From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: What's "ethical"?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 06:03:29 GMT

cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:

>As quoted from <altar.702376896@sfu.ca> by altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar):

>> cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
>> 
>> >It's a retreat to reality and common sense.  Ethics ARE subjective.  They are
>> >based on a variety of philosophical foundations.  Different ethical systems
>> >have DIFFERENT foundations.  You may ELECT to TREAT them as non-relative, but
>> >that is an arbitrary choice on YOUR part.
>> 
>> Well, again Chistopher you are short on arguments and fast with
>> "ex cathedra" assertions.  Now, if you wish, I'll repost my
>> critique of ethical subjectivism for you to have something concrete  to
>> argue against.  
>Well again you evade the question.

You didn't raise a question, you just made ipse dixit pronouncements.  
There is nothing to evade, only assertions to which one either consents
or dissents, I obviously dissent. 



>> >> By calling it "crap", you now are either making an ethical judgement of
>> >> some interest, or you are merely stating your own subjective pro-attitudes
>> >> which is of no greater or lesser merit than that which you disagree with.
>> >> Of course, you believe that it has greater merit, that it is correct,
>> >> even true, which would refute your own claim that ethics is merely a 
>> >> matter of opinion.
>> 
>> >You really don't get it, do you?  He just made a RELATIVE valuation of YOUR
>> >ethics vs. HIS.  He didn't say you HAD to eat MEAT.  He expressed a disdain
>> >for YOUR values relative to his.  Do YOUR values PRECLUDE his ability to make
>> >such SUBJECTIVE, RELATIVE judgements?
>> 
>> What's the point of expressing them if that is all they are.

>Because there are others who are either undecided, or who's opinions are 
>subject to change.  Is that REALLY so hard to understand?

Let's not adopt such a patronizing tone.  If you want to debate this
issue, fine, but we are adults and there is no need to treat each other
so rudely...

Now, if all ethical statements are, as you claim, merely subjective and
relative, then on what basis do you hope to persuade the "undecided"?
Appeals to rationality, facts, consistency, consequences, etc. are
simply rhetorical and have not compelling force by your account,
since in the end all is merely a matter of subjective opinion.



>> Clearly, they are not going match my own.  Since no standards for personal
>> opinions exist for us say which are more rational, more justified, more
>> factually based, more useful, etc., then there are no means for rational
>> persuasion.  All we can do is merely state our personal opinions to
>> each other with the sorry purpose of offending each other with our 
>> different subjectivities.  Not a very interesting outcome.

>Your conception of personal interaction is certainly very truncated.  I    
>change other people's minds and they change mine.  It isn't necessary to 
>pretend that they have NO ethics, merely because theirs differ from mine. I
>utterly despise NAMBLA.  That doesn't mean that they don't HAVE ethics.  They
>DO have "ethics" that make me want to retch.  I find it quite illustrative to
>induce them to expound on their "ethics".  It never fails to win new adherents
>to my point of view regarding NAMBLA.  I frequently have similar experiences
>regarding the extreme AR fringe.  I find the process quite rewarding.  Whether
>you do or not, is your subjective experience. 

Such hubris aside, what is point of successfully converting others to
your subjective view; it is neither more right or wrong.  Yes, I
guess it would be satisfying to have other believe as you do.  I
guess you might agree with the character in Virgina Woolf's novel
ORLANDO, who said:
    "no passion is stronger in the breast of man that the desire
     to make other believe as he believes" (p. 105)

Other than the self-satifaction to the self-satisfied who would have all
others believe as he believes, there is really no point to all
this.  Again, your subjective view by your own account is neither
more right or wrong, more useful or bootless, more rational or
less rational, than your utterly despised NAMBLA.  That it is
equally a subjective outcomes that NAMBLA could change you as
you could change NAMBLA makes for a somewhat bleak and cynical
outlook..


>> If you do believe that some points of view are more justified than
>> others, then ethical subjectivism is being left behind.  You
>> can't have it both ways.

>If I believe that some points of view are SUBJECTIVELY more justified than 
>others, then ethical subjectivism is validated.  I don't pretend that my ethics
>are those of everyone else.  That's special pleading.  What I DO recognize is
>that myself and other humans have interests that we can recognize.  If we feel
>that those interests are sufficiently threatened by another, we'll take action,
>whether that action manifests itself in a letter to the editor or battery-1 of
>DP-ICM.  That is FACT, easily demonstrated by a five minute perusal of the 
>evening news.  Your assertion is just that ASSERTION, and cannot be proven, or
>even SHOWN.  Special pleading is one of the principal manifestations of trying
>to have it both ways, and you rely upon it with regularity.

What does it mean to say that something is more relative than something 
that is already relative?  If all ethical statements are subjective,
then there is really no further meaning to saying that "some points of view
are subjectively more justified".  After all, subjectivity in turn is
not absolute.  People do change their minds.  Now, if we follow 
through consistently on this notion of ethical subjectivism, then
a person cannot say that today's subjective opinion is any more
justified than yesterdays or tomorrows.  Remember, if all is
subjective, then even subjectivity itself is subjective, and you
cannot even state that today's subjective opionion is more right or
wrong that yesterdays, anymore than you can state that your subjective
opinion is any more right or wrong than mine.  Such is how ethical
subjectivism leaves us so very effete, even with respect to ourselves.

Incidentally, I think you are using the term "special pleading" incorrectly.
It doesn't mean some notion of a priviledged view or experience
over that of another, as you seem to suggest, but only that
it means pleading drawn with reference to the particular
circumstances of a case, as opposed to general pleading.  Of
course, maybe you are simply using the term in its more colloquial
sense of "disingenuous pleading" or one-sided argumentation.  If
so, I of course don't see it.  So, please continue.
                           ted

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals