me asking, but - How do you then avoid
falling
> into the trap where you will have to accept atrocities going
on in
> other cultures (FGM for instance), on account of "well,
it's
> acceptable in that culture and it's just subjective that I
don't like
> it, so they should just be allowed to". I'm not saying
that you've
> fallen into that trap, but how do you avoid it with that
POV?
It's not
really a problem. My ethical stance applies to me. But events
"out
there" get filtered through my opinions. I donŐt buy the "in my
culture,
this is acceptable" argument - for some things, I'm not willing
to extend
that much slack. I see some things
as just plain wrong,
period,
but I know that the judgment that I am making in *my* judgment,
and
therefore subjective. Those "atrocities" are pretty disgusting, for
instance,
and wrong in my worldview - but as I lack the ability to
effectively
do much about them, then my opinions about whether they are
ethical
or not do not matter. This changes
in situations that I can
effect -
and I can usually tell the difference between the two types of
situations.
<later
in the thread>
> Then what makes your set of morals above theirs?
Because
mine are the only ones that I really know about. I have to
filter
events as they relate to me, rather than to someone else.
> I mean - they can
> justify saying the same thing about your set of morals, in
the exact
> same way, so how do you avoid complete moral relativism?
I don't
see it as a problem.
If
someone does something so offensive that I must take action, then I
will take
*whatever* action that I deem necessary.
I will also deal
with the
consequences (if any) thereof. If I do not wish to deal with
the
consequences, then I won't act.
<later
in the thread>
> Well, that ignores the basic problem that causes a
discussion of moral
> philosophy in the first place. You can always choose to be amoral and
> simply follow your own psychic needs. (That is, you can always do
> things out of feelings of simple guilt based on your most
immediate
> attitudes about any particular situation. Or, you can act out of
> totally self-serving motives.) What broaches the issue or of morality
> is the fact that two people engaged in a conflict seek a
peaceful and
> "fair" to that conflict.
I don't
see how this follows. I act, most
of the time, out of
enlightened
self-interest. I try to do
"the right thing" as far as I
can see
what that "right thing" is, in *my* estimation. But since I
don't
live in a vacuum, outside events and opinions do have an impact
on me;
what I choose to make of that impact is based on how I think and
process
information.
> At that point, "I just do what I feel in my own good
consceince,"
> doesn't cut it anymore as a response. We are already at a point where
> what your consceince told you didn't meet someone else's
expectations.
That is
*their* problem. I am not
responsible, nor can I *ever* be
responsible
for another person's expectations.
> Now, you want
to figure out a way to resolve your differences.
Negotiation
=/= morality, as far as I can discern - but that appears to
be what
you are saying.
> Simply accepting them or ignoring them (however you look at
the above
> sort of response to moral dilemmas) has already failed. Now what?
>
> Or more generally, suppose you are a judge. You have two total
> strangers come to you about a matter you could hardly care
less about.
This is
why I'd never be a judge.
> But, it is your
job to figure out "fair" resolutions to just these
> sorts of disputes.
Now what? What is you
general method for settling
> them?
I don't
have a "general method".
Every situation that someone in that
position
comes up against is going to be unique - therefore, solutions
are going
to be unique.
<later
in the thread>
<snip>
I'm
tried, so I'm only going to respond to this bit:
> And you still have not avoided the fact that outrageous
customs (like
> compulsory clitoradectomies for prepubescent girls, say, or
the Nazis
> or...) are not (according to you) immoral.
How did
you come to that conclusion? I
think those are horrible things
to do to
a person. But that is *my
subjective* interpretation. If I
know of
someone doing such things in a situation where I can stop them,
I
certainly will do so.
> This conclusion, more than
> anything is really just kind of strange and absurd. We aren't talking
> about contentious issues here. These activities might have some
> advocates, but 99% of people all think they are
"immoral", and that is
> accross cultures even.
The
cultures that practice them don't think they are immoral. Thus,
they are
*not immoral* to those cultures.
Period. Any judgment
rendered
by another culture about those practices is strictly subjective
- which
makes the whole idea of "objective morality" (the idea that
started
this thread) moot.
Oh, and
one more thing - don't make any more fucking *assumptions* as to
the
things that I find ethical or not.
If you want to know about a
specific
thing *ask*.
<snip>