Abba:
No offense, but it's kinda hard to understand what you're getting at; if you can make it a bit clearer (in terms of your prose, not the abstruseness of the concepts you're using), it'd be appreciated. I'll try, however, to speak to your points as best I can understand them. So forgive me for going at this in such a piecemeal fashion.
McLesterolBeast said:
Legislating morality is fine and dandy in my books, so long as the objectives that the moral content seeks to accomplish can be justified in accordance with the objective interests of society.
And I firmly believe that the moral content of the values I'm advocating
does, in fact, square with the objective interests of society. It is in no way a religious stance that would only benefit or appeal to a narrow segment of society. For instance, is lowering the rate of drug use in our society
objectively desirable? Clearly it is, both in terms of eliminating the
personal tragedies resultant from drug use as well as the financial toll it exacts upon our society (lost productivity, prison and policing costs, rehab programs, the risible and fruitless "war on drugs" etc.). Similarly, is lowering the incidence of teen pregnancies a worthwhile goal for society? Again, the answer is unequivocally
yes, both for the personal tragedies that would be averted (girls who can't continue their education or follow their dreams due to the very real burdens imposed by an unplanned pregnancy, children born to parents who didn't want them etc.)
as well as a reduction in the costs borne by society as a result of such births (increased utilization of welfare programs, the need for larger and more comprehensive day care programs in schools etc.).
The point is that I could perform such an analysis for any pressing social issue, and in each instance, it would be evident that the result is
clearly objectively beneficial not only for the individual, but in the best interests of the
entire society as well. And the incidence of nearly every one of these pressing social maladies would be
drastically reduced by the promotion of some of the very simple, yet very
sound values I mentioned earlier-- namely, temperance, civility, an eschewal of materialism and licentiousness for their own sake, respect (both self-respect and interpersonal respect), and charity. Certainly such social ailments will not just "disappear" once we start returning to some of these ethical values, but I believe that over time things
will change; moreover, such a society will be
sustainable, being based in sound practice and time-tested values.
So as we can see, such values are indeed objectively beneficial for a society; that's the reason why they've been advocated by
secular philosophers and commentators for centuries now. They have tangible, desirable results.
What you're doing, in effect, is changing the preferences of citizens so that they're better suited to fit their own 'objective' interests, or the interests of society
Ok, this is where you begin to lose me. Based upon this post and what I've said previously, how can it reasonably be said that I'm trying to "change the preferences of citizens so that their desires better conform to the interests of society or their own objective interests"? I simply don't understand how you're coming to that conclusion. Allow me to ask for clarification by asking a yes/no question that I'd like answered directly, which will help me get a better grip on what you're saying:
Are certain states of affairs
objectively desirable for the individual and society? Your usage of quotes for the word "objective" suggests that you do not believe that certain situations are, nearly without exception, detrimental to the overall well-being of the individual and the society of which they are a part. So I ask whether you believe that there exists certain objectively desirable conditions in general-- yes or no?
Now, if you're alluding to a situation where the interests of the individual run counter to the interests of society, well, that's different. We are then within our rights to ask precisely
why such a person's interests are so at odds with society's best interests. And, more often than not, the answer to
that question is faulty habituation/acculturation. Obviously, I am not envisioning a society of automatons, where a person is "not allowed" to do as they please even if it's contrary to the wishes of "society"; what I am saying is that society is under
no obligation to condone such unproductive actions and behaviors through laws or programs or culture, as we do currently. Society
must, of necessity, tend to its own perpetuation even when its individual constituents may not; a society's resilience in the face of social ills such as drug use or teen pregnancy (to use the examples already given) is dependent upon
both its contingency programs (rehab, day care, welfare etc.)
as well as its ability to successfully limit the occurrence of said ills. It is in this latter capacity that I feel we fail in our charge all too often. No reasonable person advocates eliminating programs that aid or assist those who stray from sound social practice, but, similarly, I feel that no reasonable person would oppose taking sensible steps to lessen the frequency and extent of such occurrences.
