From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: More ethical relativism.
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:32:49 GMT

In article <Bu2FrA.56M@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Sep4.140040.27525@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
>ja> If I may barge in on this exchange: It seems to me that good and 
>ja> bad are strictly human concepts with no meaning outside of the 
>ja> human mind.  It would appear obvious that they are defined by the 
>ja> particular society in which one lives, and that there are no 
>ja> absolutes.  
>
>Who said that good and bad had to be "universal" concepts?  One 
>group of powerful men may consider rape to be perfectly 
>acceptable because it suits their purpose, and the "cosmos" may 
>be oblivious to their rationales, but the fact would remain that 
>the victims would suffer nonetheless.  
>

I thought that "good" and "bad" in the previous exchange were being used in 
some vague moral sense. If you mean them as harmful or beneficial to some 
individual, then I misunderstood your meaning. Perhaps the terms themselves
are too ambiguous to be useful here? They are, after all, predominantly defined
by the mind of the reader.

>ja> Situational ethics I guess is the common term used to describe 
>ja> it.  In the case of rapists and murderers, isn't a plea of 
>ja> insanity or mental incompetence used to describe a person who 
>ja> doesn't personally see his/her actions as being bad?  
>
>Let's not confuse our judgments of individuals with our judgments
>about the goodness or badness of an action.   If a young man had
>grown up in the society of the aforementioned group of rapists, it
>would be a mistake for us to assume that he was marked by some 
>mysterious evil, simply because he was taught to accept (if not admire)
>a practice that we find abhorent.  Surely you would admit that he
>himself is a victim of circumstances and isn't "spiritually" 
>culpable.  Why?  Because he's acting on the basis of ideas and
>information that seem valid in his own mind.
>

I'm afraid the term "spirituality" is entirely meaningless to me. The rightness
of an individuals actions are determined by the society in which said
individual resides. If I may paraphrase what you apparently intended above, 
good and bad are not necessarily universal concepts. How can you now use your
concepts of morality to make a judgement on the hypothetical young mans
actions?

>On the other hand, it would be an even greater mistake if the 
>social reformers living in such a society were to excuse the 
>on-going practice of rape by pointing out that the "cosmos" can't 
>distinguish between an act of rape and an act of physical 
>love-making.  The fact that everyone has acquiesced to the practice
>doesn't change the underlying harm.

Of course not, and I would expect such reformers, if they existed, to try to
change said societies ideas of what is accepted behavior.

>
>ja> Good and bad are merely defined by taking a vote (in essence) of 
>ja> what the majority finds acceptable.  These are, of course, 
>ja> subject to change, which I presume is what animal rights people 
>ja> are trying to accomplish.  I disagree with their goals and many 
>ja> of their methods.  Unfortunately, I must support their right to 
>ja> fight for social change.  Sorry, I got carried away and kind of 
>ja> off the track again.  
>
>It's important to make a distinction between moral beliefs and the
>underlying facts.   If everyone in our society got together and
>decided that it was ok for men to rape women with blue eyes and
>red hair, but wrong to rape anyone else, their beliefs wouldn't
>change the fact that the rapists' claims on the bodies of 
>red-haired women are much more dubious than far stronger claims 
>that the women can make on their own bodies.  Moreover, the 
>belief that rape is ok may excuse the perpetrator, but it doesn't 
>diminish the underlying pain and humiliation.  
>

Agreed, but haven't we somehow strayed a long way from talk.politics.animals?
Or are you implying that other animals should be extended the same rights as
blue eyed, red haired women? Should they pay taxes and be allowed to vote?


Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals