Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 am
iambiguous wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2024 9:47 pm
The gap between the monkeys and the human species here is considerable. To what extent are their de facto behaviors not rooted far, far more in genes than memes?
Sure, but we continue to be smart monkeys even if we become moral subjectivists. IOW all those motivations we have still get used by the incredible and also terrible tools we have invented. We continue to feel aggression and yes empathy, to want to fight for resources, be jealous of others, feel distaste and so on. All the stuff that gets reified into morals.
We're not just smart monkeys though. Our brains have evolved to the point where we have created historical narratives that, depending on the set of circumstances, can vary considerably from culture to culture. Social, political and economic memes evolve over time in a sea of contingency, chance and change.
Monkeys have no philosophies or ideologies or religions or arts.
Assuming, of course, that "somehow" over the course of that biological evolution, we did acquire free will. Otherwise, monkeys and human beings are both nature's "automatons":
"a machine that performs a function according to a predetermined set of coded instructions, especially one capable of a range of programmed responses to different circumstances."
Either derived from God or from Nature. Only nature is all the more mysterious because unlike with God, we don't know if there is a teleological component in Nature. Then "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule". In particular the part where in regard to the Big Questions [in both philosophy and science] "there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
We need to be more "flexible creatures" because, given human autonomy, there are far, far, far more existential components embedded in the lives that we live.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amSure, but again, identifying with one's group will still come naturally. Randomly assigning people teams to be on can lead to fierce competition, and even lead to violence over games, let alone the experiments where some people were made prisoners and others prison guards. Arbitrary groups lead to group identification, even without a culture or history behind it.
Yet again: why do some communities go in one direction here while other communities go in an entirely different direction? Are there philosophers here who, using the tools at their disposal, can lead us all to the one true path? Sure, the moral and political and religious objectivists.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amThis is missing the point. Will things be better if no one believes their preferences, needs, distastes, norms, values are objective? What's the evidence.
That's your point. My point is that there are those moral objectivists among us [God and No God] who insist that only their own preferences count at all. Then the varying degrees of "or else".
Look, there are groups of capuchin monkeys in any number of South American countries. And suppose you studied all of them. How different would they be given that the preponderance of their behaviors are derived from nature rather than nurture? Here, in my view, there is no comparison between them and us.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amAnd remember that memes cut both ways. Memes and genes us to treat others in positive ways, even when we don't know them. Memes lead to collaboration, group problem solving, charity, helping the old lady across the street, social justice action, democracy, whatever.
Okay, but if ethicists had access to a truly deontological moral philosophy, they could grasp the optimal human behaviors...given, in turn, an optimal grasp of gene/meme interactions. Instead, historically and culturally, some communities revolve more around might makes right, others around right makes might and still others around democracy and the rule of law.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 am My point, again, was how do you know you would like the world better if everyone was a moral subjectivist.
But I already do assume that, given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here, we
are all moral subjectivists. It's just that many of these folks...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy
...insist that, on the contrary, morality is objective. Their own, in particular.
So, where is the equivalent of this among the various groups of monkeys?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amNo more objectivists. The point with that specific portion is that many moral realists believe in and promote values against things I would guess you tend to dislike: violence, unwillingness to compromise, racism, sexism, nationalism.
The part I root historically, culturally and in terms of our own uniquely personal experiences in dasein. Now, suppose those men and women who fiercely championed the things that I dislike here were able to gain control of the forum? How long would I still around?
As for moral realists, over and again I have challenged them to bring their assumptions -- their own assessments of "moral facts" -- down out of the theoretical clouds given an issue and a context of their own choosing.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amTake away value objectivity....seems like an experiment to me. Which doesn't mean I think it will fail, but how do we know this?
Well, what some of us argue is that for any number of objectivists, right is synonymous with "or else".
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 am And then there are any number of objectivists who have values that cut against this. Suddenly no one has to listen to their values either. And then where is the evidence that using moral objectivism isn't just one tool and that people with power will simply use other tools? Where is the evidence that people stop having an or else if they don't promote objectivest morals. We don't find that evidence in the animal kingdom. I don't see how we can know it looking at humans. So, how do you know this?
Let's just say that in regard to "or else", we think about it differently. From my frame of mind, you are either someone convinced that your own values reflect the optimal moral and political agenda, or you aren't. And, if you do believe this, you are either tolerant of others who believe something else or you are not.
