From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Ethical Relativism. Was: Hunters: Legitimate concern?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 04:55:22 GMT

In <Bs0rrB.24G@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes yet again
in response to me (where _do_ you find the time, Russ?):

>Russell Lawrence asks John Van Etten:
>rl> Has it occurred to you that an action might be ethical or unethical
>rl> regardless of the power of the person performing the action?

>From article <viking.712134093@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>ds> Yes, it has.  I've discovered that there is no absolute morality
>ds> or ethical code. 

>How would a man searching for a particular set of facts be able 
>to discover that the facts do not exist?  By searching every nook and 
>cranny of the universe, perhaps, and then reporting that the 
>objects in question were nowhere to be found?   Do you have a degree
>in ethics, by any chance?  

	Nope, I don't.  Not that it makes any difference, of course.  Facts
and ethics are hardly good things to compare.  How can you test an ethical
belief?  I'll give you a hint -- it's a belief, not a fact.  It's quite
similar to saying, "God is good." and then demanding proof one way or the
other.  It doesn't work, and never will, because there is no underlying
"fact" to base arguments on.  Thus, our disagreements.

>ds> Like the vast majority of criminals who cry their
>ds> innocence after being convicted, the person being "picked on" is the
>ds> first to cry morality, while effectively this action must be moral for
>ds> it to be commonplace.  

>It seems to me that the justice or injustice of a courtroom trial 
>would depend on the effectiveness of the court in digging away at 
>the truth.  You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that the 
>goodness of a particular judicial action can be measured solely 
>by public opinion.  

	It can, and it does.  Helmet laws, semi-auto military look-alike
weapon bans, exclusionary rule violations, extentions of the RICO statutes,
and a host of other frauds have been upheld by the courts on no factual
basis.  I'll leave it to you to find the facts on these issues, but if
you want pointers e-mail shall be fine.

>From the late middle ages through the mid-17th century, it was 
>commonplace for men in power to hang or burn heretics, if they
>were judged guilty by the appropriate court of justice.  To 
>determine whether such an action was truly good or bad, would
>we make an effort to examine all the facts, or, would we simply
>conduct an opinion poll?  

	We had best conduct an opinion poll, then, because the facts
rarely have anything to do with the concepts of "good" and "bad."  I
might say that given the above fact, good came of it because we had
a unified society with few subversive elements at a time when such
elements could have done great harm to the fabric of this society.  I
might also say it was bad because somebody died.  As you can see, the
facts do not make a moral interpretation, they are merely the set of
data we form an opinion about.  Our laws are written to remove most
moral interpretation from the jury, but it still exists and in fact the
jury does have the power to render a verdict of "innocent" to a charge
th defendent is guilty of if the crime done thwarted a larger crime, or
even if the law was applied unjustly.  You can see the chaos in the
court system that results from this, which I think is a good thing.
I'd rather be judged by humans than computer.

>ds> Think of it this way, Russ: you belive hunting
>ds> to be unethical, but you're in the minority.  It's no wonder you wish
>ds> to base your argument on ethical grounds.  Those of us with the guns
>ds> simply disagree with your ethical view, and it remains for you to
>ds> change our minds if you want hunting to be unethical.  For the moment,
>ds> hunting is ethical and quite enjoyable.

>So you say, but I consider your opinions to be highly suspect.  
>Perhaps you can redeem your credibility by explaining why you 
>consider slavery to be ethical simply because some men consider it
>such.

	I note you skipped a bit: I do consider slavery ethical for a
society that believes it to be ethical, but I do not personally hold
it to be an ethical thing in my own society.  You can ignore the
qualifiers if you want, Russ, but they are very important in this case.
I'm certain that some Romans thought slavery was wrong (besides the slaves,
I mean).  Now that their view is the one that society has adopted in no
way means the previously-held view was unethical.  Ethics change, just as
societies change, over time, and I cannot hold a person responsible for
criminal acts that weren't criminal when they were done.  If your view
wins out in another hundred years, then animal hunting will be immoral.
Such is life on this planet.  Until that time, my actions are not immoral
to me, or to the society I live in, and I have no ethical qualms about
hunting.  As for redeeming my credibility, don't assume I give a whit
what people on here think of my credibility.  Killfiles can take care of
any annoyance they might have of me, and my posting record should show
myself to be remarkably consistent in claiming nothing absolute exists
when it comes to morality.

