moral relativism

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Iwannaplato
Posts: 6836
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Iwannaplato »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Aug 10, 2023 10:11 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Aug 10, 2023 1:25 pm I'm not sure what you mean by....
Nice with all the history of the cosmos behind us, that you feel such self-control.
Then you have nothing to add to the topic? It is a mystery, I am alright with that, just not much of a base for dialogue.
Well, one way to provide a basis for dialogue is, when asked, to explain what you mean. So what did you mean by
Nice with all the history of the cosmos behind us, that you feel such self-control.
Did you have some kind of objection to what I said to Belinda?
What in my post make you think I was claiming self-control or showed it?
It seems critical of me, but I'm not sure if it was or in what way it was if it was or what it's a reaction to in what I wrote.
popeye1945
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Aug 10, 2023 10:58 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Aug 10, 2023 10:11 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Aug 10, 2023 1:25 pm I'm not sure what you mean by....
Then you have nothing to add to the topic? It is a mystery, I am alright with that, just not much of a base for dialogue.
Well, one way to provide a basis for dialogue is, when asked, to explain what you mean. So what did you mean by
Nice with all the history of the cosmos behind us, that you feel such self-control.
Did you have some kind of objection to what I said to Belinda?
What in my post make you think I was claiming self-control or showed it?
It seems critical of me, but I'm not sure if it was or in what way it was if it was or what it's a reaction to in what I wrote.
Perhaps I've misread you, but yes, in order to believe in free will one has to believe in the simplicity of biology, earth and the cosmos, but you don't seem to have a stance. So, I am a little puzzled.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6836
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Iwannaplato »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Aug 10, 2023 11:43 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Aug 10, 2023 10:58 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Aug 10, 2023 10:11 pm

Then you have nothing to add to the topic? It is a mystery, I am alright with that, just not much of a base for dialogue.
Well, one way to provide a basis for dialogue is, when asked, to explain what you mean. So what did you mean by
Nice with all the history of the cosmos behind us, that you feel such self-control.
Did you have some kind of objection to what I said to Belinda?
What in my post make you think I was claiming self-control or showed it?
It seems critical of me, but I'm not sure if it was or in what way it was if it was or what it's a reaction to in what I wrote.
Perhaps I've misread you, but yes, in order to believe in free will one has to believe in the simplicity of biology, earth and the cosmos, but you don't seem to have a stance. So, I am a little puzzled.
I black box the issue. Determinism makes more sense to me, but I can rule free will out completely. I don't know how it would work or how causes would be removed somehow, but I don't feel like any deduction can completely rule out some ontological make-up that is beyond my understanding. Belinda seems utterly certain. Fine for her. But she said something funny (not necessarily wrong, but funny, I think)

In a way it doesn't really matter to me, this issue. I want to do what I want. I value my values and goals. In a deterministic universe, well I have my values desires and goals, so I will try to move things in the direction I want things to go. In a free will universe...I will try to move things in the direction I want. So, it doesn't seem to me my belief in one or the other changes the way I act. Further if I have free will, this would entail that I could go against my own desires, values and goals. If I don't go against myself, well, then I'll do the same things I would, if I can, in the free will universe as I would in a deterministic one. I am not sure why I would want to go against my own desires and goals or what this offers me. I would have the freedom to act without being affected by internal causes - desires, values and goals - and by external causes to some degree. Which would mean instead of going for what I want I perversely choose not to be affected by my own goals and values. A strange option.

But I still think it's funny that Belinda said.....
Several posters have tried to explain matters to those here who are indoctrinated as to Free Will but have not succeeded. However, I guess most here are elderly; one hopes the young have more flexible minds.
I am not sure she saw the irony in that last sentence.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7940
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Can You Be Both A Moral Rationalist & A Moral Sentimentalist?
Andrew Kemle says that evolutionary forces give us the answer.
The Universe According to Dave (Gauthier)

Professor David Gauthier is a distinguished Canadian ethicist. The reason I’m asking you to imagine a universe where he is God is that he is a prominent modern-day proponent of something called ‘moral contractarianism’, particularly of the Hobbesian flavour.

This approach to understanding morality assumes Thomas Hobbes was right to assert that human beings are all completely self-interested.
Cue [among others] Karl Marx. Down through the ages, he argued, the historical evolution of human communities was predicated largely on how the means of production was sustained in order to secure basic necessities like food and water and shelter. And that, by and large, until capitalism evolved "the good" revolved far more around "we" than "me". In other words, around what was best for the entire community -- the hamlet, the village -- overall rather than a dog eat dog, survival of the fittest mentality. Which in some respects is what capitalism itself is all about. Marx then predicted that the exploited workers would unite, overthrow the bosses and "we" would prevail again.