As for what we can or cannot know here, I make a distinction between the either/or world and the is/ought world. For example, we know for a fact that Donald Trump now argues that abortion laws ought to be left up to the individual states. And we know for a fact that different states have different laws. On the other hand, what can philosophers and ethicists and political scientists tell us is
in fact true about the morality of abortion itself? With Roe v. Wade those on both sides of the issue were taken into account. Now the anti-choice side [many of whom bring this back around to the Christian God] are intent on imposing their own political prejudices on, well, everyone in particular jurisdictions. And, of course, the same with those extremists on the other end of the spectrum: abortion on demand!
That's why I'm always suggesting that we bring these abstractions down out of the theoretical clouds and examine our respective assumptions about human morality given an issue like abortion or infanticide or genocide. Is there or is there not an objective morality "down here" that can actually be demonstrated to exist?
Thus...
It's just that the thugs and the sociopaths among us predicate it on raw political and economic and personal power, while others find God or His secular, ideological equivalent. It's just that for any number of the "right makes might" objectivists, being "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" is particularly exhilarating. Especially when immortality and salvation are included along with the moral commandments.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 am I find it hard to believe that that exhilaration goes away when people stop thinking their morals are objective. The will to power and all that.
On the other hand, in regard to human morality, how exactly do we pin down the meaning of "the will to power". After all, how the amoral sociopaths and global capitalists construe it is often very different from how the moral objectivists attach it to God or ideology or deontology or biological imperatives.
Especially when immortality and salvation are included along with the moral commandments. And this is often communicated here in the sheer contempt they have for those who refuse to become "one of us".
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amSure, that happens. But where is the evidence that these patterns go away with objectivism going away. And those religions and those specific beliefs have also kept people in line in many ways - this is not me approving, but many people avoid doing things now because they've been taught they are evil or may lead to eternal torture. What happens when those lids get taken away?
My point however is that if, in any given community, moral objectivism -- religion, ideology, deontology etc. -- is rejected, it is much more likely that democracy and the rule of law [moderation, negotiation and compromise] will prevail as "the best of all possible world". Whereas in the might makes right world political power prevails, while in the right makes might world one or another dogmatic God or No God agenda prevails.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amI don't know, but it is seems like an not quite directly stated assumption is that you would find the world a better place if the objectivists no longer were that. I don't see anyway to even have a good guess on that issue.
Sure, given any particular set circumstances we might find ourselves in, moral objectivism can be either a good thing or a bad thing. My objection revolves instead around those who do seek to impose their own value judgments on the community itself. The "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" "or else" zealots.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amWe are chastizing the objectivtists for their poor epistemology. How can you demonstrate to all rational people that you version of morals is the right one?
What do we really know about knowing things like this? And over and again, I make it rather clear that I cannot demonstrate my version of this. Any more than I can demonstrate determinism or dasein. Also, over and again, I make it clear that neither moral subjectivism nor moral nihilism
necessarily make this a better world. And there is no "in general" here given my own fractured and fragmented frame of mind. Unless, of course, someone here is able to convince me that there is. Either God or No God. It's just that with God the "good news" continues on after the grave.
Then you agree that there are historical and cultural and personal arguments that can be made to rationalize infanticide? Or genocide? How are you not yourself "fractured and fragmented" here...torn because you do reognize that conflicting [though reasonable] arguments can made from both sides.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amI've answered this in a number of different ways before. Why am I not feeling what you are feeling? I can't know that. Someone like you who bases so much of his philosophy on how individual and group experiences affect beliefs and how one experiences life should know this. There could be any number of reasons why I am not fractured and fragmented, explaining absences is often impossible.
Okay, then in regard to an issue like abortion [or one of your own choosing] what moral facts can you cite that keep you from being drawn and quartered as "I" am in the is/ought world?
I'm most curious about your own rendition of the points I raise in the OPs here:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639
How is your own frame of mind at odds with this?
Same with the moral realists. How do they account for both sides of the abortion conflagration being able to accumulate what they construe to be facts about it. Is it a fact that an unborn zygote, embryo or fetus is a human being? Is it a fact that their God does exist and that His moral commandments must prevail? Is it a fact that if women are forced to give birth they can never hope to achieve full political and economic equality with men?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amYou have said you really hope someone can resolve this issue for you. I am not looking for someone to convince me X morals are objectively correct. I don't think that can happen. Period.
Well, we differ here then. On the other hand, my take on all of this fractures and fragments me in regard to conflicting goods while you are still able to think yourself into believing that you are not fractured and fragmented.
And given how many times in the past I have dramatically changed my mind about human morality, I would never really rule out the possibility that given a new experience, a new relationship and access to new information and knowledge, I might change my mind again.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amIn a no God universe where's the argument that establishes that objectivism is a problem?
Again, it becomes a problem when the most fanatic objectivists among us impose an "or else" condition on those who they deem to be "one of them". Then the part where those like Satyr and AJ simply exclude altogether others of the wrong race or ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amWhich you present here as if that's clear evidence of a problem.
It's not a problem for them though, is it? On the contrary, I am the problem because the more they come to see things as "I" do the more they themselves risk deconstructing their own "Real Me In Sync With The Right Thing To Do" convictions. Their own "psychology of objectivism". As I once embraced them myself as a Christian and then as a Marxist and then as a Democratic Socialist and on and on. And I certainly do not believe that moral nihilism reflects some sort of Hegelian synthesis. Let alone a new rendition of philosophical realism or political idealism.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amPersonally I dislike their positions, but you can't give evidence that objectivism is wrong using examples that presume it is obvious those two are wrong. Further there are objectivisms that have made incredible strides in protecting such people, for example. And I would guess that both of those mean, whatever I think of them, have rules against simply beating the shit out of gays, for example. Certainly other homophobes do. Objectivism isn't just the things you don't like.
Again, my understanding of objectivism revolves less around what people like or dislike and more around how their likes and dislikes are rooted existentially in dasein...and how any number of objectivists do pursue an "or else" agenda regarding those who don't think and feel exactly as they do.
Or the part where those like IC introduce eternal damnation itself into the mix. Accept Jesus Christ as your own persoinal savior...or else.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amYeah, this doesn't answer the question.
If my question was: what possible problems could objectivism lead to? Ok, those are some answers, given that I sympathize with your concerns there. But that's not my question.
You pose your questions here to IC and I pose mine. He is here arguing that those who do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal saviors cannot be saved. But beyond a leap of faith or it says so in the Bible he argues in turn that there is actual historical and scientific proof that the Christian God does exist. Those YouTube videos. And, had I watched them and been convinced that he was right, I'd return to Christianity and been able to be convinced again that there are objective moral Commandments. And that immortality and salvation are the real deal.
At least with IC, however, he is still committed to
arguing his point of view. He's not here demanding that atheists and those who believe in the wrong God should be banned. He's not the equivalent of those theocrats [and their secular ilk] in power who can enforce particularly draconian versions of "or else".
And the violence they inflict on other monkeys or other animals is not construed by them...or by nature...to be a philosophical issue.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amWell, then it's not Nature's objectivism. And yes, they don't view it that way, that was precisely the point. That without viewing it as objectivist, their rules, monkeys continue to enforce with an 'or else'.
But to what extent -- philosophically or otherwise -- are they self-conscious of all this? Clearly nowhere near to the extent that we are.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amAgain that's the whole point. You assume that without objectivist memes, or else goes away. I don't know where you get the idea, certinaly not from monkeys.
No, I do not assume that. Whenever human beings interact rules of behavior are clearly necessary. As with the monkeys. But, unlike with the monkeys, our rules of behavior can revolve either more or less around might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. We can attach the rules to philosophical assessments, the scientific method, political ideology and the like. Or we can become sociopaths and simply assume that any and all rules either further our own rooted existentially in dasein self-interests or they don't. And if they don't, we shift gears from "doing the right thing" to "don't get caught" doing what society insists is the wrong thing.
Thus...
Instead, the monkeys "or else" seems to revolve far more around a convoluted -- ineffable? -- intertwining of nature and nurture. "For all practical purposes" the community will become more or less dysfunctional given particular rules of behaviors. In other words, with monkeys, God and religion and ideology and philosophy don't factor in at all.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amExactly my point.
Okay, and my point is that because, in regard to morality, "God and religion and ideology and philosophy" are components of the human race, comparisons with monkeys here is of limited value.
Thus...
