[lbo-talk] Morality and Relativism

[andie nachgeborenen]

You were the person who mention "needless" syffering"
being something no rational pertsonal had to take
account of. If I sacrifice as a cat as part of a
religious religious, I presumaby, if mistakenly, that
it is necessary or at leasta s some point other than
my gratification at its pain   In your story, we can
argue at least about the truth of the presuppositions
behind the ritutal. But this underlines the point I
made, we think -- you too -- no one who is not a
sociopath doesn't care about needless suffering.
That's not a matter of mere consensus even if it
depends in the end only complex facts about human
social  relations and biological nature. l It took
philosophy to make this point as clear as I have mde
it to you. You shoud be grateful there are people who
are trained to do this, and not hate the activity.

--- Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:


> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> 
> > What planet do you live on? Of course avoidance of
> > suffering is not a trump. Retributivists like me
> think
> > that the wicked should suffer for thr crimes. But
> > needless suffering? Imagine the following dialog:
> > 
> > Q: What are you doing to that cat?
> > A: (Fill in description of some dreadful activity
> that
> > causes needless suffering).
> > Q: What the fuck is the matter with you?
> > A: Oh, I just like doing this. What's it to you?
> Who
> > cares if I like to hurt cats for no reaaon? 
> 
> This demonstrates what I hate about philosophy:
> strip all social 
> context from moral behavior and decisions to
> generate simplistic 
> examples that supposedly demonstrate how morality is
> not socially 
> contingent.  Of course if you remove any trace of
> specific social 
> conditions or relations the values and morals will
> appear obvious (we 
> just smuggle in our own standards to make sense of
> the example).
> 
> Let's get a bit more realistic: I sacrifice the cat
> as part of a 
> religious ritual.  Or I am possessed by a spirit
> that kills cats who 
> are servants of malignant spirits.  Or cats are
> carrying a deadly 
> disease.  When it comes to moral decisions and
> justifications, people 
> are ingenious and creative!
> 
> It is necessarily true that people create moral
> standards in social 
> interactions, drawing on tradition and knowledge
> generated by prior 
> social interactions.  Why is it so implausible that
> people engaged in 
> different social relations, drawing on different
> knowledge, would 
> create moral standards that differ significantly
> from our own?
> 
> Miles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> 

		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs