A Refutation of Moral Relativism

[Edtharan]

Do you really think that religion is any more corruptible than any other human institution? Critics of religion seem to hold so much faith in more secular institutions but how is any human institution any less susceptible to abuse than religion?

This is a good point. I don't see religion as any more corruptable than any other human institution, but for religion, they activly discourage attempts at using rational investigation as a basis of the attitudes they hold (as any such endevour ends up in conflict with faith). There are, of course, other, secular human institution that also discourage rational investigation, and these would be as corruptable as religion are.

 

To answer the second part of this: How an institution can avoid (or at least reduce the amount) corruption is by transparency and inviation of ratioanl investigation into its operation. This is the core to western democracy (although not always implimented in reality ) and its success.

 

When an organistion, whether religious or secular, does not have in place check and balances to limit corruption, then corruption will not be able to be controled (limited) within that organisation.

 

What makes you think that the repressive religious authorities that claimed Christian doctrine as their basis and validation were not, in fact, perverting the very Christian doctrine they claimed to represent? Please note that the reason why Jesus Christ himself was persecuted by both secular and religious authorities was that he preached faith in the holy spirit as the basis for interpreting scripture. In other words, Christ himself was anti-orthodox except perhaps to the extent he recognized truth in the essential logics of the commandments, scriptures, etc. Nevertheless he advocated active interpretation of divine revelation over subjugation to religious hierarchy. If he hadn't, he would have fallen in line with the pharises and been heralded as a devout protege'.

I never argued that people haven't questioned docterine in the past, but just that we are now more free to do so than at any time in the past.

 

Even your example proves my argument as you argued that "Jesus Christ himself was persecuted...". If I were, today, to raise the same questions about a church that christ was supposed to have done, I would not be persecuted nearly as much (there might eb some extremeists that would do so today, but I would not "officially" be persecuted by the organisations themselves). I wouldn't end up nailed to a cross in crusifixion.

 

Therefore we are more free today than "Christ" was 2000 years ago. And this is by your argument. You are actually proving my argument for me.

 

Is there any other time you think people were more free to explore their religious beliefs than today?

[lemur]

This is a good point. I don't see religion as any more corruptable than any other human institution, but for religion, they activly discourage attempts at using rational investigation as a basis of the attitudes they hold (as any such endevour ends up in conflict with faith). There are, of course, other, secular human institution that also discourage rational investigation, and these would be as corruptable as religion are.

I see how you could see the eschewing of rationality/reason as actively promoting corruptibility. However, what makes you think rationality/reason are immune from being perverted as well? In fact, I've talked with religious people about why rationality is suspect and the reason is because it is possible for people to rationalize values and actions that will ultimately go against their deepest sense of right and wrong, which can result in them feeling led astray from a path of true righteousness. Ok, I know that "path of true righteousness" sounds silly but what I mean is that someone could, for example, reason that it is rational for them to steal from a richer person because they are poor. Then, however, their conscience could nag at them that they shouldn't have stolen something that wasn't theirs - so religion prescribes listening to your conscience over your mind in cases where your (rational) mind could lead you into temptation, shame, immorality, etc. Does that make sense? Faith is a recognition that no human authority/institution, including rationality or logic, is infallible. Therefore ANY actions one takes in this world must be taken with faith in the outcome because there is no such thing as absolute certainty.

 

 

I never argued that people haven't questioned docterine in the past, but just that we are now more free to do so than at any time in the past.

 

Even your example proves my argument as you argued that "Jesus Christ himself was persecuted...". If I were, today, to raise the same questions about a church that christ was supposed to have done, I would not be persecuted nearly as much (there might eb some extremeists that would do so today, but I would not "officially" be persecuted by the organisations themselves). I wouldn't end up nailed to a cross in crusifixion.

 

Therefore we are more free today than "Christ" was 2000 years ago. And this is by your argument. You are actually proving my argument for me.

 

Is there any other time you think people were more free to explore their religious beliefs than today?

 

 

I have to refer you to the book Discipline and Punish, by Michael Foucault. This book is a history/genealogy of prisons and punishment. The thesis is basically that while disciplinary institutions have become less corporeal and spectacular with modernization, the effect has not been to increase freedom but to increase the effectiveness of punishment and control. He says that it was more likely for people to transcend authority when drawn and quartered than in the modern context of psychiatric behavior control/modification. This is especially true for the "audience," who would end up paying more attention to the publicly tortured criminal than the punishing authorities during the times of spectacular public punishments. With modernization, he says, the audience has been seduced into greater complicity with authority by virtue of rationality and moderation of punishments and authoritarian institutions. So that is 180 degrees from what you and many other people claim about freedom increasing with modernity.

 

 

[Edtharan]

I see how you could see the eschewing of rationality/reason as actively promoting corruptibility. However, what makes you think rationality/reason are immune from being perverted as well? In fact, I've talked with religious people about why rationality is suspect and the reason is because it is possible for people to rationalize values and actions that will ultimately go against their deepest sense of right and wrong, which can result in them feeling led astray from a path of true righteousness. Ok, I know that "path of true righteousness" sounds silly but what I mean is that someone could, for example, reason that it is rational for them to steal from a richer person because they are poor. Then, however, their conscience could nag at them that they shouldn't have stolen something that wasn't theirs - so religion prescribes listening to your conscience over your mind in cases where your (rational) mind could lead you into temptation, shame, immorality, etc. Does that make sense? Faith is a recognition that no human authority/institution, including rationality or logic, is infallible. Therefore ANY actions one takes in this world must be taken with faith in the outcome because there is no such thing as absolute certainty.

In the scenario you describe, the theif started from a place of irrationallity (that the belongings of the rich person should also belong to him) wihtout using reason to justify this position. If the theif could indeed create a rational justification for this then it would be an valid argument you have presented, but all you have actually done is confirm my point.

 

Because of irrationallity, it becomes easier to become corrupted because you don't need to have a valid justification. The theif you described did not use rational argument, but instead used a psudo rational argument (one that superficially looks like a rational argument, but is in reality not a raional argument).

 

For an argument ot be truely rational, any initial premise must, at least, be able to be demonstrated as being true (ie if the theif could demonstrate that they originally owned the goods in question, then taking them back could be justified - however there is also the method that needs to be justified as well).

 

Your argument here is one that often crops up in arguments against reason and rational approaches to morality. However they end up being strawmen arguments because they can be shown to use irrational justifications for the actions and not rational ones (usually because they start with an irrational assumption).

 

I have to refer you to the book Discipline and Punish, by Michael Foucault. This book is a history/genealogy of prisons and punishment. The thesis is basically that while disciplinary institutions have become less corporeal and spectacular with modernization, the effect has not been to increase freedom but to increase the effectiveness of punishment and control. He says that it was more likely for people to transcend authority when drawn and quartered than in the modern context of psychiatric behavior control/modification. This is especially true for the "audience," who would end up paying more attention to the publicly tortured criminal than the punishing authorities during the times of spectacular public punishments. With modernization, he says, the audience has been seduced into greater complicity with authority by virtue of rationality and moderation of punishments and authoritarian institutions. So that is 180 degrees from what you and many other people claim about freedom increasing with modernity.

Today I am less free to break the law as I am more likely to get caught. 200 years ago, they had no DNA analysis, no CCTV cameras and such. So in that respect I have lost freedom. But, does this reperesent a loss of freedom in general? No.

 

We have more freedom today because we have more ability to catch criminals (but some criminals have also got smarter as well).

 

The argument you presented actually is self contradictory. You are saying we are more free if we have an authoritarian control prevents us from being free (harsher and more demonstrative punishments).

 

I do agree that subtle control is still control and that with the greater knowledge we have today it is posible to exhert more subtle control (in adition to the less subtle controls), and that it is possible for an organisation to potentially have more control over us than they used to. But, the question is: If, when and where this control is being used?

 

Is such subtle control being used on a constant basis by organisations to manipulate us on a dayly basis? No, not at all. When this control is exersized, it is usually to protect our rights to be free from oppression.

 

We can wear what we like (although with certain things - like wearing nothing - it is only in certain circumstances when it does not cause harm or offense to others), we have freedom to say things (so long as it does not cause unjustified harm to others like slander) we want, we have the ability to believe what we want (again without causing harm to others), we have the freedom to associate with who we want.

 

Actually about the only restrictions we have is in: Not casuing harm to others.

 

Now looking at where the control is being use. Well, it is often used in advertising, but we are bombarded with so much compeating advertising that the effects tend to cancel out (but we have always been subject to this, so it is nothing new, it is really only the effetivness and explicit comercialisation of it that is new). It is also used to stop people who wish to cause harm or to suppress out freedoms.

 

So although there is more potenital for control, it is (generally) being used in a way that ensures our freedoms to make our own choices and beliefs and to prevent harm coming to us.

 

In other words, the control is being used to enhance our freedoms (even though it could potenitally be used to restrict them).