Is Mormonism Morally Relative?

[_Runtu]

Guy,

It's the same as the observation that morality is indeed relative to culture. That's an observable fact reflected in the word's very definition, but Mr. Light finds it "hilarious."

[Guest]

So, how have you managed to think that the rightness or wrongness of moral statements is a matter of the consequences they do or will result in, yet also think that the rightness or wrongness of moral statements is not a matter of their consequences, but instead a matter of how well they conform to a set of rational duties? Hmmm? Is a tin foil hat involved in this process somewhere? Do people base their moral decisions on thinking about "rules for action" and "what will happen if I do this?" You bet. That's why those theories of morality have trivial examples that seem intuitively wrong and also why more complexity is present in them than suggested here. Is utilitarianism formally contradictory to Kantian ethics? Yes. When someone says they are both, they are saying they don't understand one or both of the perspectives.

[_Runtu]

Hmmm? Is a tin foil hat involved in this process somewhere?

Nope, apparently just insults.

[_guy sajer]

So, how have you managed to think that the rightness or wrongness of moral statements is a matter of the consequences they do or will result in, yet also think that the rightness or wrongness of moral statements is not a matter of their consequences, but instead a matter of how well they conform to a set of rational duties? Hmmm? Is a tin foil hat involved in this process somewhere? Do people base their moral decisions on thinking about "rules for action" and "what will happen if I do this?" You bet. That's why those theories of morality have trivial examples that seem intuitively wrong and also why more complexity is present in them than suggested here. Is utilitarianism formally contradictory to Kantian ethics? Yes. When someone says they are both, they are saying they don't understand one or both of the perspectives.

Yes, I do think the rightness or wrongness of an action is at times a matter of its consuences, and I do think that the rightness or wrongness of an action at times depends on how well they conform to a set of rational/moral duties.

Take Mormon doctrine, for example. Mormons adhere to the formalistic moral principle "thou shalt not kill," yet God, who gave this formalistic rule, commands Nephi to kill Laban, "lest a nation dwindle in unbelief" (or something like that), which is a clear utilitarian rationale.

So, even God, the one you profess to worship and who you no doubt claim to be infallible, uses both formalistic and utilitarian reasoning. Does he not understand one or both perspectives? Was a tin hat involved when he gave the 10 commandments or when he commanded Nephi to lop off a defenseless man's head?

It is you who is demonstrating a lack of understanding of moral reasoning, not me.

Let's get back to the question.

Name me one person who only makes decisions based on adherence to formal moral rules?
Name me one person who only makes decisions based on outcomes?

Can't think of any, can you; not even God is morally consistent.

It appears that both God, and the whole of humanity, with the notable exception of A Light in the Darkness, fundamentally do not understand one or both of the perspectives.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Yes, I do think the rightness or wrongness of an action is at times a matter of its consuences, and I do think that the rightness or wrongness of an action at times depends on how well they conform to a set of rational/moral duties.

The kind of moral duties you are talking about are invioble by their very nature. To create "exceptions" to them in the way you are doing crushes the entire justification for them in the first place. They are by their very nature antithetical to consequentialism. What you want to be is something like a rule consequentialist. That allows you general rules of thumb with exceptions in a way rational duties do not. Now rational duties can be varied and nuanced, but they cannot be what you are trying to make them out to be. Chances are you are just back-thinking from your intuition to whatever seems fitting. Think about how one goes about justifying a denotological system of ethics for a second. Got it? Now think about if that submits the exceptions you want to create for it. I'm trying to be kinder here, as a "both" answer really is highly snickerable.

[_guy sajer]

Yes, I do think the rightness or wrongness of an action is at times a matter of its consuences, and I do think that the rightness or wrongness of an action at times depends on how well they conform to a set of rational/moral duties.

The kind of moral duties you are talking about are invioble by their very nature. To create "exceptions" to them in the way you are doing crushes the entire justification for them in the first place. They are by their very nature antithetical to consequentialism. What you want to be is something like a rule consequentialist. That allows you general rules of thumb with exceptions in a way rational duties do not. Now rational duties can be varied and nuanced, but they cannot be what you are trying to make them out to be. Chances are you are just back-thinking from your intuition to whatever seems fitting. Think about how one goes about justifying a denotological system of ethics for a second. Got it? Now think about if that submits the exceptions you want to create for it. I'm trying to be kinder here, as a "both" answer really is highly snickerable.

What's really snickerable is your lack of understanding of human morality. You appropriate the terminology (e.g., rule utilitarianism), but you don't evidence any comprehension of how theory applies to real life morality or moral decision making.

There is a big difference between "moral theory" and moral decision making. Humans do not read up on moral theory and then structure their lives according to one theoretical framework or the other. They are morally complex and use inconsistent, messy decision making rules; sometimes invoking one moral standard (mostly without knowing they're doing it) and at other times invoking other moral standards.

Rule utilitarianism is an attempt to bridge formalism and utilitarianism. One might as well emply decision making rules at times corresponding to rule utilitarianism, in addition to employing, at times, formal and utilitarian decision making rules.

Even God is morally inconsistent, as I've demonstrated above, and uses different decision making rules to justify himself.

What I get is that I'm talking about how people construct and use moral decision making rules in their every-day lives; what you're talking about is moral theory, and you're trying to make people conform to moral theory, rather than let moral theory help you understand why people do what they do. You have the vocabulary, but given the superficial depth of your understanding, I'm betting you did a google search, got some definitions, and now you're posing as someone who's given deep thought to something that your arguments demonstates you haven't given much of any thought to at all.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

What's really snickerable is your lack of understanding of human morality.

And here I thought it was you lacking a fundamental understanding of the moral terms and concepts they represent that you are using coupled with your condescension.

You appropriate the terminology (e.g., rule utilitarianism), but you don't evidence any comprehension of how theory applies to real life morality or moral decision making.

Rule consequentialism. In any case, what I evidence is that I understand how both schools of moral thought are justified well enough to know that they are mutually incompatible. They find a a great deal of similarity in the conclusions the obtain over a wide range of normal situations but lead to sharply different results in more rare, esoteric cases. In their respective simple forms, both have trivial examples that run cross to our moral intuitions, usually by pitting the vitaltinterests of one person or a few people against the interests of many others. Normally this means that more nuance is needed in the ideas or our understanding of them. But This causes you, seemingly totally unaware of what you are doing, to find a solution in saying "both." One wonders why you don't toss virtue ethics into the mix too. Unfortunately, the moral theories you are subscribing to are logically incompatible. I'm guessing you are familiar with the kinds general "ought" statements that deontologists and consequentialists make, but have a more feeble grasp on how those statements are logically derived. Formal duties, in this context, don't have exceptions. Either you need more complex, situationally appropriate duties, or you are just contradicting yourself.

There is a big difference between "moral theory" and moral decision making. Humans do not read up on moral theory and then structure their lives according to one theoretical framework or the other. They are morally complex and use inconsistent, messy decision making rules; sometimes invoking one moral standard (mostly without knowing they're doing it) and at other times invoking other moral standards.

It appears you are just confirming what I said. You are just a person who follows his moral intuition, then looks at what moral system best fits it, then says, "I'm that one." You just are oblivious to the fact that that you are picking bits and pieces of ideas from theories that attempt to encompass normative ethics are not consistent with one another. The response you should have is to regard those theories as incomplete insofar as you feel they are lacking, not try to patch them together in some sort of logical mess. That's why I suggested rule consequentialism, as it is a more consistent approach to the positions you want to have without all the nastiness of coming off like someone who is totally lost. It appears you want to have rules that raise thresholds against what can be done to a person in the name of some common good, without making those rules exceptionless. Rule consequentialism happily accomadates this, as it can recast Kantian rules in terms of utilitarian ideas. Whether rule consequentialism can escape collapsing into simple act consequentialism is another matter.

Even God is morally inconsistent

Trying to read incomplete moral philosophies into God's revelations as communicated by different people at different times to different cultures is not a good idea. There is no way that saying, "Thou shall not kill" need be an example of formal rational duties. It is consistent with a host of moral ideas including consequentialism and some probably not yet dreamed by we of limited intellect in comparison to the Almighty.

now you're posing as someone who's given deep thought to something that your arguments demonstates you haven't given much of any thought to at all.

Irony.

[_harmony]

now you're posing as someone who's given deep thought to something that your arguments demonstates you haven't given much of any thought to at all.

Irony.

You might want to get to know your audience before you condescend the posters here, Light. Right now, you're sounding more and more like someone we all know is too chicken to leave the protective walls of MAD. And surely you wouldn't want to have your identity known (and no, I don't think you're Ray), were you indeed that academic-wannabe. One of the surest ways for a wannabe to actually learn something is to cross swords with Guy (not that you actually would learn anything, if you are who I think you are, but at least the opportunity is open to you).

[_A Light in the Darkness]

Trying to read incomplete moral philosophies into God's revelations as communicated by different people at different times to different cultures is not a good idea. There is no way that saying, "Thou shall not kill" need be an example of formal rational duties. It is consistent with a host of moral ideas including consequentialism and some probably not yet dreamed by we of limited intellect in comparison to the Almighty.

Case in point:

The commandment you are referring to can be more accurately read as, "thou shall not murder." It is to be taken as a reminder to uphold the law and not kill wrongfully as God has revealed. Since killing Laban was not wrongful, it is not a violation of the commandment. Hence no inconsistency. Yet, you are accusing others of not giving much thought at all to their arguments.

[_guy sajer]

What's really snickerable is your lack of understanding of human morality.

And here I thought it was you lacking a fundamental understanding of the moral terms and concepts they represent that you are using coupled with your condescension.

You introduced the term "snickerable," so your faux offensive at perceived condescension rings a bit false.

You appropriate the terminology (e.g., rule utilitarianism), but you don't evidence any comprehension of how theory applies to real life morality or moral decision making.

Rule consequentialism. In any case, what I evidence is that I understand how both schools of moral thought are justified well enough to know that they are mutually incompatible.

As moral theory yes, as used by human beings, no. Please cite for me the chapter and verse saying that people cannot invoke conflicting moral justifications for their actions? Theory is consistent, human beings are not. That's the fundamental point that, for some reason, you cannot grasp.

They find a a great deal of similarity in the conclusions the obtain over a wide range of normal situations but lead to sharply different results in more rare, esoteric cases. In their respective simple forms, both have trivial examples that run cross to our moral intuitions, usually by pitting the vital tinterests of one person or a few people against the interests of many others. Normally this means that more nuance is needed in the ideas or our understanding of them. But This causes you, seemingly totally unaware of what you are doing, to find a solution in saying "both."

Actually, they produce sharply different results in many cases. They are often in tension with each other, and that's what makes them interesting.

It is you who is ignoring nuance in, it appears, trying to argue that humans cannot invoke, at different times, conflicting moral justifications for their actions. Your entire argument lacks of nuanced understanding. It is when applying the theory to actual human behavior that the nuances become more evident and interesting. This you appear unwilling, so far, to do.

One wonders why you don't toss virtue ethics into the mix too. Unfortunately, the moral theories you are subscribing to are logically incompatible.

No sh**. I believe I have made this clear repeatedly. I am observing and commenting on how humans apply moral decision making rules to their lives. Humans are inherently inconsistent in almost all they do (it is part of the messy state of being human), so it should come as no surprise that human, at different times, utilize decision making rules at different times that are inconsistent with each other.

Again, answer the frigg'n question. Name me one person who uses a single moral decision making rule in all of their actions?

I'm guessing you are familiar with the kinds general "ought" statements that deontologists and consequentialists make, but have a more feeble grasp on how those statements are logically derived. Formal duties, in this context, don't have exceptions. Either you need more complex, situationally appropriate duties, or you are just contradicting yourself.

In theory they don't have exceptions, in practice they do. Even the most hard core formalist will, at times, compromise "principle" in favor of consequence, and vice versa. Why is it so hard for you to grasp this simple, empirically obvious point?

Are you so thick that you cannot grasp the difference between theory and "real life?"

It appears you are just confirming what I said. You are just a person who follows his moral intuition, then looks at what moral system best fits it, then says, "I'm that one."

Wrong. I am, like most everyone else, morally complex and inconsistent. I strive for consistency, but fall short, and I am self aware enough to realize this fact. I also believe it is a sign of moral immaturity to rigidly follow one set of moral decision making rules. Sometimes, one must stand for principle. At other times, consequences must Trump principle.

You just are oblivious to the fact that that you are picking bits and pieces of ideas from theories that attempt to encompass normative ethics are not consistent with one another.

The only one oblivious here is you, who cannot grasp even the simple concept that theory does not frame reality but is merely a useful framework for understanding and explaining reality. Eventually, if theory cannot explain what is empirically observable, it is not of much value. I am using theory to explain human behavior, you are trying to force human behavior into one or another theoretical framework, and discounting the possibility that more than one framework may be required to explain that human behavior.

Trying to read incomplete moral philosophies into God's revelations as communicated by different people at different times to different cultures is not a good idea.

Why not, particularly since it is humans who put the words into God’s mouth?

There is no way that saying, "Thou shall not kill" need be an example of formal rational duties.

In the context in which it is given, and how it is used within the doctrinal framework of modern Christianity, including Mormonism, it is clearly a formal rule, not a principle justified by the “greater good.”

now you're posing as someone who's given deep thought to something that your arguments demonstrates you haven't given much of any thought to at all.

Irony.

I stand by this comment. Your understanding of human morality and the role of theory in rational/scientific enquiry are both superficial. The rigidity and lack of depth you evince on this topic don’t led great confidence that you are anything but a poser expounding on topics that you fundamentally do not understand.