I once knew someone who was such a utilitarian that he thought human life was not a value at all. A friend of mine once asked him "Well, if that is your view, what would be wrong with me killing you now?" His answer was "Only if you could do it painlessly.
18 comments:
Would have thought the answer should be "As long as you use the least resources possible."
Reminds me of this bizarre idea of antinatalism I heard of years ago on Sam Harris' podcast; it was easy to find if anyone is interested, for a few minutes perhaps...
https://samharris.org/podcasts/107-life-actually-worth-living/
Victor,
Have you ever thought of doing a post on how moral relativism is the norm now?
Even your first sentence assumes it:
I once knew someone who was such a utilitarian that he thought [preserving] human life was not a value at all.
The very idea that morality is about 'values' unhinges morality from objectivity and places it in a realm of personal subjectivity. Talking about right and wrong, good and evil is so medieval. Hasn't everyone has tacitly surrendered to moral relativism?
Oops: Should be:
Hasn't everyone tacitly surrendered to moral relativism?
@bmiller
https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2019/01/does-relativism-lead-to-tolerance.html
Btw, looks like I had just forgotten about Kevin, haha
Actually I am interested in asking the question of how you argue against such a position. (The guy was an atheist, by the way).
I wasn't thinking about the atheist. I'm was talking about everyone else.
Even the pope talks in terms of 'values'. Are we all moral relativists now? Who isn't?
Maybe there is a misunderstanding.
I'm asking why shouldn't we all admit we're moral relativists? We all talk and act like we are.
Seriously guys... why are you not just re-reading that 2-year-old tread... there's nothing new as far as I can tell...
Btw, no it makes no sense to say we are all moral relativists. The second you agree that there is something like Justice let's say, with a big 'j' you know, something that has a clear objective definition and falls under the umbrella of morality, it implies there is such a thing as moral objectivity.
Also, correcting myself yet again... It's not that I had forgotten Kevin, it's that Kevin used to be called Legion of Logic. Right?
I think making a reference to someone's values entails that they are a relativist. One can have, after all, misplaced values.
But values are inherently relative aren't they? A value is just the amount of attachment that a person has to something, right?
You may think they are not sufficiently attached to something or that they are overly attached to something because you have a different level of attachment but a 'value' is inherently subjective, even your's. When we talk to each other this way, in terms of values, we are already in the framework of relativism. We have given up on the idea of an objective 'good'.
I mention this because I see everyone doing it. The fight for objective morality is over and relativism has won.
No, I think of values as open to objective consideration. Nothing about the use of the term "values" entail relativism. In fact, I think there are objective moral values. If you have a value, you may hold that value as a private preference, or you might hold that everyone ought to value it. If you value the life of a fetus, you might value it because it's going to be your child and you want that child, or you might value it because its life ought to be valued by everyone, including the abortionists at Planned Parenthood.
In fact, I think there are objective moral values.
Wouldn't another way to say this is that there is an objective 'good' and people should naturally be drawn to the 'good'? And if they aren't their morality is disordered?
The problem with phrasing it in terms of a value is that a value is a personal assessment of the worth of something. That removes the discussion one step away from crux of the issue and then all we talk about is our own personal values, which are subjective to us.
This is a very good example:
If you value the life of a fetus, you might value it because it's going to be your child and you want that child, or you might value it because its life ought to be valued by everyone, including the abortionists at Planned Parenthood.
What if I don't value the life of a fetus for either reason? Well, then all that can be said is that I have different values from other people. It's clear that many people simply have no sense of right and wrong. Only that there are different values.
If you don't value the life of the fetus but you ought to, then you have misplaced values. I deliberated used the phrase "ought to be valued" in my statement. I know there used to be something called "values clarification" which had relativist implications, but the very use of the term "values" doesn't entail this sort of thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aikMWBm29U
Values have ceased to be taught as being objective since Max Weber's time.
Weber reasons that science can never answer the fundamental questions of life, such as directing people on how to live their lives and what to value. Value he contends can only be derived from personal beliefs such as religion. He further argues for the separation of reason and faith, noting that each has its place in respective field but if crossed over cannot work.
If you don't value the life of the fetus but you ought to, then you have misplaced values. I deliberated used the phrase "ought to be valued" in my statement.
But ought I value the life of the fetus? See how the discussion has shifted away from objectivity when we talk about values.
Post a Comment