For instance, if it is deemed to be
objectively desirable for society to decrease the rate of teen and single parent pregnancies (which I believe to be true), then how can it be said that society cannot or should not take reasonable steps in ensuring or promoting those ends? Only a fool argues that, "because people disagree on what is desirable, society has no business advocating specific measures to ensure desirable states of affairs", because such a comment
entirely misses the point; the point is that NOBODY (this is a relative "nobody"-- there are always fringe-dwellers who would argue for anything) would argue that
increasing drug use is beneficial for either the individual or society (hard drugs, at least). Only a person bereft of judgment would argue that it is beneficial to
either the society or individual to have more teen pregnancies as opposed to less. In the libertarian tradition, one might reasonably object by asserting that the state has no right to disallow drug use or premarital sex--
and indeed it doesn't (and wouldn't); this is my point. In such a society as I describe, the state would NOT curtail the right of people to do as they please; rather, it would merely
not condone or encourage certain practices, either explicitly or implicitly (as we do currently), while tending to its own best interests. The people who
do ultimately end up straying from sound doctrine (which will inevitably occur, since we are possessed of free will) will be supported by the appropriate social programs, be it rehab, or counseling (for, say, minor instances of violence), or day care etc.
My argument is that, at some point, a society has to take stock of what sort of values (
secular values, mind you, but
sound, proven values) will promote the best interests of the multitude (i.e., society) and help to perpetuate its values and culture. Certainly, culture is always perpetuated no matter the specific content of the values being espoused by the society-- but if certain values lead to an
unsustainable society, and thus threaten the very
existence of that society, then that can rightly be construed as a threat to the perpetuation of the society, and action must be taken; I certainly feel that much of our present culture is both objectively wrong and/or shortsighted and that this constitutes a very real threat to the continued existence of our society in the long term. Also keep in mind that by "culture" I am speaking not only of entertainment or media, but also of our political and legal culture as well, which tolerates certain excesses and prohibits certain reasonable measures from being taken as well.
Objective in the sense of 'goods' that are preferred regardless of cultural influences, that can be quantified.
While I certainly believe that the conditions that I posit as "objectively desirable" have quantifiable, beneficial results (lower incidence of crime, poverty, preventable illness and death etc.), you again lose me when you speak of "goods". These are not extrinsic commodities that can be bartered with, but rather intrinsically beneficial "states"; attempting to invoke a seemingly economic analogy is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole-- it's not going to work. Though if you'd care to elaborate a bit upon the metaphor, then I'm all ears.
Society isn't at a loss for having adopted a new cultural trend that replaces the old.
Is this a stand-alone statement, or is it meant to be your rephrasing of what you perceive to be my argument? If the latter, then, yes, I believe that society is
not at a loss for having adopted different cultural "trends" (i.e., values) provided that those values consequently lead to measurable, beneficial results (which all the values I am advocating would); if the former, then I would say that whether or not a society is "at a loss" (that is, worse off as a result) for implementing a different set of values would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, just as it would have to be for my proposed scenarios. I just happen to think that a return to the values I've mentioned would be incredibly fruitful for our society, and its benefits would thus be able to be objectively perceived, as opposed to merely speculated about or philosophized over as they are in these sorts of discussions.
There's no intrinsic value to culture besides the value it holds to public curiosity.
Define "public curiosity".
It's value is how it can improve the lives of the citizens.
Culture serves many functions, and thus has value for many reasons. One of its primary roles is to transmit certain values and practices deemed worthy by a society. Another function is to attempt to set acceptable standards of conduct on the part of its members in order to create an optimally functioning society. So its value doesn't lie
solely in how it can improve the life of the citizenry, but that is a large component of its utility, yes. If not "improving", a better word might be "maintaining"-- one of the values of a culture lies in its ability to help maintain a certain standard of living amongst its people, and it does this by selectively promoting certain values to the exclusion of others.
If your belief cant be quantified, then it probably is seeded in your own beliefs - as a consequent of your upbringing, which is a product of the cultural atmosphere you grew up in.
But it
can be quantified, as noted earlier. Or, more accurately, its
fruits can be quantified.
The general reason why the subjective interests (as in, the supposed warm and fuzzy feeling that you get for having government policy stay in line with your own morals) ought not be considered is because they're transitional.
If the values I've been advocating herein can be considered "subjective", then
every value can be considered subjective (and they can be, but I've purposely been evading the relativist angle because there can be no productive discourse on such matters if one is to adopt such a stance; I thus focus on real-world results as opposed to moral "beliefs", because they are harder to argue against-- if not in theory, then in terms of their effect on people's perceptions as to their veracity; that is, if an action or belief is seen as bearing good, tangible results for a society, few people will dismiss it merely because it can be philosophically attacked by a relativist, which
everything can be, and so relativism a non-starter in these kinds of discussions imo).
Again, I'm trying to make it absolutely clear that I am
not pushing "my own morals" on people-- I am pushing the very best of secular thought, and the very features and beliefs without which society cannot function optimally or be sustainable in the long run, as evidenced by history. Do you know of anybody who can legitimately argue against temperance philosophically, if we exclude relativistic arguments? Unlikely. Anybody who'd disagree with a return to civility in public and private discourse? Unlikely. And that's because such values are
universally beneficial.
Further, if the values and states of affairs that I've championed can be considered "subjective" (which I've shown them not to be, but for argument's sake), and thus "transitional" and "not to be considered", then so can
any values you'd care to proffer in their stead; as a result, you'd logically have to refrain from
ever attempting to instill any type of values amongst a populace, since society is, by your account, constantly in flux (society
does change, but I think you're overexaggerating this effect here to suit your purposes). So, clearly, if the values I've mentioned "ought not be considered", then neither should
any values; what we are then left with is a moral vacuum, which is
much less preferable than if we initially chose to ignore such seeming sophistry as you here offer and settle upon some firm conclusions rooted in quantifiable, beneficial phenomena, as I've stated.
It's only valued so long as that culture persists. In the long run, and i hate to use that term, the new culture will be valued as much as the old one was prior, with the difference being the sustainable increase in objective 'good' in the society.
Name me a single successful, persistent culture that did/does not advocate temperance through both words and deeds. You're attempting to get out of having to deal with the empirical results that such values bear in a society, which are without exception beneficial.
Yes, if society changes enough, then the "new culture" (say, intemperance and materialism) will be "valued" by its constituents just as much as the old one was by
its constituents; where you err, though, is in stating that there will consequently be a "sustainable increase in the objective 'good' in the society." Allow me to examine this statement...
Firstly, why is the "new culture" any more "sustainable" than the old one was, seeing as how they are
both ultimately transitory and destined to change (
your words, not mine)? Why, because it would be more in line with the views of the current populace? That's begging the question, then: if society (i.e., culture) can influence the beliefs and practices of the populace, and vice versa, then why would a society be wrong in attempting to perpetuate certain axioms and values if it would then lead to a populace more in line with these
proven values, the same way that advocating their antitheses would produce a populace beholden to
those ideologies? In fact, I'd say that society would remiss if, when confronted with a choice between these two competing paths, it chose the path of advocating unproven, untested values that are of spurious benefit as opposed to time-tested values that yield good fruits in a society. It would be even
more wrong if they did so just because they were unable to separate good sense from mere sophistry, which, if I may be so frank, is all that such arguments as you present seem to be: mere relativism cloaked in the guise of intellectual discourse. All of these things follow directly and necessarily from your own words.
Lastlly, you are employing the words "objective good" here mistakenly. To start with, a situation such as you propose is not necessarily
objectively good, but rather would be
subjectively good (i.e., deemed to be good by the populace); it would
only be objectively good if it yielded verifiable, quantifiable, beneficial results for a society (e.g., lower costs, less incidence of obvious social maladies such as drug use, teen pregnancies, crime, obesity etc.). Subjected to such a litmus test, your proposed "progressive" society would invariably fail, assuming that it strayed from proven values such as those I've mentioned. So, properly viewed, this "new culture" you espouse cannot rightly lay claim to any "objective good" for its populace, but rather only
subjective good; given that
subjective estimations regarding what is "good" change readily in accordance with the values being sowed, while objective "good" (that is, empirically verifiable, clearly beneficial states of affairs)
does not change no matter the values being inseminated (this is why, despite our licentious culture, no reasonable person argues that it's
beneficial to have
more crackheads than less, or more teen pregnancies than less etc.), then it holds that we should aim for the
objective good-- the historically proven values-- because the
subjective agreement of the populace with those mores will follow automatically, as it would for the transmission of any value set.
It is important to keep in mind throughout all of this that by "objectively good", I am referring to "those quantifiable conditions or states that are conducive to the healthy and optimal functioning of society". Insofar as nobody (again, excluding relativism, which is a non-starter imo) can legitimately argue that an
increased frequency of teen pregnancies, or hard drug use, or obesity, or rape are
beneficial things which are conducive to the functioning of society, they will have to concede that a decrease in such things is objectively desirable (i.e., "good"). As a result, they will necessarily
have no sound logical basis for opposing the propagation of values that would tend to decrease the incidence of such social disorders, even as we continue to embrace the right of people to do as they wish-- there is no contradiction there. People
can do as they wish, it's just that society is under no obligation to further those clearly undesirable ends (either explicitly or implicitly, by policy or philosophy), and so must act in its own best interests in the same way that we like to believe we're allowed to act in
ours. To do otherwise is to basically commit protracted suicide, which is precisely what I feel we're witnessing in our culture today. Our present culture (i.e., the values being promoted in all spheres)
is not sustainable in the long run, and will continue to inflict tremendous damage on the fiber of our nation, both morally and financially.
