The crisis of western civilization

[Roxanne Appleby]

LOL! Concern me? I'm a fucking relativist! I'm delighted with this! If what you said were true, that there really is an expansion of relativism in the general population, I'd be happy as a clam! It's about time people said things like, "I think erotica is immoral and I won't read it myself, but I'm not going to try and impose that belief on others by outlawing it because I know that my morality is relative. It is not absolute."

I'm not at all sure why this concerns you; it sounds like a great step to me! And really there are far better things to wring your hands over...like the price of gas and food. But then I understand that you're trying your hardest to convert us all to your religion. Still, I don't think anyone but Amicus wants to join your church (and he only wants to join if he can dictate what those absolute morals will be)--you do understand that's how you come across when you quote things people like Mr. McMahon there: as some church lady handing out pamphlets on a street corner.

Oh, and I'm sorry to tell you...you're not an atheist. You, like McMahon, want to have your cake and eat it too. That is, you want to say you're atheists so that everyone will think that you're presenting facts, not beliefs that require "faith." There is no factual proof of a "spirit"--if you believe in one, than you are not an atheist. You have faith, and that's religion. Likewise, one has only to study world cultures to see that there is not, nor has there ever been "timeless values." For every sin one culture has, another culture has held that sin as a virtue. And vice versa. More than that, morals are ever changing. Not one has ever been "timeless."

To believe that there is some human "spirit" and "timeless values" is contrary to the facts. An atheist would never believe this. But someone, like you and Mr. MaMahon, who want to pretend that they're presenting facts, not something that you have to take on faith, would.

Nice trick, but I'm not falling for it. Saying that it's a "fact" doesn't make it so, or make it true. It's bullshit.

I believe in facts. And the facts support relativism. So if it's spreading through the general population, then people are becoming more reasonable and factual--that means less superstition, that means wonderful things like not being able to say that someone is born sinful just because of their sex or skin color, or that they become immoral for practicing sex in a way they and other enjoy but some object to.

I welcome this. I have no concern at all about it. Fret away, church lady. You've a reason to, as it mean no one is buying the bullshit. I'll worry about gas and food prices myself.

I'm not talking about moral relativism, oh mean one, but the postmodernist relativism that contends that there is no such thing as truth and we can't truly know anything. "Who am I to say?" "Who am I to know?"

Or perhaps I am talking about moral relativism, but not from that narrow silly viewpoint that get's all hung up on sex. Moral relativism: "Who am I to say that killing 6 million Jews is wrong?" "Who am I to say that starving peasants to hasten a Great Leap Forward is wrong? Who am I to say that making women second class citizens is wrong?"

I'll tell you who I am: I'm someone who believes that there is a universal standard of value, and it's that which is good for human life.

"Who am I to say that is The Good?" I'm a human, that's who, and this view is what defines me as a humanist. It should be apparent that this view is not compatible with relativism.

~~~~~~~

Perhaps you say that you are a cultural relativist. Frankly, I doubt it. I doubt that you believe that a culture which judges women to be second class citizens is as good as one that holds all humans as created equal and worthy of equal rights and privileges. Same thing when it comes to cultural differences on other values like freedom of religion, freedom of speech, separation of church and state, etc. The basic Enlightenment, liberal values that have defined the west for 200 years. "Who am I to say equality for women is better than non-equality?" Indeed - relativists have no basis on which they can make that claim. This is the relativism that the OP condemns, and which you proudly claim.

 

[Pure]

A simple question for people; vote early, vote often.

You are voting for the leader of your country, supposing you can. These are the candidates:

Candidate A says, "the ethic i advocate is universal; its rules, properly understood, have no exceptions. i have detailed knowledge of the specifics of this ethic: its principles and practice. murder and lying are always wrong; those that disagree about such obvious principles have a collectivist agenda. it is entirely clear to me and my right minded colleagues, how the principles apply to a number of issues from climate change, which is a hoax, to the killing of fetuses, the silent holocaust of our time.

Candidate B says, "the ethics i advocate are relative, relative to our culture, for intstance freedom, tolerance and democracy. in applying basic principles to specific cases, i canvas opinions and make up my mind, and it's NOT alwasy crystal clear to me. issues like protecting the atmosphere are complex, both scientifically and morally: what weight to we attach to the interests of our grandchildren. "protection of life" too is fine in its conceptual reach, but applying it always involves difficulties: Truman, ordering the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was protecting life, in his view.

---

Who do you pick? Are you comfortable with the certainties of candidate A? or does candidate B's talk of complexity and canvassing opinion worry you as to its limp wristed approach to right and wrong?

===

My view, Rox is delightful in her defense of "universal values" known to her. Most of her pals, however, including the atheist amicus, who "know" universal ethics and are absolutely clear about "answers" to all the key quesions, are highly dangerous. I'd vote for Rox in a second... but then i have a small worry: In pursuit of her views, she's been voting for the Republican "values" people for years. It's a sad fall from the sublimities of Aristotelian ethics to GWB's compassionate conservatism, for which I imagine she voted both times.

 

[rengadeirishman]

i vote that we find a middle ground betwixt and between all this nonsense and call it common sense. Most of these things have their place, relativism, idealism, humanism, even militarism has its need (though i really dont see a place for nihilism, perhaps with more research). But moderation in all things, which i realize is a bit odd to hear me say, is, in my opinion, what matters. i feel like you all need to be reminded of a bit of wisdom from the great Ferris Bueller

"Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in The Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus too but I'd still have to bum rides off people."

 

[Pure]

reply to rox's point:

I'll tell you who I am: I'm someone who believes that there is a universal standard of value, and it's that which is good for human life.

"Who am I to say that is The Good?" I'm a human, that's who, and this view is what defines me as a humanist. It should be apparent that this view is not compatible with relativism.

the problem, rox, is in stepping down to specifics: "good for human life" is simply too abstract.

1) as an example of the problem, most Randists (and most Americans including you) support a woman's right to choose an early abortion.

2) a rump of Randists, including amicus deny any right to kill any fetus, even if there by incest or rape.

BOTH parties claim universalism as to their views, and the "objectivity" of their judgment.

the universal minded person says, the answer to the problem is obvious, it's....

the relativist says, depending on the cultural climate, thinking Americans and Europeans have answered this question differently at different times. for now, i support view one, which is consistent with the views of most thinking American and Europeans.

so isn't it obvious why i choose the latter?

[A number of other examples work equally well, e.g. sex before marriage and doctor assisted suicide for the terminally ill.]

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You are voting for the leader of your country, supposing you can. These are the candidates:

Candidate A says, "the ethic i advocate is universal; its rules, properly understood, have no exceptions. i have detailed knowledge of the specifics of this ethic: its principles and practice. murder and lying are always wrong; those that disagree about such obvious principles have a collectivist agenda. it is entirely clear to me and my right minded colleagues, how the principles apply to a number of issues from climate change, which is a hoax, to the killing of fetuses, the silent holocaust of our time.

Candidate B says, "the ethics i advocate are relative, relative to our culture, for intstance freedom, tolerance and democracy. in applying basic principles to specific cases, i canvas opinions and make up my mind, and it's NOT alwasy crystal clear to me. issues like protecting the atmosphere are complex, both scientifically and morally: what weight to we attach to the interests of our grandchildren. "protection of life" too is fine in its conceptual reach, but applying it always involves difficulties: Truman, ordering the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was protecting life, in his view.

---

Who do you pick? Are you comfortable with the certainties of candidate A? or does candidate B's talk of complexity and canvassing opinion worry you as to its limp wristed approach to right and wrong?

===

My view, Rox is delightful in her defense of "universal values" known to her. Most of her pals, however, including the atheist amicus, who "know" universal ethics and are absolutely clear about "answers" to all the key quesions, are highly dangerous. I'd vote for Rox in a second... but then i have a small worry: In pursuit of her views, she's been voting for the Republican "values" people for years. It's a sad fall from the sublimities of Aristotelian ethics to GWB's compassionate conservatism, for which I imagine she voted both times.