Only most of the modern industrial market economies/nations ended up incorporating any number of "welfare state" government programs that in part obviated the need for socialism. This and, some argue, the role unions played in bringing any number of workers into the " lower middle class".

The modern world simply does not lend itself to simplistic ideological agendas.

For most of us, there is always a complex admixture of "I" and "we" in our interactions with others.. And it can revolve around any number of things...social, political and economic.

Thus, when the discussion here is yanked straight back up into the intellectual contraption clouds...
Thus rationality in behaviour reduces to maximizing our self-interest, which Hobbes claims is achieved by groups taking up an implicit ‘social contract’ to be law-abiding. Gauthier argues that we can still connect Hobbes’ self-regarding, merely instrumental form of rationality to morality because: (1) There are personal gains to be had from cooperation; (2) Rational agents won’t ignore potential gains; and (3) Rational agents will therefore be incentivised to form contracts with others to ensure that cooperation is possible. Thus do contracts (often implicit/assumed) become the basis for morality, according to Gauthier.
...what are we to make of it in regard to ourselves individually? And in regard to our relationships in a neighborhood, a larger community, a country? It all comes down to the parts of the "social contract" we are able to actually have an impact regarding and the parts that are largely "beyond the control" of the "little man or the little woman".

And then the part where each of us stops being a moral rationalist here starts being a moral sentimentalist.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3905
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Peter Holmes »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Aug 11, 2023 1:18 pm Can You Be Both A Moral Rationalist & A Moral Sentimentalist?
Andrew Kemle says that evolutionary forces give us the answer.
The Universe According to Dave (Gauthier)

Professor David Gauthier is a distinguished Canadian ethicist. The reason I’m asking you to imagine a universe where he is God is that he is a prominent modern-day proponent of something called ‘moral contractarianism’, particularly of the Hobbesian flavour.

This approach to understanding morality assumes Thomas Hobbes was right to assert that human beings are all completely self-interested.
Cue [among others] Karl Marx. Down through the ages, he argued, the historical evolution of human communities was predicated largely on how the means of production was sustained in order to secure basic necessities like food and water and shelter. And that, by and large, until capitalism evolved "the good" revolved far more around "we" than "me". In other words, around what was best for the entire community -- the hamlet, the village -- overall rather than a dog eat dog, survival of the fittest mentality. Which in some respects is what capitalism itself is all about. Marx then predicted that the exploited workers would unite, overthrow the bosses and "we" would prevail again.

Only most of the modern industrial market economies/nations ended up incorporating any number of "welfare state" government programs that in part obviated the need for socialism. This and, some argue, the role unions played in bringing any number of workers into the " lower middle class".

The modern world simply does not lend itself to simplistic ideological agendas.

For most of us, there is always a complex admixture of "I" and "we" in our interactions with others.. And it can revolve around any number of things...social, political and economic.

Thus, when the discussion here is yanked straight back up into the intellectual contraption clouds...
Thus rationality in behaviour reduces to maximizing our self-interest, which Hobbes claims is achieved by groups taking up an implicit ‘social contract’ to be law-abiding. Gauthier argues that we can still connect Hobbes’ self-regarding, merely instrumental form of rationality to morality because: (1) There are personal gains to be had from cooperation; (2) Rational agents won’t ignore potential gains; and (3) Rational agents will therefore be incentivised to form contracts with others to ensure that cooperation is possible. Thus do contracts (often implicit/assumed) become the basis for morality, according to Gauthier.
...what are we to make of it in regard to ourselves individually? And in regard to our relationships in a neighborhood, a larger community, a country? It all comes down to the parts of the "social contract" we are able to actually have an impact regarding and the parts that are largely "beyond the control" of the "little man or the little woman".

And then the part where each of us stops being a moral rationalist here starts being a moral sentimentalist.
Just to point out. Explanations of where morality - belief about moral rightness and wrongness - comes from - such as explanations by Hobbes, Marx or Gauthier - don't entail conclusions about what is morally right or wrong.