There is
zero social benefit to be found in eschewing good sense simply to appease some diseased contrarian strain of thought that incessantly argues against reason for its own sake. We must realize what values are conducive to a sound society-- which include many of the values I've listed as well as others-- and then embrace them and be adamant in our promotion of them as a society. If we are not resolute in this regard, then I feel it will ultimately be our undoing. Signs of decay and dissolution are all around us, and yet, instead of heeding sound doctrine, we insist on listening to the chatter of people who would tell us that there
are no absolutely beneficial states of affairs; in essence, they would tell us that we're
too stupid to articulate with our mouths what our eyes witness daily-- and that is that certain states and actions are conducive to the healthy functioning of society and some are not. Therefore,
any values which help to foster a change in society whereby these beneficial states increase in frequency
cannot logically be opposed.
Again, it's the reason why it is impossible to argue against things like temperance, which would have a marked effect on everything from drug/alcohol abuse, to unwanted pregnancies, to reducing personal debt, to STD's, to crime, to obesity-- you name it, and a return to this one simple virtue (only one of
many, I might note) would do wonders for our society. To be sure, the changes would not be immediate, but they would undoubtedly occur at some point in the not-so-distant future. To continue to shun (and in fact denigrate and mock) these values in our culture will only lead to ruin; I don't think that I'm overstating things when I say that, either. But if you wish, continue to believe the contrarians, the relativists, the unsettled souls who would insist that you have no basis for believing in certain (entirely secular and time-tested) values that your very eyes confirm are both useful and proper.
Agreeing on common, universal interests is the dificult part.
It's not difficult at all; in fact, I've provided numerous, specific examples of such compelling interests. 99% of society would agree that less hard drug use is preferable to more drug use; 99% would agree that less obesity is preferable to more obesity; 99% of people would agree that fewer teen pregnancies and STD's is something to strive for; 99% of people would agree that less personal debt is preferable to the accumulation of more debt; 99% of people would agree that less corporate greed is preferable to more greed.
In all of these instances, advocating simple temperance would, over the course of time, have a dramatic effect on the incidence of such phenomena. In light of this, it is
entirely nonsensical to stand
against the cultural espousal of such a value, unless one believes the phenomena previously noted (i.e., drug use, teen pregnancy etc.) to be beneficial to society (in which case such a person is totally off the mental map imo) or is being contrary and seeking to perpetuate ultimately meaningless ideological "disagreement" (despite the near consensus on such issues that I just noted) for the sake of argument, in which case they stand opposed to the functioning of society. Opposition to these values would require an argument predicated upon a lie-- a lie that says that people are not aware of, or capable of understanding, what is beneficial for them and their society.
Unlike such people, I'm not a big believer in endless contemplation at the expense of our well-being. I favor meditation and reflection, but we must ultimately be able to arrive at some measure of truth-- if not philosophically, then in terms of the observable states that correspond to a healthy society, which is something that 99% of society can agree upon for most issues, as noted. I repeatedly use temperance as an example because I happen to feel it is one of the most widely applicable virtues, and the one which has fallen most out of favor in our society; the results are all around us.
People are free to take issue with what I've said here (and they no doubt will), but I honestly feel that advocating certain core ethical beliefs that have stood the test of time would accomplish more than the enactment of specific policies or plans attempting to deal with these broad social ailments, if only because people can justifiably disagree on the particulars of such policies and plans, yet they would be on extremely tenuous philosophical footing if they attempted to say that virtues such as temperance or civility or charity are somehow either false, not relevant, or outmoded. As a result, these are values we can all get behind for the
right reasons-- and those reasons are because they would help to engender certain objectively desirable states of affairs in society, which would eventually lead to an optimally functioning society. These are quantifiable results springing from ethical maxims, and, seeing as how they carry the weight of empirical evidence behind them, I believe they are not as easily dismissible as sophists or contrarians would have you believe.
At the very least, adoption of said maxims deserves consideration, not scorn. These are not "my" morals, nor is any of it religious in nature
at all. Anyway, time for bed. Please forgive me if I don't post in this thread for a while-- I think I've filled my quota.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1c4fb/1c4fb4a004ac374ae735c210f8560be0dce354ac" alt="Stick out tongue :p :p"