The spinach test
I have a question about the spinach test – first of all, I will define what exactly this test is trying to prove from what I understand: the test is to check whether a certain claim is objective or subjective and the conclusion from this test regarding morality is an objective thing because we are not laughing when we say “It’s lucky I didn’t live 300 years ago because then I would have enslaved slaves.”
The question is about another case, this case, which actually speaks from my personal perspective and the time in which I live – really, enslaving slaves is something that is objectively immoral, and we project this moral norm onto everything that has ever happened.
But if we go back in time to Sweden, for example, where (if I’m not mistaken, that’s what it was, but even if not, for the sake of the discussion) the custom was that a person who reached old age would “relieve” the public from carrying his burden and jump off a high mountain or something, and if he didn’t want to, they would “help him” (all for the public’s benefit, of course). And if we come to those people now and tell them that this is immoral, they will burst out laughing no less (or even more) than the spinach thing, what’s immoral about that?! This has been the custom since forever, and there is a public that needs to survive, and it’s impossible for that old man to be their burden!
The same thing can also be said about the future, let’s say that one day a new moral norm will be established in which picking plants (or eating animals) is clearly immoral and is even considered murder (after all, a plant is a living thing). If we now apply the spinach test to this period – “How lucky I am not alive 300 years ago because then I would have eaten lettuce and that is cruel” – I don’t think there is anyone who has read this and not laughed out loud.
The conclusion that emerges from this discussion is that when you put the spinach to the test, the result is that you get a normative objective value for our time that we apply to every period, but as mentioned, it is actually subjective because it has no definition and is objective only in our eyes.
And regarding morality in general, isn’t this something that is a kind of modern invention? Did previous generations think in terms of morality at all and not just in terms of survival? It is clear that in the beginning, people did not think in terms of morality and did not commit to anything except their own survival, and if morality developed over time and reached its perfection only in our time or so, then perhaps it is really impossible to judge previous generations in terms of morality, which is actually objective. There was simply no perception of it or a partial perception of it in those generations. And perhaps it is actually possible to say that morality is objective, and in this the test of the spinach is correct.
But it is still possible to understand that what we define as morality and in our opinion is good and right – previous generations also defined it as morality and the good and right thing. And future generations will also define it this way (as in the case with lettuce). And then really, according to this, our morality is still incomplete and we are not moral, because we eat lettuce, and if we do, we are just like the ancient Swedes (that is, immoral!).
In conclusion: the seemingly spinach test fails miserably here, and morality is not really something objective, if it is anything at all.
I would love to hear your opinion on the matter.
I don’t understand this comment. The spinach test is a measure of whether a claim is subjective or objective. You agree with that too. You’re just claiming that morality doesn’t pass the spinach test. Okay, so you’re a moral relativist. The spinach test doesn’t prove anything. It gives you a diagnostic tool to diagnose yourself.
Furthermore, there may be moral questions that have several correct answers, or the answer depends on the circumstances. There indeed the spinach test will not work. But that does not mean that every moral value is like that. For example, when there is no way to care for the elderly in a nursing home, then the way you described is perhaps reasonable. But if there is such a way, then it is a moral principle that will not pass (for me) the spinach test.
So do you agree with the claim that morality is not objective?
Also in the case of the old man, you say that if it is possible to send him to a nursing home then why not, but with someone else it is still immoral to send an old man to a nursing home and give up the vacation in Thailand, so is it still immoral or is it moral?
Morality is completely objective but depends on circumstances and alternatives.
I fail to understand why morality is objective in your eyes, if there are any moral truths, we have no way of knowing what they are or what they want, since when is it forbidden to murder, when is it forbidden to murder? Why specifically murder? Why is it not forbidden to eat lettuce? How do we know that eating lettuce is moral?
Where does the proof of any moral truths begin? Ostensibly it begins with our moral norm here in our time, if by now we had not come to the conclusion that “it is forbidden to murder”, then we would not have come to the conclusion that this is a moral truth, just as we do not think that not eating lettuce is a moral truth like not killing. And in another 300 years people will come and philosophize about “the moral truth of not eating plants”. And that eating plants is murder and this is a horrible thing, etc.
It may be that such truths really exist, in theory it's a nice idea, but we have no way of knowing what they are and how we should act according to them, certainly not in detail and that murder is forbidden but nothing else is.
Okay, so first of all, let's get off the spinach test. We agreed that the discussion is not related to it. You are only arguing in favor of relativistic morality. That is a different argument, and in order to conduct it I need to understand what arguments are being challenged. I fail to discern any argument you make in favor of this thesis.
You state that we have no way of knowing, but we have a way of knowing what they want, and we all know this very well. It does depend on the circumstances, but in the vast majority of cases the moral instruction for the given circumstances is completely clear to us and there is even no debate about it. So what do you base the statement on that we have no way of knowing?
You are looking for proof, but there is no proof for anything. Do you have proof that what you see actually exists? Do you have proof that there is only one straight line between two points? And yet the vast majority of people accept it because that is what they see or experience directly. The same goes for morality. Skeptics will never be able to search for proof to the end and not find it. This is true in every field, and not just morality.
I claim that morality is a completely subjective thing (if it even exists)
Let's assume that in your opinion we have the possibility of knowing, so I ask again, if from now on they say that we don't eat plants, will this be considered a moral truth? After all, we all agree on it. This is exactly what happened throughout history, everyone agreed at a certain time that enslaving slaves is okay, once I am a slave and then I enslave another, that's the norm. (Again – moral truth of enslavement?)
You decide that what you determine is moral because it is clear to us (intuition or I don't know what) but these are exactly the same tools that were used in the past to say what is right or wrong to do, and they came to different conclusions.
Regardless of the evidence or not, there is no basis for the basic assumptions that morality is objective, it is objective to you, and therefore it does not make you laugh to say “It's lucky I didn't live 300 years ago because then I would have enslaved slaves” and it also makes you laugh “It's lucky I didn't live 100 years ago because then I would have eaten lettuce” and the morality of that time was objective even for their time – They were not amused (let's just say) “It's lucky I didn't live 2000 years ago because then I would have crucified people”, but it does make them laugh when you say “It's lucky I didn't live 300 years ago because then I would have enslaved slaves”.
The tools you propose do not seem useful for truly determining objective morality that is true for every generation and all of humanity
You just insist on making statements without arguments, repeating the same thing over and over again and not reading what I write to you. I said it is possible to know. This means that what people say does not matter. So they say, so what? Is there indeed moral progress throughout history just as there is scientific progress. Does this mean that science is also a subjective convention?
There is no basis for basic assumptions at all, neither regarding morality nor regarding anything else. And I have already given the examples.
And finally, moral truth depends on circumstances and therefore it is not correct to say that it is true for every generation and for all of humanity. And this is not moral relativity but dependence on circumstances.
You can of course deny everything and hold to subjective morality. Just don't present it as if you have arguments. You don't.
What exactly are your basic assumptions for the fact that there is objective morality? You said that we have the possibility of knowing what moral truths are and what they want. What is the basis for this?
And besides, scientific claims are claims of fact, and that is one thing, while the claim that ”murder is forbidden” is not, as you said in your book (if I am not mistaken).
That there is scientific progress, which is based on claims of fact in relation to the world, is one thing. Moral progress is more difficult to assume.
I'm done. I'm wasting my words.
I just asked a fairly basic question for this discussion.
I don't think I'm repeating the same things, I was responding to your claim that we have a way to know, that this is the same way that has been used over the years and reached a different result. You can say – Mr. Amer Hada and Mr. Amer Hada and not Pleggi.
Scientific progress is irrelevant here, if people 3000 years ago had used the same tools of scientists today, it is very likely that they would not have reached different results.
This comparison does not seem relevant.
In addition, you referred to the example of the old man who was quickly thrown away, you said that in the event that there is no way to treat him, then perhaps there is a place for that, but this is also something that is subjective, because for another person, even in a situation where we send him to a nursing home and I give up my next vacation, then even in such a case, throwing him quickly is moral.
The circumstances in which you decide that something is moral or not, what are they determined by?
Suppose we really all know the same moral truths from certain basic assumptions, what way do we have to know under what circumstances something A will be considered moral and something B will not, or vice versa?
And why do you think morality ultimately passes the spinach test (in your opinion too)? After all, people do laugh today if we tell them it's lucky I don't eat lettuce.
You're just repeating the exact same thing again. Read what I wrote. That's it, I'm done.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
