(July 22, 2012 at 4:21 pm)liam Wrote: I see your point, however, I wonder whether the assertion does not allow for such things, for example, the masochistic example may not argue that pain and suffering are still bad but rather that they produce in the individual greater pleasure, even if by way of pain, than they do pain itself.
This left me wondering whether that was a hole in the actual theory itself or in my own appraisal of it. What I was, more specifically wondering, was whether or not this was an issue of whether or not it is not absolute or whether or not it is not appropriate for all situations. I shall explain below:
This seems to me to be a confusing issue, just because it is not universally true does this mean that I was wrong or that there is a fundamental issue in the absolute itself? For example, the S&M community may have been an iceberg issue for my evaluation or rather an issue that was overlooked by the utilitarians in supposing that the two 'sovereign masters' were binary opposites.
My position is that that absolutism lies not in the theory itself, but in its practitioner. Compare moral theories to scientific theories (science in the 16th century id, it makes it any easier). On one hand we have the guide to understanding and judging the physical reality, on the other, human actions.
Suppose I was an idiot incapable of understanding the basics behind the Newton's law of gravitation, but nevertheless, capable of understanding the formula. Without the understanding of its premises, but understanding that it is applicable in many of the scenarios, I'd tend to apply it absolutely. And if I were ot discover the black holes, where the law completely fails, I'd come to the conclusion that those bodies were behaving unscientifically (or there were other bodies or beings at play). But without the proper understanding of the premises of the law itself, I would not be able to doubt its validity or understand the context where it is applicable and where it is not. But if I do understand them, I would get that it is a convenient approximation which is not applicable in certain cases.
The same, I'd say, applies to moral theories. If the practitioner simply follows the letter of the theory without understanding its philosophical underpinnings, he's more like to apply it dogmatically and in an absolutist manner. But if they do understand it, they are better qualified to apply it contextually and, frankly, rationally. However, it is a lot more difficult in case of morality than science because hardly any moral theories have clear-cut and explicit philosophical base and most of them are simply a mish-mash of religious, social and cultural baggage. As far as morality is concerned, we are still blood-letting and exorcising demons.