Pure, you know very well that your strawman caricature here mischaracterizes a position that goes all the way back to the ethics of Aristotle, and which in my view is the basis for all humanistic progress. You're the expert on philosophy here and understand this well, so why would you play this kind of trick? Politics? (Was Ari a Republican or a Falwellite?)

Wiki: Aristotle believed that every ethical virtue is an intermediate condition between excess and deficiency. For example, fear isn't bad in and of itself, it is just bad when felt to excess or deficiency. A courageous person judges that some dangers are worth facing and others not, the level of fear is appropriate to the circumstances. The coward flees at every danger, although the circumstances do not merit it. The rash person disregards all fear and dives into every danger no matter the consequences. Aristotle identifies the virtue as being the 'mean' of the situation. Thus, there is no way to form a strict set of rules that would solve every practical problem. "The virtuous person sees the truth in each case, being as it were a standard and measure of them."

This does not mean Aristotle believed in moral relativism, however. He set certain emotions (e.g., hate, envy, jealousy, spite, etc.) and certain actions (e.g., adultery, theft, murder, etc.) as being always wrong, regardless of the situation or the circumstances.

 

[amicus]

GIGO, garbage in, garbage out, says the atheist amicus.

On that Bell Curve of intellect I mentioned earlier or elsewhere, politicians, leaders, do not rank in the higher echelons. Most intellects would not stoop to politics and thus, one advocating axiomatic truths would not be in a position of leadership.

That said, it is not a panacea to the ills of man, as Marx, who was not a leader, had Joe and Adolph to implement his deviltry to the lasting detriment of all mankind.

So you need not vote for either Roxanne or any other intellect of note, thus you have created the ideal straw man.

However, one should not question the necessity of the existence of the 'absolute, universal' man, as he provides the foil to the lackeys of subjective positivism, or, modern relativism.

I mean if you advocate killing babies for no reason other than convenience, you should both expect and appreciate one who says no, that is immoral in all times and places.

Amicus (the absolute atheist)

 

[rengadeirishman]

i was under the impression that the american public was actually mostly against abortion. I shall have to look into this further

 

[Pure]

dear rox,

as to my "straw man" caricature, i think most people here will find Candidate A and Candidate B are pretty plausible and prototypical.

i'm surprised at your reluctance to state your vote. as you know, Ayn Rand and Aristotle rarely, in person, run for office.



pure asked for a vote as to these two:

//Candidate A says, "the ethic i advocate is universal; its rules, properly understood, have no exceptions. i have detailed knowledge of the specifics of this ethic: its principles and practice. murder and lying are always wrong; those that disagree about such obvious principles have a collectivist agenda. it is entirely clear to me and my right minded colleagues, how the principles apply to a number of issues from climate change, which is a hoax, to the killing of fetuses, the silent holocaust of our time.

Candidate B says, "the ethics i advocate are relative, relative to our culture, for intstance freedom, tolerance and democracy. in applying basic principles to specific cases, i canvas opinions and make up my mind, and it's NOT alwasy crystal clear to me. issues like protecting the atmosphere are complex, both scientifically and morally: what weight to we attach to the interests of our grandchildren. "protection of life" too is fine in its conceptual reach, but applying it always involves difficulties: Truman, ordering the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was protecting life, in his view.//

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

as to my "straw man" caricature, i think most people here will find Candidate A and Candidate B are pretty plausible and prototypical.

i'm surprised at your reluctance to state your vote. as you know, Ayn Rand and Aristotle rarely, in person, run for office.



pure asked for a vote as to these two:

//Candidate A says, "the ethic i advocate is universal; its rules, properly understood, have no exceptions. i have detailed knowledge of the specifics of this ethic: its principles and practice. murder and lying are always wrong; those that disagree about such obvious principles have a collectivist agenda. it is entirely clear to me and my right minded colleagues, how the principles apply to a number of issues from climate change, which is a hoax, to the killing of fetuses, the silent holocaust of our time.

Candidate B says, "the ethics i advocate are relative, relative to our culture, for intstance freedom, tolerance and democracy. in applying basic principles to specific cases, i canvas opinions and make up my mind, and it's NOT alwasy crystal clear to me. issues like protecting the atmosphere are complex, both scientifically and morally: what weight to we attach to the interests of our grandchildren. "protection of life" too is fine in its conceptual reach, but applying it always involves difficulties: Truman, ordering the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was protecting life, in his view.//

C'mon, Pure - stop playing games and be honest with the folks. You're better at this than me but I'll try:

Candidate A says:
"The ethic I advocate holds that that every ethical virtue is an intermediate condition between excess and deficiency. This does not mean I believe in moral relativism, however. Certain emotions (e.g., hate, envy, jealousy, spite, etc.) and certain actions (e.g., adultery, theft, murder, etc.) as always wrong, regardless of the situation or the circumstances. But in most cases virtue consists of finding the mean between two extremes. For example, too much fear or too little confidence leads to cowardice, and too little fear or too much confidence can lead to rash, foolish choices.

"Knowing the right amount of these things requires practical wisdom and prudence. There are no easy answers or pat formulas in life, and those who insist there are are misguided, but this does not mean that there is no such thing as virtue, or no proper goals toward which humans should strive, or no standard of value by which we can judge these things. Those who assert this are equally misguided. Worse, they would leave us morally helpless and disarmed in the face of evil, and remove any possible tools with which to confront the ethical challenges large and small that face us all every day."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

A very nice summing up, Liar.

The search for Truth and Beauty continues. They might not be the Truth and Beauty some people would prefer, but the search goes on, despite the efforts of the absolutists who'd like to carve values in stone and have everyone bow down to them. The search is necessarily messy and ugly and fraught with error and blind alleys, but that's the way it is, and it does go on.

And the best way we know to guarantee that it goes on is by guaranteeing individual liberty.

We seem to have forgotten Aristotle. Ref. my last few posts here. Having forgotten, we view see only two choices - a relativism that insists there is no such thing as virtue or truth, and an absolutism that insists virtue consists of rigid rules founded on nothing but myth. This is a false choice, and it's poisoning our dialogue and more (I don't just mean AH's dialogue).

 

[elsol]

C'mon, Pure - stop playing games and be honest with the folks. You're better at this than me but I'll try:

Candidate A says:
"The ethic I advocate holds that that every ethical virtue is an intermediate condition between excess and deficiency. This does not mean I believe in moral relativism, however. Certain emotions (e.g., hate, envy, jealousy, spite, etc.) and certain actions (e.g., adultery, theft, murder, etc.) as always wrong, regardless of the situation or the circumstances. But in most cases virtue consists of finding the mean between two extremes. For example, too much fear or too little confidence leads to cowardice, and too little fear or too much confidence can lead to rash, foolish choices.

"Knowing the right amount of these things requires practical wisdom and prudence. There are no easy answers or pat formulas in life, and those who insist there are are misguided, but this does not mean that there is no such thing as virtue, or no proper goals toward which humans should strive, or no standard of value by which we can judge these things. Those who assert this are equally misguided. Worse, they would leave us morally helpless and disarmed in the face of evil, and remove any possible tools with which to confront the ethical challenges large and small that face us all every day."

Why is an emotion wrong?

You feel it... it's a part of your biology to feel these things... therefore it IS a natural phenomenon... like thunder and lightning. Those emotions are part of our survival mechanism.

Envy of my neighbor's smokin' BMW might get me off my ass to save more money or change jobs so that I can afford my own smokin' BMW... Jealousy could make me realize that I haven't been an attentive boyfriend and my girlfriend has damn good reason to be flirting up with the UPS delivery guy.

I don't see an emotion having a moral value... it just is.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Why is an emotion wrong?

You feel it... it's a part of your biology to feel these things... therefore it IS a natural phenomenon... like thunder and lightning. Those emotions are part of our survival mechanism.

Envy of my neighbor's smokin' BMW might get me off my ass to save more money or change jobs so that I can afford my own smokin' BMW... Jealousy could make me realize that I haven't been an attentive boyfriend and my girlfriend has damn good reason to be flirting up with the UPS delivery guy.

I don't see an emotion having a moral value... it just is.

Do you fondle it, stoke it, feed it, nurture it when you feel hate, envy, jealousy, spite, etc? Or do you beat it down, dishonor it, "adjust your attitude?" The answer distinguishes virtue and the lack thereof.