>rl> Would rape or slavery truly be ethical if a sufficient number of 
>rl> persons in power declared such activities to be acceptable?

>ds> Yes.  Read your history.

>I can point to any number of dead authors who believed that 
>slavery is ethical, just as I can point to several past
>authorities who believed rape to be ethical.  Is a mere belief 
>the same as truth?

	Yes.  For proof, see organized religion.  Belief is much
more persuasive than "truth," because "truth" doesn't require fact,
only belief.  If you mean, "Is a mere belief the same as fact?" then
I have to answer "No," with the caveat that facts are often over-ridden
by beliefs.  See "propaganda" in your dictionary for details.

>  If Himmler believed that killing jews 
>was ethically good, would this belief transform suffering into
>pleasure?

	It certainly would for Himmler, since his suffering at the
hands of the Evil Jewish Masses would be turned into pleasure at
watching Them get hauled off.  For the Jews, I doubt it.  For the
record, Russ, who cares, and why doesn't it matter if the person
who cares isn't Himmler or his fellows?

>rl> Would the victims not suffer just the same?

>ds> That depends on the slave-owner and the society of the time.

>This makes no sense whatsoever.  Why would the suffering of any
>given person be dependent on the mind-set of someone else?

	You missed it, Russ.  The "victims" are slaves, right?  There
is evidence to suggest that slaves in Egypt led a better life than
those who were "free" of their own nations, and some societies came
up with rather severe rules of slave ownership.  Not every society
beats their slaves, nor are all slaves the same type of property.  In
scandanavia, slaves could inherit property when their master died.  I
don't think slavery in and of itself involves suffering, simply because
the slave-owner could, at his whim, cease any of the abhorrent practices
of slavery we commonly think of.  As an example, let's assume I am a slave
of my father.  That he treats me like a son and not a slave is the
relevant thing, not that somewhere there is a title of ownership saying I
am a slave.  Slavery is more than just ownership, it's treatment, when one
starts talking of "suffering."  Name one thing a slave cannot be, and my
response will be, "The slave owner can allow it at his whim, and hence it
does not have to be."  If you answer "Freedom," I must partially agree,
but I do note that as a debtor I'm at least an indentured servant, and
that my debtors allow me some freedom is all I can expect.


>Did Scott suffer?  Or would you say that the badness of his 
>bondage simply disappeared in the sea of prevailing opinion that 
>property rights are a good thing?  

	I don't know, did he suffer?  You had better ask Scott.

>rl> Or would their suffering not matter?

	It certainly didn't matter to the supreme court, nor I suspect
to the rest of the country with the exception of the slaves.  Hence,
his suffering was not relevant to the case.

>ds> Now you're catching on!  If it doesn't matter to those who are in 
>ds> control of the slaves, it doesn't matter.  Period.  You're a 
>ds> slave?  Too bad, but those are the breaks.  I'm certain every 
>ds> traitor executed thinks it's immoral to do so, but I don't 
>ds> particularly care what traitors think.  Get the idea now, Russ?  

>Are you an advocate for ignorance, or, are you an advocate for 
>truth?  I realize that the suffering of slaves may not have 
>mattered in the least to some slaveowners, but you seem to be 
>going a step further in claiming that there existed no additional 
>data worthy of consideration.  (yikes)

	Was there?  The Supreme Court didn't think so, and I can
think of no other body more inclined to uphold the law.

>And you justify your position in this matter, not by searching 
>for additional evidence to determine the goodness or badness of 
>slavery, but by declaring that additional evidence simply doesn't 
>matter.  

	<sigh!>  If I'm judging the case, and I don't think it
matters, it doesn't matter.  That's it.  The legal system has
taken this to the "admissable evidence" idea, where your record
of welshing on poker debts has no relevance on your traffic ticket.
Is this _really_ that complicated, Russ?  Somewhere we have to
decide what is a relevant fact or piece of evidence.  This too changes
with the times, and is often arbitrary.

