Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00963)

LunarPitri:
>If moral standards are merely subjective, like tastes, then there would be
no
>way of settling disputes about whether the behaviour is immoral or not. 
	But moral standards are indeed subjective, and differ with
different cultures.  The way they are settled also varies with culture.
In our society, they are settled in courts of law.  If a law is broken, one
is punished.  If not, then one goes free.  In our society, the Chrisitan
church is generally acknowledged as being the guide to what is
morally right and wrong.


>I can
>support an activity like stealing by merely asserting that I am creating
my
>own reality or that I'm expressing "my good" within that reality even
though
>your concept of what may be good might be different from mine,
(particularly
>if you're on the receiving end of the stealing). 
	Indeed, there are times when stealing is morally justified (stealing
bread for one's hungry children, for example, if that is the only way to
keep them alive).  We must each create our own moral sense of what is
right and wrong, and live it--but we should not force nor expect others to
live within our own moral code.


>An S & L swindle may be
>"good" for the swindler but not so great for the older folks whose life
>savings are wiped out. 
	This is exactly what laws and courts are for.

>An objectivist would contend, and rightly so, that
>there is no essential difference between a dispute about moral matters and
a
>dispute about factual ones. 
	Then the objectivist is plain wrong.  This is the problem that
we had in early America during the pilgrim era, which lead to witch hunts
and other social evils.  Its exactly the rationale that Hitler used to
eradicate the Jews.  


>Stealing is wrong and if you deny this, then one
>of us is right and one is wrong. 
	This is exactly the general thinking during 18th century
Britian, where people were condemned for stealing bread for their
starving children.  Moral people often tend to put on blinders.  This
makes them do things that are as immoral as the one's they
accuse. 


>Our statement that stealing is wrong has an
>objective reference to the fact that something was taken that didn't
belong
>to that person, i.e., the thief.
	In the American Indian culture, as well as others, there was
almost no such thing as personal property.  They laughed at the White
Man's idea of owning land, for example, as if the Earth could be
owned by a human being.  The White Man has always had this
strong sense of ownership and propery--it allows for elitism, the rich
to get richer, and the poor to stay in their proper place.  The idea of 
personal property is championed primary by lawyers.


>Here we can see how subjectivism creates moral chaos. 
	As I have tried to say many times, you can't have subjectivity
without objectivity.  The attempt to do so is ludicrous, and plain
silly.  My sense of morals may be your moral chaos, and vice
versa.  I have said for a long time, and still maintain, that if you
develop a sincere compassion for others, your moral behavior
 will take care of itself.


>Morality becomes
>arbitrary, merely a matter of caprice and whim. 
	My dear sir, morality is already arbitrary.  Just look at the
Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, at the Arabs and Jews in
the Mid East, and so on.


>If we like murder, then it is
>our "good"; if we dislike it, it is "evil"; but we might like it one day,
and
>dislike it another according to our "reality"- does this mean that murder
is
>sometimes right, sometimes wrong? 
	Murder, IMO, is never "right," but it can sometimes be morally
justified, as in the case of abortion, or in war, or in self-defense.


>According to the theory of moral
>situationism, there is no objectivity in morals. 
	You wrong here.  The objectivity simply depends on the
circumstances.

>Morality is determined by
>whatever the situation calls for at the moment. Lying, stealing and
adultery
>becomes right under certain conditions. Even murder. 
	Yes, as I have already tried to indicate.  Anyone who thinks
that some behavior is always wrong or always right is a simplistic
fundamentalist who must come to terms with his own moral sense
some day (not you, of course).

>Adopting such a position obviously reduces moral life to haphazard
confusion
>and anarchy. 
	Quite the opposite.  It makes it sensible and meaningful.

>If  this subjectivist view prevailed, moral life as we know it
>would become impossible - for example, how could we punish anyone for a
crime
>he or she committed?  
	Now you are confusing morals with legalities.  There is a big
difference.  I am a strong believer that society needs laws.  Moral
codes are something else again.


>We already see "moral relativism" or "situation ethics"
>coming into play all too frequently in our society today... another
>unfortunate legacy from the Sixties. 
	I see it as a maturing of society.

>It is used to justify just about
>anything these days, including sleeping with thy neighbor's wife (like
>Krishnamurti).
	A time-honored tradition found throughout the world in every age
and needing no justification at all.

Jerry S.
Member, TI