RE: An Introduction to Moral Ecology
let me preface this with a compliment as it is well written and therefore is a rare treat to read. Also, you're a bastard for using words whose definition I had to look up. Again, another rare treat.
Moral dogmatism(MD) versus moral relativism(MR). Such a combative perspective. Are not these perspectives MD & MR polarities that ignore an infinity of variations in between?
Metaphysics ~ here is a word that I believe has been twisted into a false meaning in the modern age and limited to religion or spiritualism.
Meta =1. denoting a change of position or condition.
"metamorphosis"
- denoting position behind, after, or beyond.
"metacarpus" - denoting something of a higher or second-order kind.
"metalanguage"
Physics(meaning) is pretty straight forward. So meta-physics, to me, merely denotes that which is behind, after, beyond, higher than that which is physical. In this sense studying electromagnetism is metaphysics or even the atom is metaphysics especially if you dispense with the Bohr model of the atom and favor those arguments that speak not of particles but of field modulations as I tend to.
I digress.
Yes, neither works because both are extremist perspectives. In one you are bound by "duty" to dogmatism and as such it is entirely inflexible' in the other, it is all about the consequences and one's relation to them which is far too flexible and can be dependent upon mood, either yours or the group affected.
"everyone has a different idea of what would be good for them" ~ morality is not necessarily about what is good for you, it is about the development of a particular system of ethics. Many times I take the path of what is right morally based on universal religious concepts but there is flexibility as well. As a general rule I do not lie, but I also do not tell the whole truth especially if it doesn't serve the other well, and when it comes to those that position themselves as an enemy to me, then I have no obligation to be truthful, especially if they may be inclined to use the truth against me. (Funny thing is, that comes from an Islamic Hadith put forth by the prophet Muhammad)
Doing what is moral does not always benefit you in the short term and therefore may seem not good for you, but in the long term it can lend itself to character. Because I am known for a long time to be honest, people who know me trust me. In my being honest I have had to suffer the errors of my ways, in the short term, by admitting to them rather than lying about them. But in that short term came suffrage long term came gain.
I personally do believe that there is a 'universal morality' that is reasonable and rational, does not require duty and is not necessarily about the consequences, well, at least the short term more immediately felt consequences. It is flexible, organic and fosters mental and physical well being over the long run. It is universal because they tend to be the core teachings of most religions(though not all) and are often referred to as the 'graces'.
I look forward to reading about what you call "Moral Ecology". Please be sure to let me know when you publish it. Though I do follow you, I won't necessarily see the post.
Cheers
Well, MD and MR are typically opposed, because they represent more or less opposite approaches to moral thinking. Of course, in real life, most of us use some combination of the two, and although we may not think about how we navigate that consciously, there's a lot of unconscious negotiation that goes on between those two approaches. We have pretty clear ideas about what we think is right and wrong, but we weigh the significance of each rule on a case by case basis, based on what we think is actually important in practice. If we don't feel very strongly about a particular rule, we relegate it to some degree of MR. People who call themselves moral relativists display their hypocrisy when they judge another person - and they all do, at some threshold. They call themselves moral relativists because they don't want to be subject to judgment by others, but they themselves cannot help but judge others, because the propensity to judge is built into the fundamental nature of consciousness itself. The fallback argument, of course, is the utilitarian one, in which they declare that the judged is so because they have violated the common good in some way. But by doing that, they miss the fact that as soon as they appeal to a common good that takes the demands of individual independence into account, their utilitarian vision collapses into a values based dialectic. On the other hand, strict deontologists show that they really aren't as principled as they present themselves, because they all tell the occasional white lie, or bend the rules here and there, if not for themselves, then for someone they care about. This, also, is not something they can help. Every deontology is, in practice, override-able, if it conflicts with what they think is best in the interests of themselves or someone they care about. This reveals an underlying root to their deontological system, which is protect what is valued. As soon as that is revealed, their deontology likewise immediately reveals itself to be dependent on a set of subjective values.
As to your personal example, that is an example, I think, of a deontology revealing itself to be values based. You would not lie to someone you care about, because you want to deal with them on the basis of honesty, and if you violated that, it would ultimately lead to an alienation. You also wouldn't lie to a stranger, because if it was you accosting someone you didn't know, you would want them to be truthful to you, and you have a level of empathy that makes you feel that lying to this stranger is wrong. But when someone wants to do you harm, there is no basis for dealing with them in good faith, and so there is no empathic or affinitive impulse telling you it is wrong to lie. So you lie. What this reveals, in my opinion, is that it is by virtue of your empathy and affinity that you choose not to lie, not because lying is wrong in some objective sense. So then the rule you've made for yourself not to lie actually is contingent on a much more fundamental values based ethic.
Islam is very interesting as a religious system, because, much more so than any other modern religion, it seeks to encode in rules a moral sense. It is by far the most deontological religion in the world. But it is by reason of the very fact that it is so consciously and objectively laid out, that they are forced to encode exceptions that starkly reveal the underlying value system.
I will certainly let you know. Is there a way to tag people on this site? I'm still new here.