>ds> Too bad, Russ, but I enjoy hunting, and if aliens ever came down 
>ds> are started hunting me I think I'd enjoy the challenge.  In any 
>ds> event, my opinions on the matter wouldn't make a difference, and 
>ds> I don't think they need to.  For that matter, the shouldn't.  

>rl> Why should your opinions not make a difference?  In evaluating 
>rl> the consequences of an ethical action, do you really think it's 
>rl> inappropriate to stop and consider the thoughts and feelings of 
>rl> the victims?

>ds> Of course not, but I said they shouldn't make a difference, and 
>ds> that they most likely wouldn't anyway to the alien.  

>Once again, you're claiming that a truthful appraisal of good and 
>bad outcomes has no bearing in our determination of the goodness or
>badness of any given action.

	No, I am claiming that what I think of as good may in fact
be bad to another, and that I'm not giong to claim my opinion as
being some sort of absolute truth.  The alien can make up his own
mind, and can act on that opinion.  If I'm right, it makes little
difference, does it?

>Of course, you only make this claim when it fits in with
>your set of ideological beliefs.  Otherwise, you wouldn't argue 
>so fervently that hunting is a good thing because it saves deer 
>from starving.  If the suffering of the victims has no bearing on 
>the goodness or badness of human sport hunting, why should the 
>alleged mercy killing of deer be a good thing?  

	Because I think it's a good thing, the deer haven't managed
to convince me that I am wrong (not that I listen to them much on
a one-to-one basis, but evidence of their population and health may
be construed to note that the deer agree with me), nor has society
convinced me otherwise.  If you disagree, your opinion will be noted
for the record, but don't expect your disagreement to significantly
change my opinion.  Minority views rarely do.

>ds> If you enjoy being beaten, should I consider your liking of this 
>ds> action when I dislike it?  No, I'll go with what I think is best 
>ds> to do.  

>You're free to control your body in any manner of your choosing, as
>long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of other thinking/feeling
>individuals.

	So which of us is "right," Russ?  Am I infringing on your rights
because I refuse to do what you enjoy and I abhorr, or visa versa?  I'd
really like to see your answer to this one, since I see it as a Catch-22
that illustrates how each side may consider itself to be "right."

>The analogous question is not whether or not you have an obligation
>to beat someone who enjoys being beaten.  Rather, the question that
>I would pose is whether or not a person who enjoys beating others is
>engaging in good conduct when he beats the hell out of strangers on
>the street?

	If he is, then sooner or later those who dislike it are free
to teach this person a lesson in behavior.  At the moment, beating
others is not considered ethical, so we have cops, concerned
citizens, and others quite willing to teach some manners.  Were the
random beating of strangers commonplace, it can be assummed that the
present society does not consider in unethical.  Don't you just hate
it when your views aren't those of the majority?  It all seems so
unjust!  Rabbits probably have this opinion, but the fox doesn't care.
Whll, then, should I?  NOTE: if you say it's because of greater power
of reasoning inherent in humans, you've just given me license to kill
all lesser species since they're "stupid" by your own argument of
respecting mental capacity over physical life functions.

>ds> That 
>ds> you might disagree with my actions makes little difference to me 
>ds> -- I'm a big boy now, and I'll keep my own counsel on what is an 
>ds> ethical action.  The alien, I'm sure, has already thought the 
>ds> action out and found it ethical to him in much the same manner.  

>You're not a lonely god in a lonely universe.   You're entitled to
>treat your own body as you see fit, but you're not entitled to
>claim the minds and bodies of other individuals.

	No man is an island, right?  I read that many, many years ago.
I'll claim the minds and bodies of other individuals when I see fit to do
so, Russ -- I do it to eat right now, and we all do it to exist.  I may
not be an island, but I'm a damned big island compared to a rabbit, and
I see no reason to sacrifice myself for a smaller island.  If we can get
along in good harmony, so be it.  If we can't, Darwin seems to have an
answer to the problem.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >