Absolute Immorality Absolutely

[Anonymous Bosch]

after studying deviance and looking for a singularly universal deviant act:eek (it was VERY difficult) i was wondering if a consensus had ever been drawn about what is a abolutely (universally)immoral.

to date, i can't think of anything. got any suggestions?

[Alonzo Fyfe]

I am confused about the question.

By 'consensus', are you talking about something that absolutely everybody agrees upon? If this is the question, then you will not find "consensus" on much of anything in ethics or science. Even the idea of a round earth is subject to debate in some areas.

By 'absolutely immoral', I have to ask what is so special about absolute immorality? One of the major breakthroughs in physics, for example, was the theory of relativity, that showed that characteristics such as size, and mass were relative to speed. Why should we be holding moral principles to a standard of absoluteness that we do not think is appropriate for the hardest of the hard sciences?

If we were to apply the same standards to ethics that we apply to science -- a consensus of those who study such issues in detail and free of superstition and myth -- I would argue that there is a 'consensus' on the wrongness of most types of actions defined as murder, of slavery, of rape, and the other standard crimes.

You do not need universal agreement that something is wrong for it to be wrong in fact -- any more than you need universal agreement that something is true for it to be true in fact.

You do not need for something to be wrong in all possible circumstances for it to be wrong in fact in a particular set of circumstances, any more than you need for something to be true in all possible circumstances for it to be true in fact under present circumstances.

To pretend otherwise is . . . well . . . a bit problematic, shall we say.

[meritocrat]

I'm no expert in ethics and I've never studied philosophy, but I don't believe any action is 'absolutely' wrong.

If by 'absolutely' you mean an action which everybody can agree is unethical, then I don't believe such a thing exists.

Take murder. If an assassin were killed in a premeditated fashion, wouldn't that technically be murder? I feel most people would state that killing the assassin would save life and wouldn't see it as immoral, even though s/he had been murdered.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by meritocrat
Take murder. If an assassin were killed in a premeditated fashion, wouldn't that technically be murder?

Actually, 'murder' is a poor example. Murder is, by definition, wrongful killing. And to say that a wrongful killing is wrong is a tad bit circular.

The question really must be understood as one, not about the wrongness of murder, but about whether a certain type of killing is justified or not.

As I argued above, 'universal agreement' is a poor standard to use. There is no 'universal agreement' on the proposition that the world is round. Does this imply that there is no fact of the matter?

There is more straw in the 'universal agreement' straw man than one can wave a torch at.

[Anonymous Bosch]

alonzo et al,

i guess i was looking for suggestions.....
i had trouble defining deviance myself.... in the end i decided that pure deviance is when somebody acts alone with no support from anybody. (google up australian peter hore "serial pest" for the only example i could get close with.)

the problem then was that even paedophiles and rapists enjoy support from some arenas and some older societies have endorsed such activities including incest, slavery, etc....

what do you think?

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Anonymous Bosch
.....
what do you think?

I think you asked a damned good question.
What you are looking for, of course, is human ethical universals, analogous to linguistic universals or psychological universals.

Ever since I read your OP, I've been thinking about it, and I see two things:
1) I cannot think of any such absolute universal in history, where rule-breakers are always condemned by the society, only of strong statistical tendencies

2) and another problem here is that human nihilism is well known throughout history --- that is, it is well attested that many small groups have placed themselves "above" all common morality, holding it not to apply to them.
Sociopathy, whether inherent or acquired, is nothing new.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Originally posted by Gurdur
I think you asked a damned good question.


YAY! (my first dgq);) (btw, you have p.m.)

what is also interesting is that mental illness which would normally (i would have thought) had all sorts of 'deviant' manifestations actually ends up often presenting as boringly the same. although psych wards don't have as many jesuses (?) as they used to, now they have lots of people putting tin foil on their heads to stop the "rays".... the new "fashion" in mental illness. .

the'yre are are all individuals.... but i'm not

so if even psychotic people are sheep, are we all doomed???

sob sob sob.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Anonymous Bosch
.....
what is also interesting is that mental illness which would normally (i would have thought) had all sorts of 'deviant' manifestations actually ends up often presenting as boringly the same. although psych wards don't have as many jesuses (?) as they used to, now they have lots of people putting tin foil on their heads to stop the "rays".... the new "fashion" in mental illness. .

No, what you actually find is that most "mental illnesses" are not fashions.

The way in which they are expressed is sometimes subject to fashion;
a paranoid in 1610 would have complained the guilds, merchants and the king were in a conspiracy against him;
these days, he would complain about the FBI.

A schizophrenic would linguistically express his disturbance differently according to which culture and time he lived, but it's still the same neurochemical disturbance, with the same tendencies.

so if even psychotic people are sheep, are we all doomed??? No, and no.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Originally posted by Gurdur
No, what you actually find is that most "mental illnesses" are not fashions.

isn't that what i said? i meant to. oops.

[The way in which they are expressed is sometimes subject to fashion;[/B]

yup, that's what i meant......


A schizophrenic would linguistically express his disturbance differently according to which culture and time he lived, but it's still the same neurochemical disturbance, with the same tendencies.

sob, sob, sob... that's what i thought i was saying. :(

and then i still wonder about people who have supposedly little or no grip on reality continuing to be influenced by "fashion".

*sends offerings to the gods of logic in the hope of comprensibility*

ab

[Anonymous Bosch]

bugger, the gods of html abandoned me anyway....

[spacer1]

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe:
You do not need universal agreement that something is wrong for it to be wrong in fact -- any more than you need universal agreement that something is true for it to be true in fact.
As I argued above, 'universal agreement' is a poor standard to use. There is no 'universal agreement' on the proposition that the world is round. Does this imply that there is no fact of the matter?
You also stated on another thread something like (and I hope I'm not misrepresenting you here): "Morality is the unification of states of affairs and desires."??

And also, from another thread: "A "good desire" is a desire that is itself desired (by oneself and others), and useful in bringing about that which is desired (by oneself and others)."

My question is: What about in the case of two people, with competing desires? Which person's desire wins out?

Or, could we conclude from your comments that the ideal morality would be one where each person desires to fulfil the desires of others, rather than to fulfil their own desires?

[XtrueOloveX]

Originally posted by meritocrat
I'm no expert in ethics and I've never studied philosophy, but I don't believe any action is 'absolutely' wrong.

If by 'absolutely' you mean an action which everybody can agree is unethical, then I don't believe such a thing exists.

Take murder. If an assassin were killed in a premeditated fashion, wouldn't that technically be murder? I feel most people would state that killing the assassin would save life and wouldn't see it as immoral, even though s/he had been murdered.

Right and wrong is purely relative. There can be a "general concensus" as to what right and wrong is, but only according to that concensus. There are actions that I think are wrong that others may think are perfectly OK.

Unfortunately, a lot of the actions we think are OK may hurt someone else. The hijackers of 9/11 thought they were doing the right thing, but the families and friends of those killed endured so much pain.

I think it would be impossible to achieve a universal agreement on anything because everyone's idea of right and wrong is so different. Murder is a great example. I think that it, like so many other things, is all in the eye of the beholder.

[Albert Cipriani]

Hatred is the only intrinsically evil (i.e., necessarily deviant) act. Even God cannot bring Himself to hate His arch enemy, Satan. So how much less cause do we have for recourse to it? -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

[Anonymous Bosch]

awwwww, bless you albert. ;)

[ju'iblex]

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani
Hatred is the only intrinsically evil (i.e., necessarily deviant) act. Even God cannot bring Himself to hate His arch enemy, Satan. So how much less cause do we have for recourse to it? -- Albert the Traditional Catholic

Nahum

2 God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.
3 The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.
4 He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers: Bashan languisheth, and Carmel, and the flower of Lebanon languisheth.
5 The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein.
6 Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.
7 The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him.
8 But with an overrunning flood he will make an utter end of the place thereof, and darkness shall pursue his enemies.
9 What do ye imagine against the LORD? he will make an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time.
10 For while they be folden together as thorns, and while they are drunken as drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry.
11 There is one come out of thee, that imagineth evil against the LORD, a wicked counsellor.

[Anonymous Bosch]

QUE?

[Tom Sawyer]

Hatred can be a good thing if it's channelled towards positive ends.

If someone is oppressed, hatred of the oppressors could motivate them to fight for freedom. If someone's child dies of a drug overdose hatred towards the dealers who sold him the drugs could motivate someone to help clean up the neighbourhood.

In regards to the OP question of what is a universally deviant act, I don't think there is such a thing. Deviance means differing from the norm or standards of a society. The norms and standards of a society are determined by the societies individually, not as a whole, so saying that something deviates from the standards of all societies when any given deviant act in one society could be seen as normal behaviour in another means that nothing is universally deviant.

I think that there are certain things, such as slavery, rape, pedophilia, unjustified murder, etc that should be considered deviant in all societies, but members of different societies would disagree with me. I believe that they are wrong, but the fact that their society allows or has allowed the action in the past means that it would not meet the definition of universally deviant.

