Morality, Slander, and Bestiality

I fully agree.

ADreamOfLiberty: Very thought provoking and insightful.

I take a slight offense to some of your commentary and disagreement on your premise on morality but I will just explain the offense. I will say that not every moral relativist subscribes to the concept that all opinions are equal[generally many relativists subscribe to a strong faith in egalitarianism]. I know that I don't because I am fervently anti-egalitarian when it comes to different views on morality. I subscribe to the belief that morality is determined through the will of the strongest. Why? First and foremost, I don't believe that human beings are rational creatures, but are irrational by nature[studies in neuroscience validate this opinion with the inconsistencies of cognitive behavior]. My observation is that morality that is not enforced or is incapable of being enforced holds little value to any human being. If the Nazis won World War II, the deaths of the Jews, the Gypsies, and those other targeted groups in Europe would of been considered justified by the Nazis without the slightest remorse.

With that said, I do agree with some elements of your commentary. But the essay is a bit unclear from my perspective because I am not quite sure what you are advocating or attempting to address. Is it the opponents of bestiality? Or your views on morality? Or perhaps the morality behind bestiality? Honestly, I am confused.

Tophatdoc: -- "I will say that not every moral relativist subscribes to the concept that all opinions are equal[generally many relativists subscribe to a strong faith in egalitarianism]. "

No indeed, what they say (by definition) is that they are going to stick with their opinion but they can't prove it to anyone else and whether they admit it or not logically they concede that no one else can prove any morality to them either.

In practice moral relativism is this:

I will do what I feel is right, I never have to justify it to others because such an attempt relies on the faulty premise that morality is objective. I will listen to the moral opinions of others but I never have to agree with them if I "don't want to." I can call the Nazis evil but I mean that they are evil to me and most people these days, that is good enough for me.

It is not moral relativist themselves who claim all opinions are equal but logic and reality which necessitate that conclusion based on the premise of moral relativist. With no justification except the individuality of the moral assertion all moral assertions are equally justified (or unjustifiable).

This is of course a complicated way to do this:

MoralCode myEthics = NULL
MoralCode theLawOfTheLand = NULL

Having thus destroyed the idea of morality as anything more than a synonym for individual preference the moral relativist must find some way to live as individuals and societies.

So they create replacements for the morality they refuse to identify explicitly. The public good, practicality, 'usefulness'. The number of adjectives are stunning. "humane", "just", "civilly just", "equal", "fair", "progressive", "liberal", "traditional", "common sense", "constitutional", "effective", and many more.

All used in place of one word.

GOOD.

All of which have been used to the point of nausea in the context that some how they can be objectively defined and evaluated but GOOD cannot. That their opposites must be opposed yet they are not EVIL.

So you are quite correct. Moral relativist do not act as if all opinions are equal that is only the *logical implication* of moral relativism. If they did they would be either perfect pacifist or amoral (if they believed they were all equally worthless). What they believe is that their own opinions, the opinions of judges, majorities, senators, and priests are more important than the rest. Their professed philosophy is only of relevance it seems when someone challenges some opinion, at which point the moral relativist says "to me, it's moral the end."

--"Why? First and foremost, I don't believe that human beings are rational creatures, but are irrational by nature[studies in neuroscience validate this opinion with the inconsistencies of cognitive behavior]."

Studies in neuroscience conducted by rational aliens who happen to be helping us out? No I didn't think so. This argument defeats itself if "irrational by nature" = "incapable of reason" and if we are capable of reason then we are rational some of the time about some things, begging the question "why can't we be rational about morality?"

-- " My observation is that morality that is not enforced or is incapable of being enforced holds little value to any human being."

A circular assertion, morality is a system of values. If it has no value it is not morality. A combustion engine as a concept 'works', the calculations and principles of its construction are a matter of reality and will remain so for all time.... yet if no one ever builds it; we will never have the value of a combustion engine. However the knowledge remains valuable because it makes the acquisition of the concrete value possible.

-- " If the Nazis won World War II, the deaths of the Jews, the Gypsies, and those other targeted groups in Europe would of been considered justified by the Nazis without the slightest remorse."

That is not contested, for a moral objectivist; this possibility holds no challenge. A great evil, never punished remains a great evil for me... but for you, it becomes indistinguishable from good by the great merit of happening. It would be fascinating to see such philosophy extended to more mundane values. If you crash your car does that mean that is what should happen? Reality seems to be stronger than your goal of getting to where you're going unharmed so it must be right... We all die, we seem powerless to stop it; it must be good that we die then?