PS. I think your examples constitute what what I describe as "adjusting your attitude."

 

[elsol]

Do you fondle it, stoke it, feed it, nurture it when you feel hate, envy, jealousy, spite, etc? Or do you beat it down, dishonor it, "adjust your attitude?" The answer distinguishes virtue and the lack thereof.

PS. I think your examples constitute what what I describe as "adjusting your attitude."

All this says is that you agree with me.

The emotion is not wrong... it's the act that borne of that emotion that could be 'right' or 'wrong'. I didn't adjust my envy when I bought a BMW of my own. The emotion caused me to do something positive, it could have caused me to beat my neighbor up for his Beamer and steal it. In one circumstance, the emotion is wrong but in the other it's 'good'?

The emotion is neutral... the act caused by the emotion has a moral value.

 

[3113]

I'm someone who believes that there is a universal standard of value, and it's that which is good for human life.

You can believe that if you like, but it's not a fact. It's faith.

"Who am I to say equality for women is better than non-equality?" Indeed - relativists have no basis on which they can make that claim. This is the relativism that the OP condemns, and which you proudly claim.

You're right that I hold a culture that puts women as equal as better than one that this not equal--BUT feminism was widely criticized for implying that all women should be working instead of stay-at-home moms. That's cultural relativism. I'm willing to accept that some women want to be stay-at-home wives and mothers and allow them this. But relativism works both ways, they should allow me to not be a stay-at-home mother.

Relativism: A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

If, as you say, relativism is spreading, then the man who believes that women must submit to males would only allow that to happen in his own home with women who agreed with him. He would not force it on anyone else. He would know that his values, his ethics, his cultural standard was not absolute. And he would know that he'd have to accept others as equally valid and not force his cultural values on them.

So. Once again, I'm not sure I get your objection. Relativism is not about personal ethics or conscience or humanity. It's just a fact. Truth and moral values are not absolute. Sorry if you don't like that, but they're not. That fact that you and I each get to judge what we personally feel is ethically acceptable or not proves that. If there was an absolute truth, a timeless value, wouldn't every human being be in agreement over it? Like agreeing that the sky is blue or the sun rises in the east?

 

[Pure]

note to rox

you're pretty resistant to believing that those with "objective" answers, purportedly universal, are the main danger.

a potential leader with "the answers" and certainty, e.g. a mussolini, a pat robertson, the pope, or our pathetic amicus, is usually to be avoided.

your sketch, attempting to run Aristotle for office, is neither here nor there. do you want to run him against Dave Hume? Friedrich Nietzsche (who admired Aristotle btw, something your Rieman fellow is unaware of).

since you admire Aristotle's method and certainty you might note that he believed in the intellectual, leadership, and moral inferiority of women (and slaves). so i add to your characterization, see the end.




Candidate A(rox) says:
"The ethic I advocate holds that that every ethical virtue is an intermediate condition between excess and deficiency. This does not mean I believe in moral relativism, however. Certain emotions (e.g., hate, envy, jealousy, spite, etc.) and certain actions (e.g., adultery, theft, murder, etc.) as always wrong, regardless of the situation or the circumstances. But in most cases virtue consists of finding the mean between two extremes. For example, too much fear or too little confidence leads to cowardice, and too little fear or too much confidence can lead to rash, foolish choices.

"Knowing the right amount of these things requires practical wisdom and prudence. There are no easy answers or pat formulas in life, and those who insist there are are misguided, but this does not mean that there is no such thing as virtue, or no proper goals toward which humans should strive, or no standard of value by which we can judge these things. Those who assert this are equally misguided. Worse, they would leave us morally helpless and disarmed in the face of evil, and remove any possible tools with which to confront the ethical challenges large and small that face us all every day."

The above applies to free men: women should stay in the home, where their virtues can be cultivated, and where their lesser gifts of intellect will not matter. (pure summarizing aristotle, the part NOT rendered by rox).

===
slight problem every ethical virtue is an intermediate condition between excess and deficiency if attributed to aristotle, is a plainly wrong proposition. consider the virtues of truthtelling and promise keeping! what exactly is the excess?

 

[Liar]

Aristotele is a common bat in ethics discussions these days, it seems.

But reading Aristotele is like reading the bible. You can cherry pick the aspecs of his work that suits your world view. Yes, there is the strong focus on vitrues, and the recogniotion of epistemic truth.

But he also taught the accepteance that all things in the world is precieved though endoxic (cultural) filters, and that this makes all our judgements imperfect (because we're men and not gods). Minimizing those misconceptions is one of the most important virutes, the one called phronesis, or practical wisdom (which according to A comes with life experience and practice in desicion-making). And sometimes, two or more virtues we hold for absolute have conflicting interrests. But it's all we have to work with, so work with it we must. What is right for you isn't nessecarily right for me, niether in terms of practical outcome or ethical principle, but in order to exist together as people, we have to find the intermediate paths, seek solutions acceptable for all, and be ready to evaluate our position. Because we might be the ones who are mistaken.

This is Aristotele too. Straight out of the Nicomachean Ethics. Ari the moral relativist.

Just wanted to point that out.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Intellectuals are always in the vanguard to overthrow whatever nation or society they are born to. It doesnt matter if its democratic, socialist, totalitarian, whatever. So when a the new regime takes control it naturally executes the intellectuals first, to have some peace & quiet.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

RA: I'm someone who believes that there is a universal standard of value, and it's that which is good for human life.

You can believe that if you like, but it's not a fact. It's faith.

You know, 3, you and I both belong to a particular species, H. Sap. You may be correct that in terms of the progress of the universe from big bang to scattered cinders, that which is good for human life is not a "fact." But the universe (as far as we know) is just a bunch of rocks, gas, and maybe some ammonia-breathing non-sentient ameobas somewhere - it has no capacity to contemplate facts. We H. Saps, on the other hand, do have that capacity. And for us, asserting that the standard of value is that which is good for human life is a pretty doggoned valid statement. If that itself is "relativism" then I don't see that the term has any real meaning.

You're right that I hold a culture that puts women as equal as better than one that this not equal . . .

Ah-HA!

If, as you say, relativism is spreading, then the man who believes that women must submit to males would only allow that to happen in his own home with women who agreed with him. He would not force it on anyone else.

Uh-huh. And you would have no basis to say to him, "You know, you really should let the gals out of purdah from time to time." Who are you to say that? Not to mention this implicitly contradicts your statement above.

So. Once again, I'm not sure I get your objection. Relativism is not about personal ethics or conscience or humanity. It's just a fact. Truth and moral values are not absolute. Sorry if you don't like that, but they're not. That fact that you and I each get to judge what we personally feel is ethically acceptable or not proves that. If there was an absolute truth, a timeless value, wouldn't every human being be in agreement over it? Like agreeing that the sky is blue or the sun rises in the east?

In this way we disarm ourselves in the face of: "Who am I to say that killing 6 million Jews is wrong?" "Who am I to say that starving peasants to hasten a Great Leap Forward is wrong? Who am I to say that making women second class citizens is wrong?"

And perhaps your response is a shrug, and an assertion that the universe is indifferent, so - who are you to say these things are wrong?

To which I repeat what I said above. The universe is rocks, you are a human - that's who you are to say they are wrong.

If you insist then I'll rephrase the "absolute" truth: For a human being, the proper, correct standard of value is that which is good for human beings.

As for the difficulty of agreeing on what that means in particular cases, two points. First, being difficult, not providing pat answers to all life's problems, does not contradict the truth that there is a standard of value. Second, see my last couple posts discussing Aristotle:

"Aristotle identifies the virtue as being the 'mean' of the situation. Thus, there is no way to form a strict set of rules that would solve every practical problem. 'The virtuous person sees the truth in each case, being as it were a standard and measure of them.' This does not mean Aristotle believed in moral relativism, however. He set certain emotions (e.g., hate, envy, jealousy, spite, etc.) and certain actions (e.g., adultery, theft, murder, etc.) as being always wrong, regardless of the situation or the circumstances."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

you're pretty resistant to believing that those with "objective" answers, purportedly universal, are the main danger.

a potential leader with "the answers" and certainty, e.g. a mussolini, a pat robertson, the pope, or our pathetic amicus, is usually to be avoided.

your sketch, attempting to run Aristotle for office, is neither here nor there. do you want to run him against Dave Hume? Friedrich Nietzsche (who admired Aristotle btw, something your Rieman fellow is unaware of).

since you admire Aristotle's method and certainty you might note that he believed in the intellectual, leadership, and moral inferiority of women (and slaves). so i add to your characterization, see the end.




Candidate A(rox) says:
"The ethic I advocate holds that that every ethical virtue is an intermediate condition between excess and deficiency. This does not mean I believe in moral relativism, however. Certain emotions (e.g., hate, envy, jealousy, spite, etc.) and certain actions (e.g., adultery, theft, murder, etc.) as always wrong, regardless of the situation or the circumstances. But in most cases virtue consists of finding the mean between two extremes. For example, too much fear or too little confidence leads to cowardice, and too little fear or too much confidence can lead to rash, foolish choices.

"Knowing the right amount of these things requires practical wisdom and prudence. There are no easy answers or pat formulas in life, and those who insist there are are misguided, but this does not mean that there is no such thing as virtue, or no proper goals toward which humans should strive, or no standard of value by which we can judge these things. Those who assert this are equally misguided. Worse, they would leave us morally helpless and disarmed in the face of evil, and remove any possible tools with which to confront the ethical challenges large and small that face us all every day."

The above applies to free men: women should stay in the home, where their virtues can be cultivated, and where their lesser gifts of intellect will not matter. (pure summarizing aristotle, the part NOT rendered by rox).

===
slight problem every ethical virtue is an intermediate condition between excess and deficiency if attributed to aristotle, is a plainly wrong proposition. consider the virtues of truthtelling and promise keeping! what exactly is the excess?

On the first point, you have cleverly discarded all the accumulated wisdom of nearly three millennia, asserting that since a previous thinker didn't get everything right, he got nothing right.

On the last point:

Stormtrooper: "Are there Jews hiding in the attic?"
Virtuous man with Jews in attic: "No."

Today: "I promise I'll return your gun if you let me borrow it to go target shooting."
Tomorrow: "You want your gun back right now so you can go kill the guy who you caught boinking your wife? No."

 

[colddiesel]

A duty to be angry??

. In my eyes, the art of a generation portrays the depth and level of intellectual honesty and is a harbinger of things to come.

The 'art' of the past generation is abominable and is reflective of that philosophical base of nihilism, hopelessness and loss of purpose and meaning that is rampant in the literature and films of the era.


Amicus...

This is an interesting point Amicus though I would amend it slightly to say 'the best art of a generation portrays the depth 'etc.

Some years ago I had cause to study the penny dreadfuls , the trash literature of 18th century England , terrible stuff, absolute rubbish - it didn't survive and only the clasical authors' work is still read from that period.

Then a couple of years ago I went to the Museum of Naples which contains most of the sculpture and paintings excavated from Pompei and Herculeneum. The great majority of it is pornography and much of it is so extreme and obscene it wouldnt be published on this site today. However, it gives us a rare opportunity to see the whole art of a particular previous age captured at a moment in time. Normally the poor work would have vanished over time and only that of enduring quality survive.

It seems to me that each generation almost has a duty to rage against the artistic excrescences of its own era in order to winnow out the rubbish. So if encouragement is needed - !

 

[Pure]

bogus issue

In this way we disarm ourselves in the face of: "Who am I to say that killing 6 million Jews is wrong?"

rox, is this the best you've got? WHO have you run into, who is this bugbear of the right that says, "gee, i'm not sure if nazis killing jews en masse is wrong. so i'll do nothing myself, nor support anyone else doing anything?"

the fact that you have to choose the biggest crime of a thousand years, in order to get all your 'non relativist' friends to agree-- and some xians still aren't quite sure-- speaks volumes.

as far as getting us limp-wristed effete lefties to agree, we simply looked to our present laws and customs and said, "yes, killing jews en masse is wrong, even if they aren't xians, God's true 'chosen people."

historically the holocaust was ignored for both xian anti semitic reasons and political reasons; and ruanda recently was ignored for the latter, as is darfur.

"moral re armament" is an OLD call, dating back more than 50 years, and re affirming "traditional values" is a trope that is millenia old. it's fundamentally bogus. there simply IS NO PROBLEM of effete, passive moral relativism allowing evil to flourish. there are cowards, those to look the other way, and politicians in office [whom you voted for] saying "reasons of national interest."

i dare you to demonstrate ONE modern historical evil that broke out and flourished because intellectuals--and leaders following them-- said "we can't really tell right from wrong, as it bears on this event; there is no 'truth' in morals."

why you atheists, rox and ami, join fundamentalists in yapping about 'decay of morals' is beyond me.

==
example of roxanne's demonstrating the objectivity of virtue:

Stormtrooper: "Are there Jews hiding in the attic?"
Virtuous man with Jews in attic: "No."

how silly; let your 'objective virtue theory' address something simple and modern:

lucid, composed, dying man in great pain: "Will you give me a lethal drug cocktail to drink?"
virtuous physician: [[ yes, no, maybe, ask me later]]

ante up, roxannne, what's the answer?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

let your 'objective virtue theory' address something simple and modern:

lucid, composed, dying man in great pain: "Will you give me a lethal drug cocktail to drink?"
virtuous physician: [[ yes, no, maybe, ask me later]]

ante up, roxannne, what's the answer?

My answer: "Shaken or stirred?"

more to come

 

[Pure]

next request

pure:// let your 'objective virtue theory' address something simple and modern:

lucid, composed, dying man in great pain: "Will you give me a lethal drug cocktail to drink?"
virtuous physician: [[ yes, no, maybe, ask me later]]

ante up, roxannne, what's the answer? //

roxMy answer: "Shaken or stirred?"

more to come



great! i knew i could count on you. now, supply reasons which will convince amicus--your fan in this thread--, the other believer in "objective" and universal moral truths.

 

[Pure]

dear ami,

perennial fighter for truth and spokesperson for rigorous morality, please tell the dr's approved, and objectively correct answer in the following case:

let 'objective virtue theory' address something simple and modern:

lucid, composed, dying man in great pain: "Will you give me a lethal drug cocktail to drink?"

virtuous physician: [[ yes, no, maybe, ask me later]]

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

you're pretty resistant to believing that those with "objective" answers, purportedly universal, are the main danger.

They are a danger.

Let me suggest in the spirit of collegial discourse that we have allowed ourselves to become trapped in an either/or choice between two extremes. On one side are "absolutists" who insist that there is one narrow, rigid truth and they know what it is because God said, or whatever. On the other side are those who, scarred by the oceans of blood shed by the absolutists, insist that there is no truth and no standard of value.

As I said to Mab, and in several other posts here, we seem to have forgotten Aristotle, which leaves us with this false choice that is poisoning our dialogue - and more (I don't just mean AH's dialogue and more).

In the West we inherited this silly notion of morality based on a set of absolute "thou shalt nots" founded on superstition and myth. Many of us realize that these particular "commandments" are nonsense, but we still hold the model of "morality" as involving some rigid, fixed set of commandments that provide a simple, "digital" yes or no to every potential ethical challenge. Having rejected that model, we go to the other extreme, that there are no possible ethical standards we can all share.

Aristotle was wiser than this, and perhaps unhobbled by that "commandment" model. I have tried (no doubt clumsily) to express his take on this through the lens of humanism, and asserted that there is a standard of value - that which is good for human life. As 3113 and others have pointed out, this does not eliminate uncertainty and disagreement. Aristotle's response to that was the concept of prudence, practical wisdom, or just wisdom, period. He dove into these concepts in some depth.

Obviously, there are no easy, simplistic pat answers in that response, like those offered by the absolutists. Life is infinitely complex, so why should any rational person expect easy, pat answers? Maybe it's just moral laziness to look for such. But this is not to say that we can't know anything or have any standard of value. Those who insist otherwise commit another form of moral laziness, equally misguided.