[Alonzo Fyfe]

Originally posted by spacer1
[B]You also stated on another thread something like (and I hope I'm not misrepresenting you here): "Morality is the unification of states of affairs and desires."??

A slight misrepresentation.

Value concerns relationships between states of affairs and desires. Moral value concerns relationships between desires and (other) desires, regardless of who has them.



Originally posted by spacer1
And also, from another thread: "A "good desire" is a desire that is itself desired (by oneself and others), and useful in bringing about that which is desired (by oneself and others)."

My question is: What about in the case of two people, with competing desires? Which person's desire wins out?

If you are describing a state in which these two different desires exist, then there is nothing more to add. The desires exist, and there is no choice to make.

It is not reasonable to talk about moral value unless there is a choice at stake, and moral choice (I argue) is a choice about which desires to have.

The choice of desires suggests not having desires that are competing against each other, but which, instead, compliment or are in harmony with each other.



Originally posted by spacer1
Or, could we conclude from your comments that the ideal morality would be one where each person desires to fulfil the desires of others, rather than to fulfil their own desires?

'Ideal morality'?

Morality has to take into consideration certain facts about the real world -- the limitations of the laws of physics and hardwired desires that cannot be changed.

A desire only to fulfill the desires of others means no aversion to pain, no desire for sex, no desire to eat or drink (though one will eat and drink to the degree that doing so is useful to fulfilling the desires of others). We are talking about a type of creature that is completely imaginary. It has nothing to say about morality in the real world.

Morality in the real world must pay attention to facts that humans have all of these other desires, and seek desires that allow for cooperation and fulfillment of these other desires. Aversion to killing innocent people, aversion to lying, a desire to help others, all play a role.

It is important to note that each person always, necessarily, acts eo fulfill their own desires to the best of their ability given their beliefs. The moral question is whether, in fulfilling their own desires, they have those desire to fulfill that lead to the fulfillment of other desires regardless of who has them.

[spacer1]

spacer: My question is: What about in the case of two people, with competing desires? Which person's desire wins out?
Alonzo: If you are describing a state in which these two different desires exist, then there is nothing more to add.
They are desires of two different people, but by "competing", I intended that these desires be contrary to each other, or non-complimentary. For example, there is one donut left and you and I both desire to have this donut.
Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe:
It is not reasonable to talk about moral value unless there is a choice at stake, and moral choice (I argue) is a choice about which desires to have.

The choice of desires suggests not having desires that are competing against each other, but which, instead, compliment or are in harmony with each other.
So you and I should desire to share the donut. This seems the only complimentary result that I can see. What underlies this, though? Should I desire that your desires are fulfilled as equally as my own?
Morality has to take into consideration certain facts about the real world -- the limitations of the laws of physics and hardwired desires that cannot be changed.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think there needs to be a god(s) to enforce morality.
'Ideal morality'?
I simply meant the "best" morality for everyone to adopt, if everyone were theoretically to agree to abide by such a social contract.

If this involves desiring that everyone else's desires are fulfilled as equally as my own, as I suggested above, this seems contrary to our more basic desire for survival. Not only in the fact that I end up with less donut, but on the whole, the species seems to have a better survival chance with competition.

However, I'm getting ahead of myself. I'll see if you agree with my conclusion regarding your earlier comments.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Anonymous Bosch
after studying deviance and looking for a singularly universal deviant act:eek (it was VERY difficult) i was wondering if a consensus had ever been drawn about what is a abolutely (universally)immoral.

to date, i can't think of anything. got any suggestions?

Though what sexual behaviors are allowable varies from culture to culture, I wonder if it isn't true that all cultures condemn those whose sexual behavior falls outside the cultural standards.

Also, I suspect that pooping in the well, or any other behaviors that would quickly eliminate a tribe that practiced those behaviors, to be nearly universally deplored.
crc

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by wiploc
.....
Also, I suspect that pooping in the well, or any other behaviors that would quickly eliminate a tribe that practiced those behaviors, to be nearly universally deplored.
You hit the nail on the head --- but you haven't quite seen it.

The important part in your statement was "a tribe"; and what you meant was one's own tribe, a different thing.

Destroying the well of a different tribe was often seen as a Good Thing.

The most important criterion in moral relations is wether you cognitively regard the other person as human or not, or whether you condemn that other person as being less than fully human by belonging to another tribe, and therefore exempt from the moral protections afforded to the members of your own tribe.

Such recognition of another person as fully human is definitely built upon an inherent basis, but it is very open to cognitive change and block.

[Anonymous Bosch]

so gurdur, are you saying that some form of self-sabotage could be universally condemned? mmmmnnnnnnnmmmnn