-- "But the essay is a bit unclear from my perspective because I am not quite sure what you are advocating or attempting to address. Is it the opponents of bestiality? Or your views on morality? Or perhaps the morality behind bestiality? Honestly, I am confused."

All three are interrelated.

I challenge opponents of bestiality, it is a challenge to justify their condemnation through reason (amoral condemnation is a contradiction in terms). My views on morality are thus foundational to the challenge since I am 'assuming' morality is rational and objective. Whether bestiality ought to be condemned, tolerated, or applauded is 'the morality behind bestiality.'

ADreamOfLiberty: There are too many arguments you are conflating and mixing together and associating with moral relativism. Most notably you are confusing, political ideologies and moral relativism. You are also confusing egalitarianism with moral relativism.

#1. "I will do what I feel is right, I never have to justify it to others because such an attempt relies on the faulty premise that morality is objective. I will listen to the moral opinions of others but I never have to agree with them if I "don't want to." I can call the Nazis evil but I mean that they are evil to me and most people these days, that is good enough for me."

The lack of justification or the defense of one's morals has nothing to do with moral relativism but the views of an individual moral relativist. If the Nazis were evil as you claim and morals are objective, would the Nazis not have been rendered incapable of engaging in such atrocities? If morals were absolute and objective, why would there be any disagreement in the first place? No, morals are not absolute. If morals were absolute and objective, we wouldn't be capable of having this discussion now because we would be incapable of disagreeing with each other. Your core premise has already been undermined with this disagreeable dialogue already because I subscribe to a different moral position than you. The existence of different sets of morals already defeats your claim that morals are objective.

If morals were absolute or objective, the Nazis would never have incited the Holocaust. In the United States, there would of never been slavery. in the Soviet Union, there would of never been gulags. In essence, there never be any moral disagreement, there would never be any conflict, and there would never be any war. To claim your morals are absolute or objective is to deny every moral disagreement you ever had. More importantly, it would also deny every person that is going to be killed today.

#2. "So they create replacements for the morality they refuse to identify explicitly. The public good, practicality, 'usefulness'. The number of adjectives are stunning. "humane", "just", "civilly just", "equal", "fair", "progressive", "liberal", "traditional", "common sense", "constitutional", "effective", and many more."

Most moral relativists can't be liberal due to the origins of liberalism. "Natural Rights" as John Locke wrote about it in his "Second Treatise of Government" are based on the existence of God. Therefore, someone that is a "liberal," must subscribe to the belief of god or gods. Otherwise there is no basis for "rights." If they subscribe to the opinion that there is a god or gods, they must believe in moral absolutism because said higher entity dictates what is "just" or "unjust." Someone that is a moral relativist and claims to be a liberal is a thoughtless position due to the origins of liberalism and the belief in God. To claim there are absolute "Natural Rights" implies that there is an entity who gave us these absolute rights(I.E God, a god, or the boards of Gods). Therefore, a moral relativist can't be a liberal.

#3. "Moral relativist do not act as if all opinions are equal that is only the *logical implication* of moral relativism."

Wrong. Moral relativism is not egalitarianism which seems to be what you are really against. Moral relativism only discusses the origins of morality and not the values of morality.

4. "Studies in neuroscience conducted by rational aliens who happen to be helping us out? No I didn't think so. This argument defeats itself if "irrational by nature" = "incapable of reason" and if we are capable of reason then we are rational some of the time about some things, begging the question "why can't we be rational about morality?"

Who said the neuroscientists were rational? Not I[you seem to imply it]. To claim that human beings are rational, suggests there is a standard to measure rationality. There is no such standard because it does not exist. There is no neuroscientist of any significance who would support the idea that there is an absolute standard to measure rationality. Therefore, human beings are irrational because they are inconsistent by nature.

There is a severe form of inconsistency among human beings. There can be no absolute standard to measure rationality because there is no consistency to arrive at the standard of rationality to be measured. If we were rational, that suggests, all human beings would engage in the same behavior, speak the same language, practice the same occupations, have the same religion, subscribe to the same philosophy, speak the same way, play the same sports, wear the same clothes, optimize their actions, and reap the same successes. Essentially, there would be no differences at all. There is no basis to measure any form of rationality. Sorry this planet, is the furthest thing from nirvana and far as I am concerned that is a good thing.

#5. "That is not contested, for a moral objectivist; this possibility holds no challenge. A great evil, never punished remains a great evil for me... but for you, it becomes indistinguishable from good by the great merit of happening."

That is the difference between you and I. I don't care about intentions. An objectivist cares about intentions and theory. I only care about practice and results which has more to do with my views on nihilism than moral relativism. If morals were objective, the Nazis would have held the same values as you. Did they? I think not and hope not. You can claim, clamor, and yell about what you think is evil or good but it doesn't matter to anyone if it is unenforceable. Your morals will only matter to you and your fellow sympathizers. The Nazis did not accept your view of morality, so that already defeats the idea of moral objectivism. If the Nazis won World War II, your opinion would not matter because it holds little influence. As I always I say those with the power make history and those without are at the end of it. The dissenters of history can have their opinions but it doesn't matter. Just like how in Germany, there are still elements of people who think Hitler was justified in his actions against the Jews. But who cares? Not I.

#6. "My views on morality are thus foundational to the challenge since I am 'assuming' morality is rational and objective."

Makes sense. However, I probably reject your standards to arrive at any sort of rationality or objectivity. But I don't want to be argumentative so I won't explain my disagreement here because it is a waste of time with no gain whatsoever.

Tophatdoc: (A) - "The lack of justification or the defense of one's morals has nothing to do with moral relativism but the views of an individual moral relativist."

Incorrect, the existence of an objective definition makes the moral objective which is mutually exclusive with 'relative' in this context. A moral relativist who claims to be able to justify their beliefs to anyone but themselves is expressing a contradiction in terms.

(B.1) - "If the Nazis were evil as you claim and morals are objective, would the Nazis not have been rendered incapable of engaging in such atrocities?"

No. They would be rendered capable of reasoning that their actions are wrong.

(B.2) - " If morals were absolute and objective, why would there be any disagreement in the first place? "

The same reason there was disagreement about the shape of the earth. The evidence was always there. The exercise of reason is the thing which is not absolute, not the truth.

(B.3) - "No, morals are not absolute. If morals were absolute and objective, we wouldn't be capable of having this discussion now because we would be incapable of disagreeing with each other."

Then the fact that I can find one single person who doubts the 2nd law of thermodynamics means it is not objectively true, correct?

(B.4) - "The existence of different sets of morals already defeats your claim that morals are objective."

Your disagreement only proves the existence of different moral beliefs. You have not objectively proven that a different moral theory is correct, nor can you as a moral relativist.

Your claims about objectivity and knowledge lead to a simple dichotomy.

1. We are not free to choose what to believe, we all believe the objective truth with not the slightest disagreement in the set of statements or the truth value of those statements.

2. Objective truth does not exist.

Notice that the dichotomy is not limited to moral matters.

(B.5) - "More importantly, it would also deny every person that is going to be killed today."

You conflate values with reality.

(C) - "Most moral relativists can't be liberal due to the origins of liberalism. "Natural Rights" as John Locke wrote about it in his "Second Treatise of Government" are based on the existence of God. Therefore, someone that is a "liberal," must subscribe to the belief of god or gods."

That cannot be objectively true since I can find people who claim to be liberal and atheist... or so someone implied recently.

(D) -"Moral relativism only discusses the origins of morality and not the values of morality."

Morality is an abstraction of values. If moral relativism denies the possibility of diverging quality in justification, the only remaining possibility is equal justification. Are you denying that it is not by definition the denial of diverging quality in justification?

(E) - "Who said the neuroscientists were rational? Not I[you seem to imply it]. "

In that case I dismiss irrational studies made by irrational beings.

(F) - " I only care about practice and results which has more to do with my views on nihilism than moral relativism."

Interesting, what do you care about in practice and results?

(G) - "You can claim, clamor, and yell about what you think is evil or good but it doesn't matter to anyone if it is unenforceable."

It is enforceable, just not by one man clamoring and yelling on the internet.

(H) - " If the Nazis won World War II, your opinion would not matter because it holds little influence."

Then by the same token, if I defeated you; your opinion about my claims of moral objectivity would not matter?

(I) - "But I don't want to be argumentative so I won't explain my disagreement here because it is a waste of time with no gain whatsoever. "

The intellectual cost of of nihilism is very low