Non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions. And this applies to premises in the various kinds of arguments about moral relativism: descriptive, deontological, normative, and so on.
popeye1945
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Aug 11, 2023 5:36 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Aug 10, 2023 11:43 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Aug 10, 2023 10:58 pm

Well, one way to provide a basis for dialogue is, when asked, to explain what you mean. So what did you mean by


Did you have some kind of objection to what I said to Belinda?
What in my post make you think I was claiming self-control or showed it?
It seems critical of me, but I'm not sure if it was or in what way it was if it was or what it's a reaction to in what I wrote.
Perhaps I've misread you, but yes, in order to believe in free will one has to believe in the simplicity of biology, earth and the cosmos, but you don't seem to have a stance. So, I am a little puzzled.
I black box the issue. Determinism makes more sense to me, but I can rule free will out completely. I don't know how it would work or how causes would be removed somehow, but I don't feel like any deduction can completely rule out some ontological make-up that is beyond my understanding. Belinda seems utterly certain. Fine for her. But she said something funny (not necessarily wrong, but funny, I think)

In a way it doesn't really matter to me, this issue. I want to do what I want. I value my values and goals. In a deterministic universe, well I have my values desires and goals, so I will try to move things in the direction I want things to go. In a free will universe...I will try to move things in the direction I want. So, it doesn't seem to me my belief in one or the other changes the way I act. Further if I have free will, this would entail that I could go against my own desires, values and goals. If I don't go against myself, well, then I'll do the same things I would, if I can, in the free will universe as I would in a deterministic one. I am not sure why I would want to go against my own desires and goals or what this offers me. I would have the freedom to act without being affected by internal causes - desires, values and goals - and by external causes to some degree. Which would mean instead of going for what I want I perversely choose not to be affected by my own goals and values. A strange option.

But I still think it's funny that Belinda said.....
Several posters have tried to explain matters to those here who are indoctrinated as to Free Will but have not succeeded. However, I guess most here are elderly; one hopes the young have more flexible minds.
I am not sure she saw the irony in that last sentence.
Nieve realism is believing things are just as they seem, this to me is the most fantastic delusional perspective one could rest one's mental compacity on, free will as a seeming to be. Without getting into the personal history of a particular individual, the physical world plays on all organisms like it's instrument, which they are. The physical world and the organism are the proverbial subject and object. The physical world is cause to all organisms and all organisms are reactionary creatures, multicellular organisms are a legion of complexity ever in reactive response to the greater reality of the earth and the cosmos. The sheer metaphysical history behind life and the organism/life is a mind-blowing complexity beyond contemplation. No, the melody the world plays on and through the organism is the organism's apparent reality in and of itself, and it is a melody only life itself hears.

Just the profound complexity of the chemistry of the biological of organism for its inner functioning as cause to the organisms reactions should make it apparent, we are dealing with something here beyond the possibility of an independent will performing an action, there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction. It is an odd situation that one's present chemistry and thus one's present psyche at the moment is to be given credit for the reaction of the individual in that moment, the moment of decision, that it thus denies its dependence the entire cosmology of an expanded self, embracing the entire cosmos. No, despite the inconvenience of church and state, being devoid of a vehicle for sin and guilt, the reality is pressing in upon modern man, there is no free will, and like all animals, we are reactionary creatures. Adaptive reactionary creatures.
popeye1945
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

popeye1945 wrote: Sat Aug 12, 2023 2:26 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Aug 11, 2023 5:36 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Aug 10, 2023 11:43 pm

Perhaps I've misread you, but yes, in order to believe in free will one has to believe in the simplicity of biology, earth and the cosmos, but you don't seem to have a stance. So, I am a little puzzled.
I black box the issue. Determinism makes more sense to me, but I can rule free will out completely. I don't know how it would work or how causes would be removed somehow, but I don't feel like any deduction can completely rule out some ontological make-up that is beyond my understanding. Belinda seems utterly certain. Fine for her. But she said something funny (not necessarily wrong, but funny, I think)

In a way it doesn't really matter to me, this issue. I want to do what I want. I value my values and goals. In a deterministic universe, well I have my values desires and goals, so I will try to move things in the direction I want things to go. In a free will universe...I will try to move things in the direction I want. So, it doesn't seem to me my belief in one or the other changes the way I act. Further if I have free will, this would entail that I could go against my own desires, values and goals. If I don't go against myself, well, then I'll do the same things I would, if I can, in the free will universe as I would in a deterministic one. I am not sure why I would want to go against my own desires and goals or what this offers me. I would have the freedom to act without being affected by internal causes - desires, values and goals - and by external causes to some degree. Which would mean instead of going for what I want I perversely choose not to be affected by my own goals and values. A strange option.

But I still think it's funny that Belinda said.....
Several posters have tried to explain matters to those here who are indoctrinated as to Free Will but have not succeeded. However, I guess most here are elderly; one hopes the young have more flexible minds.
I am not sure she saw the irony in that last sentence.
Nieve realism is believing things are just as they seem, this to me is the most fantastic delusional perspective one could rest one's mental compacity on, free will as a seeming to be. Without getting into the personal history of a particular individual, the physical world plays on all organisms like it's instrument, which they are. The physical world and the organism are the proverbial subject and object. The physical world is cause to all organisms and all organisms are reactionary creatures, multicellular organisms are a legion of complexity ever in reactive response to the greater reality of the earth and the cosmos. The sheer metaphysical history behind life and the organism/life is a mind-blowing complexity beyond contemplation. No, the melody the world plays on and through the organism is the organism's apparent reality in and of itself, and it is a melody only life itself hears.

Just the profound complexity of the chemistry of the biological organism for its inner functioning as cause to the organism's reactions should make it apparent, we are dealing with something here beyond the possibility of an independent will performing an action, there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction. It is an odd situation that one's present chemistry and thus one's present psyche at the moment is to be given credit for the reaction of the individual in that moment, the moment of decision, that it thus denies its dependence on the entire cosmology of an expanded self, embracing the entire cosmos. No, despite the inconvenience of church and state, being devoid of a vehicle for sin and guilt, the reality is pressing in upon modern man, there is no free will, and like all organism, we are reactionary creatures. Adaptive reactionary creatures.
popeye1945
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

popeye1945 wrote: Sat Aug 12, 2023 2:32 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sat Aug 12, 2023 2:26 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Aug 11, 2023 5:36 am I black box the issue. Determinism makes more sense to me, but I can rule free will out completely. I don't know how it would work or how causes would be removed somehow, but I don't feel like any deduction can completely rule out some ontological make-up that is beyond my understanding. Belinda seems utterly certain. Fine for her. But she said something funny (not necessarily wrong, but funny, I think)

In a way it doesn't really matter to me, this issue. I want to do what I want. I value my values and goals. In a deterministic universe, well I have my values desires and goals, so I will try to move things in the direction I want things to go. In a free will universe...I will try to move things in the direction I want. So, it doesn't seem to me my belief in one or the other changes the way I act. Further if I have free will, this would entail that I could go against my own desires, values and goals. If I don't go against myself, well, then I'll do the same things I would, if I can, in the free will universe as I would in a deterministic one. I am not sure why I would want to go against my own desires and goals or what this offers me. I would have the freedom to act without being affected by internal causes - desires, values and goals - and by external causes to some degree. Which would mean instead of going for what I want I perversely choose not to be affected by my own goals and values. A strange option.

But I still think it's funny that Belinda said.....

I am not sure she saw the irony in that last sentence.
Nieve realism is believing things are just as they seem, this to me is the most fantastic delusional perspective one could rest one's mental compacity on, free will as a seeming to be. Without getting into the personal history of a particular individual, the physical world plays on all organisms like it's instrument, which they are. The physical world and the organism are the proverbial subject and object. The physical world is cause to all organisms and all organisms are reactionary creatures, multicellular organisms are a legion of complexity ever in reactive response to the greater reality of the earth and the cosmos. The sheer metaphysical history behind life and the organism/life is a mind-blowing complexity beyond contemplation. No, the melody the world plays on and through the organism is the organism's apparent reality in and of itself, and it is a melody only life itself hears.

Just the profound complexity of the chemistry of the biological organism for its inner functioning as cause to the organism's reactions should make it apparent, we are dealing with something here beyond the possibility of an independent will performing an action, there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction. It is an odd situation that one's present chemistry and thus one's present psyche at the moment is to be given credit for the reaction of the individual in that moment, the moment of decision, that it thus denies its dependence on the entire cosmology of an expanded self, embracing the entire cosmos. No, despite the inconvenience of church and state, being devoid of a vehicle for sin and guilt, the reality is pressing in upon modern man, there is no free will, and like all organism, we are reactionary creatures. Adaptive and maladaptive reactionary creatures.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6836
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Iwannaplato »

popeye1945 wrote: Sat Aug 12, 2023 2:26 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Aug 11, 2023 5:36 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Aug 10, 2023 11:43 pm

Perhaps I've misread you, but yes, in order to believe in free will one has to believe in the simplicity of biology, earth and the cosmos, but you don't seem to have a stance. So, I am a little puzzled.
I black box the issue. Determinism makes more sense to me, but I can rule free will out completely. I don't know how it would work or how causes would be removed somehow, but I don't feel like any deduction can completely rule out some ontological make-up that is beyond my understanding. Belinda seems utterly certain. Fine for her. But she said something funny (not necessarily wrong, but funny, I think)

In a way it doesn't really matter to me, this issue. I want to do what I want. I value my values and goals. In a deterministic universe, well I have my values desires and goals, so I will try to move things in the direction I want things to go. In a free will universe...I will try to move things in the direction I want. So, it doesn't seem to me my belief in one or the other changes the way I act. Further if I have free will, this would entail that I could go against my own desires, values and goals. If I don't go against myself, well, then I'll do the same things I would, if I can, in the free will universe as I would in a deterministic one. I am not sure why I would want to go against my own desires and goals or what this offers me. I would have the freedom to act without being affected by internal causes - desires, values and goals - and by external causes to some degree. Which would mean instead of going for what I want I perversely choose not to be affected by my own goals and values. A strange option.

But I still think it's funny that Belinda said.....
Several posters have tried to explain matters to those here who are indoctrinated as to Free Will but have not succeeded. However, I guess most here are elderly; one hopes the young have more flexible minds.
I am not sure she saw the irony in that last sentence.
Nieve realism is believing things are just as they seem, this to me is the most fantastic delusional perspective one could rest one's mental compacity on, free will as a seeming to be. Without getting into the personal history of a particular individual, the physical world plays on all organisms like it's instrument, which they are. The physical world and the organism are the proverbial subject and object. The physical world is cause to all organisms and all organisms are reactionary creatures, multicellular organisms are a legion of complexity ever in reactive response to the greater reality of the earth and the cosmos. The sheer metaphysical history behind life and the organism/life is a mind-blowing complexity beyond contemplation. No, the melody the world plays on and through the organism is the organism's apparent reality in and of itself, and it is a melody only life itself hears.

Just the profound complexity of the chemistry of the biological of organism for its inner functioning as cause to the organisms reactions should make it apparent, we are dealing with something here beyond the possibility of an independent will performing an action, there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction. It is an odd situation that one's present chemistry and thus one's present psyche at the moment is to be given credit for the reaction of the individual in that moment, the moment of decision, that it thus denies its dependence the entire cosmology of an expanded self, embracing the entire cosmos. No, despite the inconvenience of church and state, being devoid of a vehicle for sin and guilt, the reality is pressing in upon modern man, there is no free will, and like all animals, we are reactionary creatures. Adaptive reactionary creatures.
Well, you're completely sure, it seems. And even, it seems, that your deduction must be true, despite you're assessment of yourself as a completely reactionary creature. That your own sense that your argument makes sense must be 100% true even if your thinking is completely reactionary. Fine, it works for you. For me I black box it.

And I still find Belinda's statement funny.
popeye1945
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Aug 12, 2023 5:22 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sat Aug 12, 2023 2:26 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Aug 11, 2023 5:36 am I black box the issue. Determinism makes more sense to me, but I can rule free will out completely. I don't know how it would work or how causes would be removed somehow, but I don't feel like any deduction can completely rule out some ontological make-up that is beyond my understanding. Belinda seems utterly certain. Fine for her. But she said something funny (not necessarily wrong, but funny, I think)

In a way it doesn't really matter to me, this issue. I want to do what I want. I value my values and goals. In a deterministic universe, well I have my values desires and goals, so I will try to move things in the direction I want things to go. In a free will universe...I will try to move things in the direction I want. So, it doesn't seem to me my belief in one or the other changes the way I act. Further if I have free will, this would entail that I could go against my own desires, values and goals. If I don't go against myself, well, then I'll do the same things I would, if I can, in the free will universe as I would in a deterministic one. I am not sure why I would want to go against my own desires and goals or what this offers me. I would have the freedom to act without being affected by internal causes - desires, values and goals - and by external causes to some degree. Which would mean instead of going for what I want I perversely choose not to be affected by my own goals and values. A strange option.

But I still think it's funny that Belinda said.....

I am not sure she saw the irony in that last sentence.
Nieve realism is believing things are just as they seem, this to me is the most fantastic delusional perspective one could rest one's mental compacity on, free will as a seeming to be. Without getting into the personal history of a particular individual, the physical world plays on all organisms like it's instrument, which they are. The physical world and the organism are the proverbial subject and object. The physical world is cause to all organisms and all organisms are reactionary creatures, multicellular organisms are a legion of complexity ever in reactive response to the greater reality of the earth and the cosmos. The sheer metaphysical history behind life and the organism/life is a mind-blowing complexity beyond contemplation. No, the melody the world plays on and through the organism is the organism's apparent reality in and of itself, and it is a melody only life itself hears.

Just the profound complexity of the chemistry of the biological of organism for its inner functioning as cause to the organisms reactions should make it apparent, we are dealing with something here beyond the possibility of an independent will performing an action, there is no such thing as human action, there is but human reaction. It is an odd situation that one's present chemistry and thus one's present psyche at the moment is to be given credit for the reaction of the individual in that moment, the moment of decision, that it thus denies its dependence the entire cosmology of an expanded self, embracing the entire cosmos. No, despite the inconvenience of church and state, being devoid of a vehicle for sin and guilt, the reality is pressing in upon modern man, there is no free will, and like all animals, we are reactionary creatures. Adaptive reactionary creatures.
Well, you're completely sure, it seems. And even, it seems, that your deduction must be true, despite you're assessment of yourself as a completely reactionary creature. That your own sense that your argument makes sense must be 100% true even if your thinking is completely reactionary. Fine, it works for you. For me I black box it.

And I still find Belinda's statement funny.
It seems to me my post just underlines your black box, a black box so complex as to ensure incomprehension. That you feel you are making a decision in the moment has already been denied to you, as neurology has confirmed that the decision to react has already taken place before you are conscious of making a decision. The world never the less continues to seem to function just the way you are most comfortable with. Have you ever pondered the idea that you are a part of something larger than yourself? If so, this should start to make a little more sense to you. If organisms were not reactionary creatures, evolutionary adaptation would not even be possible. Reaction is the basis of the organism moving through the world. The immune system is a reactionary defense system. You are that which experiences, and you react to those experiences in responding to the physical world. Our dialogue, I am cause to you as you are cause to me, we are reactionary creatures. One must be motivated within in order to move without in the world; motivation spells reaction, not action. If you are still sure there is free will, give me one example of a human action, which in fact is not a reaction, there is no such creature.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7940
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Can You Be Both A Moral Rationalist & A Moral Sentimentalist?
Andrew Kemle says that evolutionary forces give us the answer.
So let’s pretend that Gauthier the God has decided to create a universe (God works in mysterious ways, so I don’t have to explain why). Gauthier-God has also decided that Darwinian evolution is present in this universe. He then creates Adam and Eve; and since Gauthier-God is above all an ethicist, he also creates Alice and Bob, along with Carol, David, Enoch, and Francine. Then he deposits eight copies of his book Morals by Agreement, and leaves the humans to do their thing. These eight newly created and entirely self-interested humans, left in a Hobbesian ‘state of nature’, read Gauthier’s arguments, and have to decide what to do next.
Not all that far removed from henry quirk's own God? He creates human beings, gives them the capacity to grasp an objective understanding of "life, liberty and property", then splits for parts unknown? Ethics derived entirely from "following the dictates of Reason and Nature". And, here, if you are not sure what that entails "for all practical purposes" in regard to, say, abortion or guns or human sexuality, you simply ask henry.

You read henry's arguments, however, and you don't have to decide for yourself. Henry the God decides for you.
If Gauthier is correct, all eight individuals will realize that their best chance of surviving and thriving is to cooperate. In order to cooperate, they know they’ll have to agree on a set of principles to structure their behaviour, so that nobody can exploit, kill, or dominate the others.
Or, if he is not correct, you choose another option...might makes right or right makes might. After all, if you choose to cooperate that entails "moderation, negotiation and compromise". You actually have to accept that how others construe moral behavior may well revolve instead around accepting that "they're right from their side and we're right from ours". In other words, the worst of all possible worlds for the tyrants and the moral objectivists: democracy and the rule of law.

To wit...
Consequently, all eight – despite thinking first and foremost of the strategies needed to maximize their own self-interest – will agree to whatever principles best guarantee lasting cooperation among them. And thus is a moral society created. In this universe, the foundation of moral society is reason, since the eight individuals have arrived at their social contract through the analysis of costs and benefits and the exercise of deliberate negotiation.
Yeah, maybe up in the philosophical clouds this is how it all unfolds. But down here in the real world it all gets really, really complicated, really, really fast. Not only that but as the realists among us know, wealth and power will always prevail in regard to both economic policy and foreign policy. The ruling class or the deep state some call it.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7940
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Can You Be Both A Moral Rationalist & A Moral Sentimentalist?
Andrew Kemle says that evolutionary forces give us the answer.
One thing that biologists have learned about evolution is that culture and genes interact with each other in complex ways.
That's my point of course. On the other hand, there are those particularly fanatical objectivists -- https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/f6-agora -- who insist that, on the contrary, biological imperatives prevail in regard to all of the important issues. Not only that but they are there to tell you what those important issues are. For example, race and gender and religion and sexuality. And then right on down the line. Not sure what is entirely natural to do? They'll tell you. Free of charge!

In fact, your only obligation, providing you are a white Anglo-Saxon male who only fucks women, is to never, ever disagree with them.
‘Dual inheritance theory’, also known as ‘gene-culture coevolution’, deals with this feedback loop. Essentially, genes influence the development of culture by influencing the behaviour of individuals; but culture also influences genes by changing the fitness landscape. This is a fancy way of saying that culture changes the environment, say by nudging behaviour, or creating institutions or technology. If the environment changes, then whether a given inherited trait increases or decreases the reproductive fitness of its organism can change. If the environment changes such that a certain trait now confers a reproductive advantage to an organism, then natural selection will over time lead to that trait becoming dominant in the population: more and more organisms will be born with this trait since their parents will have better success at passing on their genes than competitors without that trait. Ergo, cultural changes can affect the biological evolution of a species.
This is but another general description intellectual contraption that when brought down to Earth, pertaining to a particular issue is just a fancy way of saying that genes and memes when intertwined out in particular contexts really, really do precipitate all manner of complex [even convoluted and conflicting] human interactions.

Then those linked above will simply hammer these complexities into their own simplistic one size fits all philosophical contraptions. They will then challenge you to go up into the theoretical clouds with them and out define and out deduce them. Which, of course, no one can ever do.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7940
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Nostalgia, Morality, & Mass Entertainment
Adam Kaiser finds a fine case of mass existential longing.
To cut to the heart of this trend [toward nostalgia in mass entertainment], I will start with a claim that is very broad, but is supported by many writers with existentialist leanings. This is that while modern Western culture has largely rejected conventional religion, historical metaphysical traditions, and many objective moral values, it is too cowardly to face head-on the absurdity and nihilism that inevitably follow in their absence.
Please. Nihilists are responsible for the banality that suffuses American culture today? On the contrary, it's not the nihilists who have brought about pop culture, mindless consumption, social media and the obsession with celebrity. It's those who own and operate the economy. It's Wall Street and Madison Avenue and Hollywood that have brought into existence a culture that in so many ways is sub-mental.
Those consequences are nearly impossible to even comprehend, much less accept, so we simply ignore them.
We not counting me, of course. And a handful of others here.
We punt the ball along by turning back to comforts that portray the world as we would normally present it to children.
Distractions I call them. Though, sure, for millions, mass entertainment is right at the top. And then for countless millions more...
In this world, right and wrong are clearly delineated and easily intuitive. Magic and the supernatural are taken as real, while serious issues of metaphysics and of life are avoided entirely. In this nostalgic world, people behave predictably and rationally in a near archetypal manner...
Again, however, for many nostalgia does not play a significant part. That's mostly for senior citizens here in America. Some hanker for a return to the Sixties, others to the Fifties. By and large, for those not hopelessly ensnared in religion or ideology or one or another school of philosophy, it's still pop culture, mass consumptions, celebrity worships that gets them through the days.

Well, unless, of course, I'm wrong.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7940
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Nostalgia, Morality, & Mass Entertainment
Adam Kaiser finds a fine case of mass existential longing.
Traditional fairy tales, comic books almost always tried to introduce basic moral notions and religious themes to children. For example, in a 1999 interview, George Lucas claimed he created Star Wars to help kids develop a sense of God and spirituality (as throughout the entire series the heroes are defined by their spirituality as well as their belief in good and evil, while the villains practice occult manipulations and Nietzschean power politics).
Star Wars? Take away the special effects and what's left? For some, nothing less than an intellectual wasteland. A ridiculous "Bible school" world of Good and Evil that bears almost no resemblance whatsoever to the world we actually live in. And most of the "superhero", "Summer blockbuster" films are much the same.

Even Star Trek was basically straight out of the Hollywood "us vs. them" repertoire. From my frame of mind, this pop culture/social media deluge is nearly as threatening to what's left of American culture as MAGA or Q-Anon.
It is no coincidence that in the West the staunchest recent defenders of the value of fiction, fantasy, and fairy tales have come from the ranks of devout Christian apologists: J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and G.K. Chesterton.
And, perhaps, J.K. Rowling?

On the other hand, today there are volumes and volumes of fiction, fantasy and fairytales that have nothing at all to do with Christianity. And it's the Christians [in America] who are waging a war against those publicans they insist must be banned from schools...their children protected from it. Something in a book offends one or another Christian parent and books get tossed. Sometimes jobs are lost.
Their sentiment is wonderfully illustrated by Chesterton’s quote, “If you happen to read fairy tales, you will observe that one idea runs from one end of them to the other – the idea that peace and happiness can only exist on some condition. This idea, which is the core of ethics, is the core of the nursery-tales” (All Things Considered, 1908).
So, it's not for nothing that as the population ages here in America, there is increasing nostalgia for two decades in particular: the fifties and the sixties. Two decades far, far removed in many respects, but both basically embracing one or another [God or No God] "my way or the highway" moral and political dogma.

On the other hand, there is a more or less liberal rendition of this and a more or less conservative rendition. And [of course] the extremists at both ends.

Today, however, deep state and all, it still goes back and forth in America. Though, let's be honest, democracy itself is wobbling more and more.

America has now sustained for decades a fierce split right down the middle between liberal, generally No God folks in the Northeast and West Coast, and conservative, generally Christian folks most everywhere else. Elections decided by a handful of votes. Over and again.

Though, "peace and happiness" are still part of "democracy and the rule of law" for most folks.

For now.
One implication is that these works are only able to convey their intended value when viewed within the ethical paradigm from which they stem. So how does this nostalgia for orthodox stories and their moral lessons arise when we have mostly rejected the assumptions embedded within them? There has been no widespread religious revival.
On the other hand, here in America, with the growth over the decades of the Evangelicals and their merger with both MAGA and with the fiercely religious far-right Republicans, you can't rule out anything these days.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7940
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Nostalgia, Morality, & Mass Entertainment
Adam Kaiser finds a fine case of mass existential longing.
Escaping the Cave of Reality
And what might that encompass? For some, the bulk of their dwindling reality may well be floating on nostalgia. For others, it's awash in pop culture, mindless consumption and [today] social media. And depending on one's access to options -- the wherewithal, the money -- to buy into all of these tempting distractions, it's not likely to be of much interest to them...philosophically?
One critique of the existential tradition, made both by mainstream philosophers and by intellectual radicals such as Albert Camus, is that people cannot create their own moral values in the way that existentialists commend them to, and expect those values to have any objective or categorical importance. Rather these values become what Kant would have called mere hypothetical imperatives – nothing more than means to a subjective end of generating an experience of meaning.
Back to Kant? If so, are we not then back to the Christian God? And, if so, the only question then becomes the extent to which, given a particular context, Kant falls back on the Christian Bible itself in order to establish and then sustain his "rational theology". His deontological moral philosophy.

The whole point of including a "living God" in his own theological narrative was to establish a "transcending" frame of mind so that the consequential moral obligations down here would then be evaluated once and for all by God on Judgment Day.
Much ink has been spilled on the existential problems stemming from the Death of God, the decline of religiosity, and the crisis of meaning in an increasingly secular society.
And then the ink that I would spill writing about all of this in a publication like Philosophy Now. I take the crisis to my own "fractured and fragmented" assessment of value judgments derived existentially from dasein. Only I muddy the waters all the more by accepting that, like everyone else here, "I" am as well but a speck of existence in the staggering vastness of whatever it is that "all of existence" itself is. Even free will itself is entirely problematic.
I won’t rehash those debates, except to agree with Søren Kierkegaard that it really is either-or: one cannot abandon all metaphysical anchoring and expect to find deep existential meaning in this life. And our choice of (how we see) reality will manifest in every aspect of our lives.
As a "general description intellectual contraption", I'm sure each of us as individuals can connect it to the lives we live. No one wants to believe their day-to-day interactions with others are essentially meaningless and essentially purposeless. And who is not going to believe they are in possession of a Real Me...a deep down inside them "core Self" that does in fact have access to the One Really, Teally True Path allowing them to embrace moral and political policies that will bring the amoral Deep State crony capitaliists themselves to their knees.
Post Reply