Moral relativism is like saying the sun has variable insolesence. Absolute morality is like claiming the sun is the sun everywhere on earth. Try explaining the midnight sun's weak rays with that!
"Morality" has 2 facets: the first, is the societal facet. This is the part where the creationists consider evolution to be dirty lies, and which compells them to interject their religious beliefs onto others via the political system. The microsociety they have created for themselves views the abandonment of creationist dogma as abhorrent and evil. They all share that view within their sub-society, and cling to a dogma of moral absolutism to justify their trespasses. (Sorry creationists, but you are too easy a target.) The other facet of morality, is the personal. What each individual considers to be personally good or bad. Things like my mom's refusal to support the march of dimes, because she heard they funded experiments on babies many years ago.
Moral absolutism, if it were real, would mean that people everywhere would hold a core set of universal beleifs, and that this would be undeniably demonstrable.
Moral absolutism means that everyone must agree? You made that up out of thin air.
Certain truths are self-evident. This includes the human right to life, for example.
By the way, how do you consistently apply moral relativism? How do you justify the very existence of the police and the court system if all morality is relative?
I have never seen it used _for_ a Judeo-Christian idea.
An example: the human right to life, irrespective of his culture, religion, race, nationality, sexual orientation or even crimes. That's quite supportive of the Judeo-Christian idea of "Do not Kill." Of course that is not an exclusive concept, an example of which I find difficult to come up with. I'm little bit too tired to think about how moral relativism could be used to construct an argument for an ontological statement.
You did not understand what I wrote. I wanted an example of _moral relativism_ being used to defend a Judeo-Christian idea.
I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, it's about finding the balance between the interests of the individual and the interests of society. Basically this means addressing every issue individually. Without a predetermined "moral code" to refer to, this is not easy, I admit; but it is necessary. The alternative is a philosophy of moral absolutism, which means attempting to apply simple, predetermined decisions to new and complex problems. That may be easier, but is it better? I don't think it is.
How exactly do you balance that? If you do it by democracy, you are basing that on the idea that it is just to follow what the majority wants. But this is itself a moral judgment, so we have a chicken-and-egg problem.
I believe that there's a good argument to be made in favor of selecting against Huntingtons.
If I was born with Huntingtons, I would still prefer life than death. And, even if I believed in the morality of euthanasia (which I don't), I would thank my parents for letting ME choose.
Of course it is non-binding. That's the whole point. You're trying to assert that there must be absolute morality, because relative morality cannot be absolute. Your argument is irrational. Morals are relative because there is no basis for absolute morality.
Straw man. I simply said that moral relativism implies that moral relativism is itself relative, and therefore saying "no one should impose his morals on others" is a self-contradiction: if you really believe morality is relative, then you cannot judge my action of imposing "my morals" on you.
Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values; the denial that there are universal moral values shared by every human society; and the insistence that we should refrain from passing moral judgments on beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than our own.
actually agree with the rest of your argument but not this point. How is this so much worse than choosing an attractive mate? Yes it takes chance out of the equation but it's not that different.
It is different for a couple of reasons. One of them is that selecting a spouse is a _far_ slower process of eugenics, and society has time to adapt to it without creating a completely separated upper class. And for myself, I care more about the mind of the woman than her genes. Although I do have a bias for beautiful women.
I think the fact that it will be available only to the rich for the first few decades is the main problem, basically leading to the plot of GATTACA.
Even if it is accessible to everyone, a significant minority of people (a third or so) would not do it because of moral considerations. They would be the "naturals". The other people would become the upper class that would not be even human. And this upper class is composed exactly of the people (and their descendants) who see no problem with the whole process. So they would be disproportionately callous towards human life.
Would they respect the naturals? I doubt. They would see us as we see chimps. Maybe even worse; chimps are stupid by accident (they have no other choice), while the naturals are stupid because of moral considerations. So it is our fault that we are stupid.
Exactly what dignity do you see in a child dying from a genetic disease?
Life.
If I was born with a genetic disease, my life would still be better than death.
And even if I did believe in the morality of euthanasia (which I don't), I would still thank my parents for allowing me to reach the age of reason and then decide for myself.
