Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definitions of Morality
Message-ID: <1410@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 08:47:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1410
Posted: Tue Aug 27 08:47:43 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 20:52:27 EDT
References: <1358@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1700@psuvax1.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 69

In article <1700@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes:

>> Here's a curious fact which I came upon yesterday.  But first let we define
>> a couple of terms:

>> MORAL ABSOLUTE - A principle concerning morality which is absolutely true,
>>                  regardless of which moral system you subscribe to.

>> (not to be confused with absolute morals)

>> ABSOLUTE MORAL RELATIVISM - the idea that it is impossible to conclude that
>>                 any particular moral system is correct.

>> (as compared to ordinary moral relativism, which holds that it is
>>  impossible within any particular moral system to judge that another
>>  is incorrect)

Notice the above definition carefully...

>> The curious fact is, absolute moral relativism is self-contradictory,
>> because it states a moral absolute.

>> Some moral systems do in fact state that it can be determined that they are
>> correct and others are wrong.  Some simply state that it can be determined
>> that certain morals are always incorrect.  According to absolute moral
>> relativism, however, such conclusions are incorrect.  This means that this
>> principle that you cannot determine incorrectness is a moral absolute, and
>> that one can therefore determine outside of any particular system that
>> a particular system is incorrect, contrary to absolute moral relativism.
>> Hence, absolute moral relativism cannot be correct.  (Incidentally, this
>> would seem to imply that there are moral absolutes, since the denial of
>> this leads to the same contradiction.)

>Being a relativist, I must admit that it may be practical in some situations
>to regard some moral values as absolute.  Thus the statement that
>it is impossible to determine that any particular moral system is correct
>may be incorrect.   As all other moral statements.

>Is there a self-contradiction?  Not necessary.  One solution is to have
>introduce time variable into the logic.  Then we would admit statements
>which are true at a given time.  Imagine a formula which does not involve
>time variable, but contains several free variables (denoting people, 
>material goods, places etc.).  Now we may have a situation that at certain
>time moment the formula is true under all interpretations (i.e. for all
>people, material goods, places etc. existing at this moment, with the 
>truth values of relationships being evaluated at this moment), but at
>another moment of time the formula is not valid under certain interpretation.
>Thus universally valid could have two meanings: universally valid at
>a given time, or universally valid for all times.
>Again, assuming ignorance on the states of the world at certain time points
>(distant future or distant past, for example) it may well be impossible
>to determine universality over time of any statement which is not an
>utter tautology, like
>   "if A is better that B then it is better to do A then to do B".

>SHOOT!!  I, a relativist, revealed myself an universally valid principle!
>More seriously Charlie, before accusing others of contradicting themselves, 
>refresh your knowledge on logic.

What?  Aren't you just proving my point?  Does this not make you something 
other than an absolute moral relativist?  In the section which Piotr
excised, I stated quite plainly that the problem I saw does not effect less
strong varieties of moral relativism.

There is a small error in my definition of absolute moral relativism.  It
should say that "it is impossible to determine the correctness *or
incorrectness* of any particular moral system on moral principles."

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe