Re: Ethical Relativism (Cultural Differences Argument)

From: Albert (alwagner_at_tcac.net)
Date: 08/01/04 

Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:14:41 -0500

"Craig Franck" <craig.franck@verizon.net> wrote:

> "Albert" wrote
>
> > "Craig Franck" wrote:
<snip>
> Premise 1) It is irrational to kill yourself for no reason. >
> Premise 2) Socrates killed himself for no reason Conclusion
> 3) therefore, Socrates is irrational.
>
> This is not circular because the conclusion is not defined in
> the premise. We actually learn something, but at the price that
> it is not absolutely certain.
>
> In order to keep things friendly, I have not referred to this
> as a logical fallacy, nor am I claiming any of the arguments
> are meant to represent yours. I'm just examining the forms of
> these arguments.

Well, at least we are over that hump.

I never viewed what I originally posted as a formal argument, but
rather merely a part of the premise: that a basis for a
universal moral code can be built based on rationality coupled
with the principle of impartiality.

As I posted originally, this isn't even my idea but is from
Michael E. Berumen's book _Do No Evil_, page 99:

"There are certain things that we humans believe about outselves,
beliefs that also relate to our interests or ends as functioning
human organisms. More that, these are rationally required
beliefs, for they are beliefs that are so self evident and
important to our life and functionality, that to believe
otherwise would be irrational, indeed, contrary to the most basic
level of our existence. All rational people share the following
beliefs, beliefs that would be irrational for anyone to deny:

I can die or lose consciousness.
I can experience pain.
My physical and mental capabilities can be lost or diminished.
I can have mistaken beliefs.
The things I want to have can be lost or taken from me.
Obligations others have towards me can be broken.

Each of these required beliefs implies an object of an irrational
desire; for example: death, pain, disability, false beliefs,
stolen objects, and broken obligations. To desire any of these
objects without a reason is rationally prohibited. For example,
it would be irrational for one to desire death without an
overriding reason. The things rationality clearly prohibits,
using Gert's* formulation, are based on desires that are
'irrational for anyone (with sufficient intelligence to be
subject to moral judgment) to act on simply in order to satisfy
them.'"

* Bernard Gert; Stone Professor of Intellectual and Moral
Philosophy
Cornell University 

-- 
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express
it."
    -- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"

Relevant Pages