Moral absolutism has to deal with the problem of which moral framework is correct. There is no moral authority in nature so, naturally, different individuals come up with different answers.
Some moral values are self-evident. For example:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Also, moral relativists are huge hypocrites. They claim moral relativism when we are discussing something that they like (such as prostitution), but when we discuss something they do not like (such as deforestation, or nuclear energy), then they are all for absolute morality.
Nice strawman.
This is not a straw man, this is my honest observation. When it comes to abortion, you often hear "if you are against abortion, then just don't have one" or "abortion is a choice!". But these same people support overtaxing people for carbon emissions even though AGW is controversial.
I have never seen moral relativism used consistently; it is used as a weapon against certain Judeo-Christian ideas. I have never seen it used _for_ a Judeo-Christian idea.
And then, we're not just talking about giving people glowing ears or racing stripes, we're also talking about making sure they'll never contract HIV, or the plague, or congenital blindness. What do you tell someone who's born with an abnormality? "Sorry, but our advanced moral consciousness demands that you be born blind, because it would be a violation of human dignity for you not to be"? Why are genotypic changes such a big deal, but phenotypic modifications, like vaccines, not a "violation of human dignity"? Is it a violation of human dignity that I'm immune to measles, because I grew up rich and white in the western world, while a billion Africans are not?
The current technique (and what Savulescu is talking about) involves killing undesired unborn children. And, if I had the choice, I would much rather be born blind than not be born at all.
Perhaps it is simply the case that many bear the banner of moral relativism are hypocrites.
Not "many". ALL. I have never seen (or heard of) one single moral relativist that _even tries_ to be minimally consistent.
If you mention abortion or prostitution, they are all about "don't impose your morality on others". But the instant you mention something they don't like (say, nuclear energy), they change their minds and now say that thing is evil and must be forbidden. And they are not even embarrassed; they don't even appreciate the irony; they don't seem to feel any guilt.
By the way, how does moral relativism translate to a political philosophy? You could say "since morality is relative, we must not interfere with other people's lives" but that would be itself a moral judgment, and therefore relative and non-binding.
You could say "whatever the majority wants, the government must obey" but that is itself a moral judgment, and therefore relative and non-binding.
Tell me how do you _consistently_ base a political philosophy on moral relativism.
I specifically said that "This proposal has horrible intrinsic moral problems." Creating a designer human, as if he/she was a consumer product, violates human dignity.
I left out a clause that makes my hypothetical a bit unclear, but the baby is the one with the two-year, terminal disease. Would your answer still apply in that case?
You said that the pregnancy was risky (thus the possibility of inducing early labor) _and_ the baby was ill. I answered taking that into account. Yes.
Anyway, we should probably stop here. You will not convince me of the "relativity" of morality and I will not convince you of the contrary.
What is your real fear, that there will be 2 or more 'classes' of people? How is that different from any other time in human history?
This would be much worse than the current rich/poor divide. The rich are a minority; thus, in a democratic society, they have a small share of the votes and this alleviates their dominance. Also, there is mobility: some rich become poor and some poor become rich. And, the rich at least are the same species as us, so they normally feel some compassion.
But if genetic engineering becomes legal and acceptable, I believe a majority of people would do it. Thus, there would be a majority of strong, intelligent and powerful beings. Naturally, they would become rich (due to their advantages). So we would have a majority of strong, intelligent, powerful AND rich beings, against a minority of naturals. I fear we would be treated like animals.
Let's posit a disease which is virtually guaranteed to cause death within a couple of years. Oh, and it is very painful. And no known painkillers have much of an effect. And while we're at it, let's add in a severe risk to the mother if the baby is carried to term. Plus, we'll introduce a simple screening test that'll detect the disease in the first weeks of pregnancy.
Treat whatever disease the woman has that makes the pregnancy risky. One solution of last resort would be to induce early labor, with all care to maximize the baby's chance of survival.
And this is a rhetoric question anyway, because these things are _extremely_ rare.
Genetic engineering is different from what you describe, for multiple reasons. One reason is that what you describe is not transmitted to the child's offspring, so it is less likely to result in a separated and immensely powerful upper class. See http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056849&cid=41035551
And if your whistling-past-the-graveyard la-dee-da-chance-is-fine-with-me baby turns out to need $200k worth of otherwise avoidable neo-natal heart work or a lifetime of constant nursing care, you'll be happy to stick other people with the bill, too, right? Because that how that ends of working.
