In any moral system where action A and the equivilent inaction ~A are equally justifiable, we have no net knowledge about the two. Having more knowledge about morality is better than having less, as having more knowledge will let you make choices that are more moral. And that's a good thing.
In any moral system where action A and inaction ~A are equally justifiable, you do have net knowledge about about them; you know that they are both equally justifiable. There is another problem with what you are saying.
Moral Relativism is not a moral system where A and ~A are equally justifiable; Moral Relativism is a system where it does not make sense to say that A and ~A are equally justifiable without stating to whom it is justifiable. A or ~A is only moral or immoral because someone thinks that it is. This is similar to the fact that X is beautiful and ~X is ugly because someone thinks that they are so. Saying that X and ~X are equally beautiful does not make sense without stating to whom it is beautiful or not.
Of course, this is arguing from Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism; you seem to think that I mean Normative Moral Relativism, and I would agree that Normative Moral Relativism is a bad moral philosophy, but only because, if morals are relative, one can not objectively say that one ought to tolerate anything.
No matter what objective moral system you choose, and no matter what the actual ought of the world is, you cannot do worse than the moral null that results from accepting all ought statements as equally valid.
If the position that all ought statements are equally valid is true, then one that believes so is not doing badly at all. Your objection assumes that all statements about what ought to be are not all valid. You are begging the question.
The only thing that moral relativism is actually good for is a cognitive stopsign that says "I no longer wish to discuss ethics with you."
Lo! Here I am. The moral relativist is discussing ethics with you.
It would seem that you have avoided presenting the only thing that could validate your argument against non-objective morals. You have yet to present the logic and observations that prove the existence of some immutable moral code that is carved into the very fabric of reality.
What you do doesn't change your capacity, but it is a measure. If your thought process is literally "I know I could behave better, but I don't care because it doesn't change anything" then you have in fact proven that your capacity for good behavior is proportional to your immediate perception of return on that investment.
If I know I can behave better, then my capacity is obviously not proportional to my immediate perception of a return on my investment. If I did not have the capacity for both, I could not have chosen in the first place.
Apparently, if it doesn't directly make the world a better place, then personal gain is favorable.
It is only favorable if you think that is favorable, and gain is a relative assessment as well, so you can not make that kind of assertion in a generalized and objective fashion. If my action or inaction would not make the world a better place, but my personal tastes favor that action or inaction, it would still be favorable to chose what I perceive to be the moral good.
Unless you believe that somehow you're incredibly special and very few people have a similar thought process to yours, then it is safe to assume that a considerable portion of the population will operate in the same fashion as you. If those people behave selfishly any time they're not convinced that their decisions will have broad implications for society, then that's a lot of selfish behavior, the sum of which DOES have broad implications for society.
Certainly, but, in our fictional scenario, I am not making moral decisions for many people. I am making moral decisions for myself, and there is no mechanism by which my moral or immoral behaviour will compel those people to behave in a similar fashion without knowledge of the act.
Or if you don't believe in the above, then I see two directions you can go. Perhaps you believe that if you hold yourself to a higher standard, that you'll just be better than everyone else, giving up on personal gain while everyone else continues to behave selfishly and it will all be pointless in the end. What a pretentious view. Or you could go the other way and assume that enough people hold better standards of behavior than you that your isolated acts of selfishness won't matter. A world made of good people can support a few bad ones, right? This one doesn't look so good, either.
That is a false assumption wrapped in a false dilemma wrapped in an appeal to consequences, like some manner of fallacious philosophical turducken.
Appeal to ConsequencesThe argument, “you should not believe X, because that would mean you are pretentious or selfish, and would be pointless,” is not a valid one. Objective things are not invalid merely because we do not like them.
False DilemmaYou assume that I can either believe you, be pretentious, or be selfish. I shall take option D.
False AssumptionYou use words like “better”, “good”, and “higher standard” like some manner of objective truths. You define what is better and good by equating bad with selfishness, you decide that your first option is pointless, and then you use that to make a general statement about what people should do: “This one doesn't look so good, either.” That is assuming that morals are not relative to individuals, but they are. You even admitted that they are.
The following is my personal perspective, and how I try to live my life.
Honestly, I am abhorred and uplifted by various instances of human behavior every single day. I don't like the current state of the world, as I think those who behave selfishly end up in positions of greater influence. However, I desperately cling to a belief that society can reach a higher standard. I could not go on living in this world unless I did.
My my, society not good enough for you, eh? You are of far too much moral character to suffer the evils of everyone else, and, if you did not think everyone could be better, you just would not be able to stay here and smell the stink of humanity. You would just have to kill yourself. Such a view would seem to be every bit as pretentious as the option you deemed pretentious. One could say that your whole philosophy is downright arrogant, as, not only do you consider yourself the standard by which humanity should be judged, you are assuming that no one is better than you. You said so in the following post.
It is the knowledge that it is likely other people will encounter similar circumstances, and you cannot realistically expect them to make a better decision than you do.
Do you really consider yourself the paragon of your moral code? I have a hard time believing that you never dissappoint yourself. Even the god of salmon makes mistakes. (Or are you a god-salmon?)
I see society as the sum of all human behavior. I cannot maintain a belief that that sum can reach a positive unless I can succeed in maintaining a personal standard at the level I wish to see. Even more importantly, that state of society defined by a standard of responsible, mature, and compassionate behavior X literally cannot exist until a large enough portion of the population actually maintains X as a personal standard. The first step to achieving this is to achieve it myself, and the more people realize this, the more capable we are of moving forward.
Perhaps, but that is not what you have said. You have asserted that your good action is somehow a demonstration of what you can expect from humanity, and you assert that you can change what you expect from humanity by changing your behaviour.
The best example I know is the earlier one I mentioned regarding pacifism. It is literally impossible for a world where people do not use violence to exist if I make use of violence. People say that such idealism is impractical, because it relies on an ideal situation to operate. They're completely missing the point. The point is to align oneself with that ideal situation to allow it the potential to exist.
It is also impossible for a world where people do not use violence to exist whether you use violence or not, so I do not see why you would use that to support your decision. Putting yourself at a disadvantage by not using violence will only permit those that have no such scruples to use violence against you. Law enforcement is paid to use violence so the ordinary citizen can be a pacifist from the comfort of a computer chair while he takes solace in the knowledge that, because he is a pacifist, he can expect other people to be pacifists. If he was not, well, all hope for humanity would be lost. Such a good thing that we have him around to do that.
I am not a pacifist. It is an easy thing to say what one would do under improbable circumstances, but I hope I would fight, kill, and die in the defense of the innocent, as such pleases me, and I find men who would not do the same rather distasteful. Other people are not pacifists, your being a pacifist will not make them pacifists, and, sometimes, violence is the only way to deal with violent people.
Poll
0 (0%)
Author
Topic: Ethical Dilemmas: PURPLE ALERT (Read 36886 times)