Whenever men and women interact in a community, "or else" can come to revolve around might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. There's really no equivalent of that in the monkey community. They don't go online in order to exchange conflicting views about good and evil like we do. Philosophically, scientifically, theologically or otherwise. It's "somehow" nature itself that programmed them to embrace interactions that sustain their community. To the extent this includes social, political and economic memes? You tell me.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amAgain, where is the evidence that if humans did not view morals as objective, we would have reductions in violence, more agreement about values, less conflicts, etc?
Who is arguing that?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amOK, great. It seemed implicit. In fact it seemed quite open given your answers above.
Of course, that's predicated largely on the extent to which you understand the points that I am making. And, sure, the other way around...me understanding your points as you intend them to be understood.
On the contrary, my main point of contention here is that the world we live in today is far more embedded in the consequences of an amoral political economy that revolves around "wealth and power" sustained by those inhabiting either a crony capitalist nation or a state capitalist nation. Again, this time next year that world may well revolve increasingly around the likes of Trump, Putin, and Xi.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amSo, then let's make it clear: you don't think that it would necessarily at all be a better world, from your own values or for people in general if moral objectivism disappeared...
What I think is this: that if somehow someone who does embrace one or another One True Path to Enlightenment was able to convince me that this is actually demonstrable, why would I not become "one of us" in accepting it. That wouldn't necessarily make it true, perhaps, but if I believed it was true than I could jettison my belief that my own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless. And that there is an objective morality. And if that convincing, demonstrable assessment came from someone like IC, that immortality and salvation awaited me.
It's just that for those who embrace democracy and the rule of law, the "or else" can pertain to election cycles. You're convinced that, say, the liberals or the conservatives have the most rational moral and political agenda, but you are willing to move on to the next election if you are voted out of power. And then the distinction between economic and foreign policy on the one hand and "value voter" issues on the other hand. The "deep state" is far more intent on sustaining their "show me the money" policies re the former than the latter. Thus in regard to issues like abortion or guns or sexuality, a truer democracy might prevail.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amOk, so here it seems like you are saying that in regard to what you value it would get better or it is more likely to get better for people with your values. I don't know how you know this.
Better? Being "fractured and fragmented"? Believing that death = oblivion? Believing that human existence itself is without either an ontological or teleological foundation? No, instead, it seems "better" for me only given the fact that if you are a moral nihilist, you are not anchored to one or another rendition of "what would Jesus do?" You simply have access "for all practical purposes" to more options. Only that frame of mind is also applicable to the amoral sociopaths and the amoral autocrats who own and operate the global economy.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2024 8:19 am Social mammals have or else messages with objectivism. Won't there still be conflicts over resources, values, preferences, lifestyle choices and so on? Won't disgust, control urges, selfishness, desire, rage, competitiveness, egoism and so on whether individual or group identified continue to cause violence, war, empathy-less policies, theft, oppression and rejection of certain others even without objectivism?
Yes, but to the extent I construe human interactions here as the embodiment of dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome, where is the equivalent of that among monkeys? Do they examine their own interactions in terms of "the gap" or "Rummy's Rule"?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amUnless I am missing something it seems like you consider objectivism not just based on poor epistemology but also a problem. That you would prefer it if objectivism disappeared. Whenever you mention it it is only the negative to you ( and, yes, some others) aspects you mention. The 'or else' stuff, the my way or the highway. You don't mention, generally, that it does just the opposite of these things, that people have memes they consider objective aimed at reducing violence, increasing collaboration, compromise and negotioations, helping people, accepting differences and so on. So, I take this as indication your sense it is a net negative in relation to your, in your head, values. But how do you know that taking them away would lead to a society you would prefer? What is the evidence?
...we'll need a particular context to examine in regard to our respective moral philosophies "here and now".
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amNo, we don't. Not to answer that question. What I believe is something else. I know you wnat to discuss that, but it has nothing to do with you thinking things will get better in the ways I asked about above.
Well, here we clearly have to agree to disagree. Discussing human morality theoretically, philosophically, didactically etc. in terms of better or worse is one thing, bringing those assumptions down to Earth and making them applicable to issues like abortion, another thing altogether. At least for me.
What's crucial [to me] is that I don't argue moral objectivism itself is inherently, necessarily, philosophically less rational than moral nihilism. On the contrary, my contention is that given a No God world [which is merely an assumption] the best of all possible worlds is democracy and the rule of law. Or, rather, after taking political economy and, in my view, the very real "deep state" into account.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amThis sounds like some kind of objectivism.
Again, my own understanding of objectivism revolves around the assumptions that there exists a Real Me, and that is "core Self" can be in sync with the Right Thing To Do. I don't believe either is applicable to me. Then the part where I root so much of what I do believe "here and now" about these things in my assessment of dasein.
I don't exclude myself from my own point of view. I don't even know if human beings have autonomy here at all. And, given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule", how on Earth would I go about demonstrating anything definitive about the either/or world...let alone the world of conflicting goods. It just seems reasonable to me "here and now" that in a No God universe, there is no biological or philosophical or scientific or "spiritual" font around to base objective morality on.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amRight, that's the epistemological issue. But it seems to me you are implying an ethical conclusion also. Objectivism leads to 'or else' threats. So, it is bad. It would be better if people didn't think that way.
No, in my view, the epistemological issue goes back to "the gap"...to connecting the dots between what each of us as individuals thinks the "human condition" encompasses and all that we do not know regarding where the human condition itself fits into the existence of existence itself. And all of the other Big Questions still well beyond our grasping. Unless, of course, you are one of the...metaphysical objectivists?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amI was saying you had a position in addition to the epistemological one, which was that it would be better with moral objectivism. In some places in your response it seems clear you are saying, no, you do not believe that. In other places it seems like you are saying the opposite.
Well, that's often what being fractured and fragmented in regard to conflicting value judgments comes around to. But that still doesn't make either epistemology or logic any less embedded in "the gap".
Better and worse pertaining to morality seems inherently problematic to me in a No God world. Whereas better and worse in regard to the either/or world is often more clearly measurable.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amPresumably you see that as your personal preference, given it can't be objectively better if people stopped being objectivist, or that would be an objective moral stance. So, you have this preference. And I think this preference is based on the idea that certain kinds of behavior and attitudes would be less present in a world without objective morals as an accepted meme.
That and the part where over and again I acknowledge I am no less included here. Really, given that I, like you, am just an "infinitesimal and utterly insignificant speck of existence" in the staggering vastness of "all there is", what are the odds that my "conclusions" here come closet to an actual ontological -- teleological? -- assessment of Reality itself?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amI don't know what happens if suddenly no one thinks in moral objectivist terms. It would obviously be very unsettling for many. I would guess that in the long run all the manifestations of desire (including for what others have or people they are close to), competition over resources and in general, fear of the other, hoarding, clash of values (even if no longer considered objective) and ways of life (including continued reactions of disgust, superiority, incomprehension and so on) would continue.
Just look at the world around us. The amoral "show me the money" global capitalists are focused in on sustaining access to cheap labor, accumulating natural resources and creating markets. Some given crony capitalist political economies, others given state capitalist political economies. But the bottom line here is no less embedded in one or another historical rendition of might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. And the world today seems increasingly headed in an autocratic direction. This time next year, Putin, Xi and Trump may well reflect the future of the human race.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amYes, people don't need objective morals to be monstrous - a word representing my distaste. So again, what evidence do we have that without moral objectivism things get closer to what you prefer?
Again, however, my point revolves less around what I and others prefer and more around how existentially the things that I and others came to prefer were simply one set of assumptions -- moral and political prejudices -- rather than another. Then the part where philosophers using the tools at their disposal still seem unable to pin down what all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women not only ought to prefer but philosophically are obligated to prefer. If only on this board...theoretically?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2024 6:31 amSo, when you, as you often do, point out the bad things that moral objectivism had led to, and do not mention the things you and many others here might think were preferable consequences of moral objectivism, you're not making a case that it would be better if moral objectivism was gone.
Again, "here and now", better or worse is deemed by me to reflect moral and political prejudices derived existentially from ever evolving historical and cultural contexts. Instead, it's the "fractured and fragmented" aspect of "I" in the is/ought world that is my main focus.
Is there a demonstrable argument here that prompts me to yank myself up out of the hole I've dug myself down into given my signature threads? Great, I win. And, after all, when it comes to these things, it really makes no difference if you can't demonstrate what you believe about them, only that you do believe them.
On the other hand, if others do come around to my own philosophical prejudices regarding "I" at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy, I win there too. In the sense that I have someone who empathizes with me.