It's one thing to get hit by a bus on your way to work and rack up $1m in neurolgical services. It's another thing to decide to go rock climging without a belay or helmet, and do the same. Likewise, knowing you've got a quarter of a teaspoon of embryo with sure-fire signs of a short, miserable, explensive life of pain and suffering in store for it, and proceeding anyway... yeah, you're a nice guy. Chance is fun! Save it for poker, not the avoidable horror show of a sick and dying kid.
It would be egregious however to deny someone treatment for alcoholism on the basis that it will hurt their literary output.
No one is speaking of denying someone treatment for alcoholism. We are speaking of engineering designer humans, which not only violates human dignity but also would create a dystopia with vastly different social classes (much worse than it is now). See http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056849&cid=41035551
What is a human? Isn't it just a featherless biped with opposable thumbs?
How do you genetically define what a human and a non human is, the people that would be the product of this unnatural selection, would still be products of selection, it's just the selection would be done by the humans themselves. Isn't it the exact opposite of what you are claiming, these people will be more human, because they will be the implementation of desires that humans have for themselves at this moment?
This is a philosophical question with no consequences for this debate. The point is, once the powerful beings are different enough from the naturals, they will probably think of themselves as better than the naturals, just like we normal humans think of us as better than chimps.
You are being selfish, not wanting other people to be less likely than you to suffer from mental illness, premature death from failing organs, etc. The word "selfish" presents all sorts of opportunities for irony, and you just landed some.
Since it doesn't affect me (when/if human-engineering starts to have a big effect on society, I will be already old or even dead), worrying about it is not selfishness. I am actually worrying about other people, and society; I don't want an upper class of strong, intelligent, long-lived powerful beings (who would not necessarily even self-identify as humans) to utterly dominate a lower class of naturals.
Second, human-engineering violates human dignity; far from being a right, it is the opposite of it. It should be forbidden even if it didn't have catastrophic societal consequences.
Besides, why on Earth do you think that parents would restrict themselves to weed out bad traits? We would have people doing all sorts of things; some would engineer babies to make them obedient and docile (so raising them is less stressful), for example.
Slashdot Mirror
Moral absolutism means that everyone must agree? You made that up out of thin air.
Certain truths are self-evident.
This includes the human right to life, for example.
By the way, how do you consistently apply moral relativism? How do you justify the very existence of the police and the court system if all morality is relative?
You did not understand what I wrote. I wanted an example of _moral relativism_ being used to defend a Judeo-Christian idea.
How exactly do you balance that?
If you do it by democracy, you are basing that on the idea that it is just to follow what the majority wants. But this is itself a moral judgment, so we have a chicken-and-egg problem.
If I was born with Huntingtons, I would still prefer life than death. And, even if I believed in the morality of euthanasia (which I don't), I would thank my parents for letting ME choose.
Straw man. I simply said that moral relativism implies that moral relativism is itself relative, and therefore saying "no one should impose his morals on others" is a self-contradiction: if you really believe morality is relative, then you cannot judge my action of imposing "my morals" on you.
Also, see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056849&cid=41037805
From http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/
This is what I am talking about.
It is different for a couple of reasons. One of them is that selecting a spouse is a _far_ slower process of eugenics, and society has time to adapt to it without creating a completely separated upper class.
And for myself, I care more about the mind of the woman than her genes. Although I do have a bias for beautiful women.
Even if it is accessible to everyone, a significant minority of people (a third or so) would not do it because of moral considerations. They would be the "naturals". The other people would become the upper class that would not be even human. And this upper class is composed exactly of the people (and their descendants) who see no problem with the whole process. So they would be disproportionately callous towards human life.
Would they respect the naturals? I doubt. They would see us as we see chimps. Maybe even worse; chimps are stupid by accident (they have no other choice), while the naturals are stupid because of moral considerations. So it is our fault that we are stupid.
I think the upper class would despise us.
Eugenics plays with people who were not given any choice. It treats people as objects. This makes it wrong in itself.
And the consequences, as I've argued elsewhere, are awful. A Brave New World style of dystopia.
Life.
If I was born with a genetic disease, my life would still be better than death.
And even if I did believe in the morality of euthanasia (which I don't), I would still thank my parents for allowing me to reach the age of reason and then decide for myself.
Some moral values are self-evident. For example:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This is not a straw man, this is my honest observation. When it comes to abortion, you often hear "if you are against abortion, then just don't have one" or "abortion is a choice!". But these same people support overtaxing people for carbon emissions even though AGW is controversial.
I have never seen moral relativism used consistently; it is used as a weapon against certain Judeo-Christian ideas. I have never seen it used _for_ a Judeo-Christian idea.
Because, to this day, human genetic engineering has been either unavailable, illegal or not viable.
I would rather give up on public health than let the government decide which children are allowed to be born based on economic criteria.
The current technique (and what Savulescu is talking about) involves killing undesired unborn children. And, if I had the choice, I would much rather be born blind than not be born at all.
Not "many". ALL. I have never seen (or heard of) one single moral relativist that _even tries_ to be minimally consistent.
If you mention abortion or prostitution, they are all about "don't impose your morality on others". But the instant you mention something they don't like (say, nuclear energy), they change their minds and now say that thing is evil and must be forbidden. And they are not even embarrassed; they don't even appreciate the irony; they don't seem to feel any guilt.
By the way, how does moral relativism translate to a political philosophy? You could say "since morality is relative, we must not interfere with other people's lives" but that would be itself a moral judgment, and therefore relative and non-binding.
You could say "whatever the majority wants, the government must obey" but that is itself a moral judgment, and therefore relative and non-binding.
Tell me how do you _consistently_ base a political philosophy on moral relativism.
I specifically said that "This proposal has horrible intrinsic moral problems." Creating a designer human, as if he/she was a consumer product, violates human dignity.
You said that the pregnancy was risky (thus the possibility of inducing early labor) _and_ the baby was ill. I answered taking that into account. Yes.
Anyway, we should probably stop here. You will not convince me of the "relativity" of morality and I will not convince you of the contrary.
This would be much worse than the current rich/poor divide. The rich are a minority; thus, in a democratic society, they have a small share of the votes and this alleviates their dominance. Also, there is mobility: some rich become poor and some poor become rich. And, the rich at least are the same species as us, so they normally feel some compassion.
But if genetic engineering becomes legal and acceptable, I believe a majority of people would do it. Thus, there would be a majority of strong, intelligent and powerful beings. Naturally, they would become rich (due to their advantages). So we would have a majority of strong, intelligent, powerful AND rich beings, against a minority of naturals. I fear we would be treated like animals.
Treat whatever disease the woman has that makes the pregnancy risky. One solution of last resort would be to induce early labor, with all care to maximize the baby's chance of survival.
And this is a rhetoric question anyway, because these things are _extremely_ rare.
Genetic engineering is different from what you describe, for multiple reasons. One reason is that what you describe is not transmitted to the child's offspring, so it is less likely to result in a separated and immensely powerful upper class. See http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056849&cid=41035551
Human dignity is more important than money.
No one is speaking of denying someone treatment for alcoholism. We are speaking of engineering designer humans, which not only violates human dignity but also would create a dystopia with vastly different social classes (much worse than it is now). See http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056849&cid=41035551
This is a philosophical question with no consequences for this debate.
The point is, once the powerful beings are different enough from the naturals, they will probably think of themselves as better than the naturals, just like we normal humans think of us as better than chimps.
Michael Moore, is that you?
Since it doesn't affect me (when/if human-engineering starts to have a big effect on society, I will be already old or even dead), worrying about it is not selfishness. I am actually worrying about other people, and society; I don't want an upper class of strong, intelligent, long-lived powerful beings (who would not necessarily even self-identify as humans) to utterly dominate a lower class of naturals.
Second, human-engineering violates human dignity; far from being a right, it is the opposite of it. It should be forbidden even if it didn't have catastrophic societal consequences.
Besides, why on Earth do you think that parents would restrict themselves to weed out bad traits? We would have people doing all sorts of things; some would engineer babies to make them obedient and docile (so raising them is less stressful), for example.