Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Moral Authority Fallacy
Topic Started: Jun 26 2006, 12:00 PM (477 Views)
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
Pick a criteria, apply it and then you can choose accurately which one is the best.


I don't see this as a trustworthy method because people pick what they like, what they feel comfortable with, or what they've been taught is the best.

I think we first have to decide what it is we really want, and then we can pick the method that seems most likely to get us there.

But we have to understand that there really isn't much we have have (as a guarantee)
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
abradf2519
Jun 27 2006, 02:48 PM
Pick a criteria, apply it and then you can choose accurately which one is the best.

And the criteria suitable to choose the bible over all the other sacred books of history is...?

Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
"Pick a criteria, apply it and then you can choose accurately which one is the best."

That's moral relativism, is it not? Don't get me wrong, that's perfectly fine for individuals (and perhaps granfalloons). But we're talking morals here, moral authority, and that is social, truth that lies between or among people, in a meaningful, non-granfalloon way.

I don't really have the answer, I have ideas, this is exploratory.

The example of cars is interesting because societies do form economic markets that do decide which is best. The decision is not so simple, it is not majoritarian, it is spontaneous (in the sense of economists like Hayek), with potential evolutionary implications.

Can we project economic market spontaneity and evolution onto religions, apply it as a criterion? Over time, religions change, they split, must join, they live, they die. Are those that survive closer to truth? Or are they granfallooneous trust cues?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
Moral relativism is not the issue when picking a moral authority. It is a symtom of a lack of a moral authority.

In a secular society, like the one we have, there is no moral authority, other than our system of laws. Hence the conclusion (prematurely reached IMHO) "The Moral Authority Fallacy". Without a moral authority, the concept can only be a fallicy, because everyone's selfish viewpoints conflict.

Left to his/her own devices, we pick morals that suit ourselves. This does not work in a society, because people will end up hurting each other, while thinking they are being "moral". This is why we need a moral authority.

I could cheat on this argument by picking criteria that makes Christianity look the best. I will try resist this urge.

For criteria, I suggest the following:

1. Pick a moral system that is designed not to satisfy a person's or a group's selfish interests.

2. Pick a moral system that is designed for harmonious living of individuals.

3. Pick an authority that follows its own rules.

4. Pick an authority that at least claims to understand our situation to a greater depth than we do.

5. Pick an authority that desires to make things better for us, and has actually done things to this end.

6. Pick a moral system that is well documented and the documentation is consistent.

7. Pick a moral system that has been proven to work, by actual societies using the system and being successful
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Alan, the topic is more about how we can arrive at truth, not morals, though they may represent a kind of truth.


"Moral relativism is not the issue when picking a moral authority. It is a symtom of a lack of a moral authority."

The very act of picking among many supposed moral authorities implies moral relativism. You may claim Christianity and the Bible, but that's merely relative to you. What about the rice farmer in China, the elephant tender in India? Don't they, too, pick equally moral authorities, relative to them?


"In a secular society, like the one we have, there is no moral authority, other than our system of laws."

Well, we either do or we don't. Is rule of law--the Constitution and body of laws a moral authority? Could be. How did we arrive at that? Rather spontaneously, right?


"Without a moral authority, the concept can only be a fallicy, because everyone's selfish viewpoints conflict."

Would it be possible to do this individually based upon, not selfish interest, but self-interest? Such as Adam Smith wrote of in Wealth of Nations?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
we arrive at truth through testing.
just as we can discover that fire is hot by touching it, we can discover that lying, stealing, killing leads to social ostracism.
we can construct and refine our social systems by observing other systems or trying something entirely new....looking for what works and what doesn't work.
but man is prone to tinkering with everything he has.
and social systems get tweaked because societies change.
and since it's all by trial and error, we screw up sometimes and have to start all over.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Interesting, that's very empirical. It's what I understand Hayek and others mean by spontaneous order. It may have been what Spencer meant by survival of the fittest/social Darwinism before fascists, communists and Christians corrupted the intent.

The earliest colonists in America adopted communal or collective practices, sharing work and harvests and most starved until they divided the land into individual properties and each found incentive to work, even cooperatively. Trial and error.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Even if truth is something shared, via empirical or other means, something social, isn't there a danger of stiffling the search for it with social norms and institutions?

Groupthink vs. freedom looks at at how students protested at The New School in NYC when university president Bob Kerrey invited Sen. John McCain to address graduates at this year's commencement ceremony. Some thought he might evangelize. The op-ed warns, however,
Quote:
 
What's worse is that they seem not to have learned, after spending years in higher education, that censorship is far more dangerous than free speech, that we're more likely to find the truth through freedom of expression and open-mindedness, through free inquiry and an uncensored exchange of ideas, than through the suppression of ideas and the repression of free speech.

