From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: What is Love? _The Story of O_
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:44:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:

>As the person who originally attracted the fury of moral relativism, I
>should say that Gary (here) and Peter Cash (elsewhere) have been doing
>such a fine job of responding that I haven't felt the need to reply.

Yes, but no one has yet stated precisely *why* O's morality is "faulty."

[stuff deleted]

>knowledge" of the foundations is likely to be unproductive; it is
>better to start out with what we firmly believe, build systems, see
>where they fail, and use this to revise our systems, possibly
>eventually abandoning some of our initial firm beliefs.  When multiple
>sets of "acceptable" moral standards are arrived at, there are two
>possible answers (one due to the peculiar nature of ethics): the two
>systems can be based on fundamentally different notions of what human
>basic aims should be, in which case they may _both_ be "true" (this is
>analogous to the situation of mathematical systems with different sets
>of axioms) or, if this is not the case, it needs to be determined
>whether there are "observable" situations where the standards dictate
>different actions, and testing needs to be carried out, if practical.
>The latter situation leads to "reasoning together"; the former
>situation leads (in the fullness of time) to war, ethics being the
>practical discipline that it is.

So I think we may be able to say that the morals of O and the morals of
Western culture utilize different axioms.  So what are those different
axioms?

>>
>>Can there be a separate but incompatible set of *criteria*?  Of course
>>there can, but then we can argue about the acceptability of this set
>>of criteria.  I think that unless you work very hard at avoiding it,
>>it is possible for any group of individuals to arrive at a mutually
>>acceptable set of criteria.  People who cannot participate in such
>>an agreement are called "sociopaths".  Then you can decide whether
>>such people are "evil" or "sick" or "dysfunctional" or whatever.
>>(I prefer "evil", but I won't defend that right now.)

>"Evil" is a nice word.

And people who do participate are "citizens."

[stuff deleted]

>The point is that your own moral theory is the one you use to judge
>good and evil.  You do not admit the equal validity of all

Yes, that is the point I have been trying to make for some time now.

The problem has been, no one has adequately defined precisely *how*
O's morality is objectionable to their own (other than "it's obvious,"
which is not a sufficient answer).

I have avoided, until this article, stating my feelings on O's morality
simply because I felt that questioning the process did not require
taking a stand.

>"acceptable" theories, any more than you do your science using the
>competing theory of Professor X, unless you are convinced of its truth
>(or are trying to get results which test it).  The methodology of
>ethics, as described here, stands apart from a particular ethical
>standard, but it is the nature of an ethical standard that it dictates
>your actions and judgements as long as you affirm it.  When you ask
>whether a system of ethics is coherent, you are in the realm of
>method; when you _act_, you must apply your current standard (and if
>you do not, it is not actually your standard!)  Coherent ethical
>systems may also be abhorrent.

[stuff deleted]

>This is why the prevalence of relativism is a moral crisis.

Does this mean that relativism is bad, or simply that it challenges 
accepted beliefs?

>>
>>Anyhow, what I did in my prior posting to say what "faulty moral standard"
>>*means*.  I did not attempt to suggest any specific criteria, or to claim
>>that one or another standard is acceptable or not.

>And neither have I (except in expressing my initial "naive" horror at
>the story -- I am not being self-deprecating, but indicating the
>"pre-scientific" nature of my "observation".  But observe what my

And this gets to what may be the crux my point:  What was the source of
your "horror" (shared by many)?

The horror you expressed was based upon your judgment of thmorality of
O in comparison with your own, correct?  [And let me put in this qualifier
since some seem to think that my questioning is a defense of O's morality:
I do not approve of the submission of O and her individuality in the story.
Even before the physical abuse, which I find equally reprehensible, the
very concept of the degradation of one person for the enjoyment of others
is disgusting to me.  We can explore the reasons for this at another time
if anyone is interested.]

What I have been (quite inadequately) getting at is that we make moral
judgments based on our own personal set of morals.  That these morals
are held by the majority of society just means we are not "abnormal." 

>basic standpoint is: I am _not_ saying that there is a moral standard
>which is true (which we obviously all know to be ..., except some of
>us are wicked relativists, etc., etc., etc...); I am saying that there
>is a moral standard which is true; I do NOT know what it is (as a
>whole); certain things impress me as being very far from what it could
>reasonably be.  In my pre-scientific understanding of the world, I can

By stating that, you imply *some* set of criteria ("reasonableness" if
you will) by which you judge moral standards.

So in what way does O become unreasonable?

>assert that there is a true physics, I don't know what it is (say,
>whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa), but the sun WILL
>rise tomorrow morning.  Analogously, I flatly assert, without caring
>in the least whether I offend anyone, that I will NOT, and you will
>NOT, find moral enlightenment on alt.sex.bondage.

Just for the record, I did not refer anyone to alt.sex.bondage.

My questions have been, I hope, aimed solely at defining the criteria
by which "O" was deemed "false" (or "faulty") as a moral standard.

Just because I wish to explore the process by which the judgment was
made does *not* mean I object to it, only that I am interested in the
process.

That this questioning has raised larger issues of how one judges a
moral standard in general was not my intent.
-- 

Anson Kennedy                                                  anson@netcom.com
Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)

"If you don't watch the violence,   \           "If I had been the Virgin Mary,
you'll never get desensitized to it." \                I would have said 'No.'"
-Bart Simpson                           \  -Margaret "Stevie" Smith (1902-1971)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta