From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Human Rights...
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:33:48 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Sep6.021415.10802@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes
>
>>By holding that human rights are absolute and that *your* version  is
>>the correct one, *you* effectively close all discussion.
>
>One advantage to holding that moral principles are absolute is that it
     ~~~~~~~~
>makes it possible for people who disagree about which moral principles
>are the correct ones to believe that they are talking about the same
>things (correct moral principles), even though they disagree about
>them, and that discussion may lead to agreement.  

Yeh, like between Randall Terry and a woman who consciously chooses
to have an abortion?
I see no hope of that discussion leading to agreement.
Ever try to discuss ethics with the Ayatollah?

>If there are no moral
>principles that are absolutely correct, but only principles that
>correctly sum up the purposes, habits and feelings relating to human
>conduct of particular persons or particular communities, then the
>possibilities for moral discussion between people with different ways
>of life become much more limited.
>

I disagree.  There is a much greater chance of agreement if people
are non-rigid in their moral beliefs, or are willing to ignore them
when empirical evidence conflicts with them, or when tolerance 
of the other fellow's view will yield a mutually beneficial result.

But, that aside, your statement here that there is subjective utilitarian 
value to be gained by claiming to be the holder of absolute moral truth
effectively undermines any claim to absolute moral truth.  If
certain morals are "absolute," you should not need to defend
them by the results that they produce.  Now if you want to say
that we need to "pretend" that there are moral absolutes, or "hold"
that there are moral absolutes, for certain subjective purposes,
this is at least something which we can discuss based on our
subjective agreements.

But, in general, I think that there are few subjective utilitarian gains to be
had by making absolutist moral claims, if you want to proceed on that level.
The typical historical result of rigid ideological camps is war.

>>The way to find common ground for peaceful discussion is to agree that
>>animal and human rights are whatever we agree that they are, and that 
>>they should be established because they work best, for reasons that we
>>can agree on (like the desire to not see animals suffer needlessly).
>
>"What works best" -- from whose point of view, if there is no absolute
>in these things and if not everyone agrees?  I'm not sure there's a
>distinction between "what works best" and "the will of the most
>powerful" as a criterion.

Everyone will never agree on everything of a moral nature.  But at
least "what works best" has a greater chance of empirical verification
than some a priori principle.   I mean, you can SEE IT.
And, who wants to adhere to a priori
principles which result in all kinds of unacceptable results in
the real world?  

To me the essence of morality is tolerance of others.  Not because
it is an absolute truth, but because it works.  Tolerance says
that you can believe whatever the hell you want, as long as you
dont impose it on me.  This allows people to interact in positive
ways (including economic), without ever having to confront 
their inevitable disagreements on absolute moral truth.


--Al Date
Xref: sparky ba.politics:5065 talk.politics.theory:4059