Sender: 1.4 (spamval) -- NONE
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610251406190.22802 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610251406190.22802 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <B6B679D5-6691-4C29-991C-B1D30C33031C &AElig umich.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:11:21 -0400
To: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
Cc: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Robert Felty <robfelty &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: I'm 7% inconsistent
Status: O

me too
here is where I am inconsistent:
Questions 1 and 27: Is morality relative?

44365 of the 97795 people who have completed this activity have this  
tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely  
an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil

The tension between these two beliefs is that, on the one hand, you  
are saying that morality is just a matter of culture and convention,  
but on the other, you are prepared to condemn acts of genocide as  
'evil'. But what does it mean to say 'genocide is evil'? To reconcile  
the tension, you could say that all you mean is that to say 'genocide  
is evil' is to express the values of your particular culture. It does  
not mean that genocide is evil for all cultures and for all times.  
However, are you really happy to say, for example, that the massacre  
of the Tutsi people in 1994 by the Hutu dominated Rwandan Army was  
evil from the point of view of your culture but not evil from the  
point of view of the Rwandan Army, and what is more, that there is no  
sense in which one moral judgement is superior to the other? If moral  
judgements really are 'merely the expression of the values of a  
particular culture', then how are the values which reject genocide  
and torture at all superior to those which do not?

My reasoning for this inconsistency is that 1) I was a bit confused  
by question 27, and 2) when I say that morality is dependent upon  
culture, I mostly just mean that morality is influenced (or perhaps  
defined by) culturally accepted norms, which change from time to  
place. There are of course moral issues which change more than others  
(e.g. homosexuality). In terms of genocide, this could boil down to  
intentions and background reasons. If one's intention is to wipe out  
a bunch of terrorists, the set of whom happens to coincide with a  
particular race, this might not be inherently evil. But attempting to  
wipe out an entire race which has not violently threatened anyone  
(e.g. the holocaust), would most likely be considered morally wrong  
at practically any time or place.

Rob

On Oct 25, 2006, at 2:09 PM, Daniel Reeves wrote:

> How bout you?
>
> http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/check.htm
>
>
> (ps, didn't end up seeing Jesus Camp last night if anyone still  
> wants to see it -- I know most of you are in ann arbor where it  
> doesn't seem to be showing.  maybe we could have a trans-city movie  
> night when it comes out on dvd.)
>
> -- 
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"
>
>