The idea that people should be silenced so that they won't be able to say anything that might be "offensive" to someone else, the concept that the individual must submit to a groupthink orthodoxy, the idea that the individual must submit to what's best for everyone else, represent direct strikes at the heart of American democracy and individual liberty.

"Without free speech no search for truth is possible," wrote 19th-century British social reformer Charles Bradlaugh. "Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people."
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
cmoehle
Jun 28 2006, 10:54 AM
Alan, the topic is more about how we can arrive at truth, not morals, though they may represent a kind of truth.


"Moral relativism is not the issue when picking a moral authority. It is a symtom of a lack of a moral authority."

The very act of picking among many supposed moral authorities implies moral relativism. You may claim Christianity and the Bible, but that's merely relative to you. What about the rice farmer in China, the elephant tender in India? Don't they, too, pick equally moral authorities, relative to them?

Actually since my heratige is mostly northern Europian, I am more "relative" to Thor or Odin, than Jesus Christ, a Jew from the middle east.

Christianity is a global religion, not a local one.

Quote:
 
"In a secular society, like the one we have, there is no moral authority, other than our system of laws."

Well, we either do or we don't. Is rule of law--the Constitution and body of laws a moral authority? Could be. How did we arrive at that? Rather spontaneously, right?
No, we were influenced by the bible (from a secular view) and other writtings.

Quote:
 
"Without a moral authority, the concept can only be a fallicy, because everyone's selfish viewpoints conflict."

Would it be possible to do this individually based upon, not selfish interest, but self-interest? Such as Adam Smith wrote of in Wealth of Nations?


I'll admit its possible, but not probable. Men always seem to have a selfish agenda hidden somewhere.

Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
Even if truth is something shared, via empirical or other means, something social, isn't there a danger of stiffling the search for it with social norms and institutions?


for sure, and this has happened over and over again.
mostly because people are loosely divided into two groups/ leaders and followers... like dance partners.
if either side makes a radical deviation from the routine (and well known) dance steps, the other side gets off balance and objects.
both sides like conformity and have to be shown that a new step really is better.
(if it ain't broke, don't fix it)
and then, a new idea is sometimes risky. it might be good, but it could be very bad in the long run, and the only way to find out is to test it.
the problem here is that most people are unwilling to admit error after putting in a lot of time and effort on the new idea. they just go on trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
"Christianity is a global religion, not a local one."

So are many other religions. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.


"No, we were influenced by the bible (from a secular view) and other writtings."

Naturally. What I'm getting at is our nation nor our Constitution were planned. Delegates went to a convention to reform the Confederation. What happened was spontaneous.

It was self-interested but not selfish.

What came of it was this great nation.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Jane, dance is a good metaphor. It requires balance and rythm and coordination. But should we dance stiff like Shakers, or Foot Loose--probably something in between.


"if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

He not busy being born is busy dying -- Dylan

Isn't stagnation the opposite extreme of chaos?

Perhaps testing changes is better in small groups, failure doesn't affect so much the larger, who can then adopt and adapt what works.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
"if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

He not busy being born is busy dying -- Dylan

Isn't stagnation the opposite extreme of chaos?

Perhaps testing changes is better in small groups, failure doesn't affect so much the larger, who can then adopt and adapt what works.


I agree. All I'm saying is that lots of people don't like changes that seem unnecessary...until they are shown that the new way is better even if the old way works good, too.
We are a species that like routine.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
cmoehle
Jun 29 2006, 11:13 AM
"Christianity is a global religion, not a local one."

So are many other religions. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

Yup, although I think Hinduism is really local, since you don't see too many non Indians taking up Hinduism, but I agree for Islam and Buddism.

Quote:
 
It was self-interested but not selfish.

What came of it was this great nation.


Well I think the biblical input had something to do with that.

Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
TexasShadow
Jun 29 2006, 03:22 PM
Quote:
 
"if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

He not busy being born is busy dying -- Dylan

Isn't stagnation the opposite extreme of chaos?

Perhaps testing changes is better in small groups, failure doesn't affect so much the larger, who can then adopt and adapt what works.


I agree. All I'm saying is that lots of people don't like changes that seem unnecessary...until they are shown that the new way is better even if the old way works good, too.
We are a species that like routine.

And if we're inflexible, we break.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply