(no subject)
In this post, I’m trying to clean up my own thoughts on a subject…
I’ve recently seen a lot of people use morality to argue against things they don’t like. Typical this is claimed to an argument for Moral Absolutism (sometimes combined with Moral Universalism), and against what they term “Moral Relativity”.
It should be noted that this “Moral Relativity” typically contrasts Moral Authority, while Moral Absolutism contrasts Moral Conseqentialism). This then seems strange.
However, as we will see, these arguments are actually for moral Authority, and they only claim Moral Absolutism to lend credence to the authority of the proponent to force their morality on others.
Moral absolutism argues that only an act itself can be moral/immoral, and that the context of the act (the circumstances surrounding the committing of the act, the intent of the action, the outcome of the action, etc) are irrelevant. As a result, an act is either moral or immoral (or possibly neutral).
In this case, if stealing is immoral, then it doesn’t matter if you are a poor man stealing bread to feed his starving family, or a rich man stealing bread from the starving poor out of malice, both are equally immoral an act of stealing.
In these arguments then, the proponent is usually arguing that their morality is correct and is an absolute. However, almost every time some keyboard warrior on the internet argues the case for behavioural restriction from Moral Absolutism, it includes some form of situational caveat that makes the argument non-absolute. Most people making these arguments are doing so to back up some form of bigotry and as a result, include within the arguments a contextual factor.
As an example, a common argument of this type is that “consensual homosexual intercourse” is immoral, but “consensual heterosexual intercourse” is not. In this case, we have two acts, “Consent” and “intercourse”.
The sexuality of the participants (or similarly, their relationship status), in a Moral Absolutism argument, is a circumstance, and other factors (level of romantic involvement, intent with regard to child bearing, etc) should not be relevant. If they where relevant, that would be a case of Moral Conseqentialism. The argument in Moral Absolutism is whether the “act” portion of the deed; “consent” and/or “intercourse”, is moral or immoral in ALL cases.
This is something that is seen over and over, the situational context, supposedly irrelevant in Moral Absolutism, is an integral part of the definitions of the Morality they are arguing for. They are not arguing for Moral Absolutism, but rather seeking to appeal to Moral Authority.
However, in order to argue Moral Authority, they need to have authority. As they do not have this, they are seeking to borrow the authority of Moral Absolutism to convince others of their rightness, since a pure argument from Moral Authority is easily ignored. This is then typically then intertwined with a condemnation of a miss-statement of Moral Relativity as some form of Moral Conseqentialism which is itself miss-stated, in order to reduce it’s appeal by associating it with immoral acts.
I’ve recently seen a lot of people use morality to argue against things they don’t like. Typical this is claimed to an argument for Moral Absolutism (sometimes combined with Moral Universalism), and against what they term “Moral Relativity”.
It should be noted that this “Moral Relativity” typically contrasts Moral Authority, while Moral Absolutism contrasts Moral Conseqentialism). This then seems strange.
However, as we will see, these arguments are actually for moral Authority, and they only claim Moral Absolutism to lend credence to the authority of the proponent to force their morality on others.
Moral absolutism argues that only an act itself can be moral/immoral, and that the context of the act (the circumstances surrounding the committing of the act, the intent of the action, the outcome of the action, etc) are irrelevant. As a result, an act is either moral or immoral (or possibly neutral).
In this case, if stealing is immoral, then it doesn’t matter if you are a poor man stealing bread to feed his starving family, or a rich man stealing bread from the starving poor out of malice, both are equally immoral an act of stealing.
In these arguments then, the proponent is usually arguing that their morality is correct and is an absolute. However, almost every time some keyboard warrior on the internet argues the case for behavioural restriction from Moral Absolutism, it includes some form of situational caveat that makes the argument non-absolute. Most people making these arguments are doing so to back up some form of bigotry and as a result, include within the arguments a contextual factor.
As an example, a common argument of this type is that “consensual homosexual intercourse” is immoral, but “consensual heterosexual intercourse” is not. In this case, we have two acts, “Consent” and “intercourse”.
The sexuality of the participants (or similarly, their relationship status), in a Moral Absolutism argument, is a circumstance, and other factors (level of romantic involvement, intent with regard to child bearing, etc) should not be relevant. If they where relevant, that would be a case of Moral Conseqentialism. The argument in Moral Absolutism is whether the “act” portion of the deed; “consent” and/or “intercourse”, is moral or immoral in ALL cases.
This is something that is seen over and over, the situational context, supposedly irrelevant in Moral Absolutism, is an integral part of the definitions of the Morality they are arguing for. They are not arguing for Moral Absolutism, but rather seeking to appeal to Moral Authority.
However, in order to argue Moral Authority, they need to have authority. As they do not have this, they are seeking to borrow the authority of Moral Absolutism to convince others of their rightness, since a pure argument from Moral Authority is easily ignored. This is then typically then intertwined with a condemnation of a miss-statement of Moral Relativity as some form of Moral Conseqentialism which is itself miss-stated, in order to reduce it’s appeal by associating it with immoral acts.