Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides

[Sculptor]

Instead of linking to the relevant neuroscience and pointing out the part that supports VA's position....instead of making some kind of argument himself, he gives this kind of nebulous insult/ad hom. Does bahman look bad when he does this? Nope.

His argument is as effective as saying meat is universal.
Yes we are all made of meat. But DUH. That does not mean you get to impose your morality on others and pretend it is objective.

Sure. I mean, he does mount arguments, merits lacking or not. But I was focused on the non-argument. I don't think he realizes that every time tells people to read more in some field, these kind of implict generalized ad homs, he actually looks silly to people. I don't think he knows that. I think he thinks this is some kind effective put down, or even worse, an acceptable form of kind advice.

I think he has no idea how this comes across, that rather than him looking good or the other person looking bad, he looks silly.

Yes that too.
It's his fall back position, often directing people to areas that they clearly have a greater understanding of than himself.

[Sculptor]

That does not mean you get to impose your morality on others and pretend it is objective.

Would gravity still be objective if it wasn't imposed on you?

Thanks for an inappropriate analogy.

The point here would be that the objectivity of gravity would mean that people are required to fall over the same way no matter where they are in the Universe, and regardless of other factors such as being in a hot air balloon, or in deep space.

[Skepdick]

That does not mean you get to impose your morality on others and pretend it is objective.

Would gravity still be objective if it wasn't imposed on you?

Thanks for an inappropriate analogy.

The point here would be that the objectivity of gravity would mean that people are required to fall over the same way no matter where they are in the Universe, and regardless of other factors such as being in a hot air balloon, or in deep space.

That's a stupid point, surely?

Just because people are temporarily exempt from falling while using hot air balloons, airplanes; or floating about in deep space it doesn't mean that gravity is not objective.

[Sculptor]

Would gravity still be objective if it wasn't imposed on you?

Thanks for an inappropriate analogy.

The point here would be that the objectivity of gravity would mean that people are required to fall over the same way no matter where they are in the Universe, and regardless of other factors such as being in a hot air balloon, or in deep space.

That's a stupid point, surely?

Just because people are temporarily exempt from falling while using hot air balloons, airplanes; or floating about in deep space it doesn't mean that gravity is not objective.

Duh

[Skepdick]

Thanks for an inappropriate analogy.

The point here would be that the objectivity of gravity would mean that people are required to fall over the same way no matter where they are in the Universe, and regardless of other factors such as being in a hot air balloon, or in deep space.

That's a stupid point, surely?

Just because people are temporarily exempt from falling while using hot air balloons, airplanes; or floating about in deep space it doesn't mean that gravity is not objective.

Duh

You seem entirely confused about why you are confused.

Why do you have no problem with an imposed gravity, yet you have a problem with imposed morality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, morality is not universal. How many times do I have to say that? It is clearly explained in the video you shared.
But as the video clearly shows there is no universal moral function. Could we agree with that?

How can I agree, when the video indicated there are universal moral function within all humans.

I presented the following from the video which you have ignored;

2:11 her laughed out of her field-- does wesley here, at 2:15 the ripe old age of five months, know the difference 2:18 between right and wrong?
Stahl: He can't answer, but he can reach.
That 3:05 one?
Stahl: Wesley chose the good guy, and he wasn't 3:09 alone.
That one! Stahl: More than three quarters of the 3:12 babies tested reached for the nice puppet.

Stahl: 3:52 So basically, as young as three months old, we human 3:56 beings show a preference for nice people over mean people.
5:23 So, do you think that babies, therefore, are born with an innate sense of justice?
5:27 Wynn: At a very elemental level, I think so.

5:30 Paul Bloom: We think we see here the foundations for morality.[

Stahl: And he says discovering this in babies who 6:02 can't walk, talk or even crawl yet suggests it has 6:06 to come built in.
6:17-23 Bloom: What we're finding in the baby lab is that there's 6:20 more to it than that, that there's a universal moral core that all humans share.

6:26:29 The seeds of our understanding of justice, our understanding of right and wrong, are part of our biological nature.

9:19 We have an initial moral sense that is, in some ways, very impressive

Don't keep saying this,
"How many times do I have to say that? It is clearly explained in the video you shared."

In what ways that you do not understand the above statements I highlighted indicated the function of morality is not innate all humans?

Here is a conclusion of a systematic review of available research done on the topic: is a moral function or sense innate and universal in all humans?

Therefore, moral sense is found to be naturally occurring; it can further be developed through exposure to constructive and interactive environments and social relationships.
In conclusion, the questions of this systematic review have been answered.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 87537/full

It does not matter what he says. He also mentioned that to him morality is universal while only a fraction of children show moral behavior!

You don't understand and decipher the point,
"He also mentioned that to him morality is universal while only a fraction of children show moral behavior!"

Where did he mentioned only a fraction of children show moral behavior?
What sort of fraction are you talking about? 1%, 10%.
For him to conclude that "morality is universal" the results must be significant that children show moral behavior.
You were misled by other themes in the video, e.g. the earlier inherent tribalism impulse which is inherent but it does not obviate the corresponding existence of an inherent moral function [evolved later] in the brain.

You are ignoring this?

Here is a conclusion of a systematic review of available research done on the topic: is a moral function or sense innate and universal in all humans?

Therefore, moral sense is found to be naturally occurring; it can further be developed through exposure to constructive and interactive environments and social relationships.
In conclusion, the questions of this systematic review have been answered.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 87537/full

[bahman]

How can I agree, when the video indicated there are universal moral function within all humans.

I presented the following from the video which you have ignored;



Don't keep saying this,
"How many times do I have to say that? It is clearly explained in the video you shared."

In what ways that you do not understand the above statements I highlighted indicated the function of morality is not innate all humans?

Here is a conclusion of a systematic review of available research done on the topic: is a moral function or sense innate and universal in all humans?

It does not matter what he says. He also mentioned that to him morality is universal while only a fraction of children show moral behavior!

You don't understand and decipher the point,
"He also mentioned that to him morality is universal while only a fraction of children show moral behavior!"

Where did he mentioned only a fraction of children show moral behavior?
What sort of fraction are you talking about? 1%, 10%.
For him to conclude that "morality is universal" the results must be significant that children show moral behavior.
You were misled by other themes in the video, e.g. the earlier inherent tribalism impulse which is inherent but it does not obviate the corresponding existence of an inherent moral function [evolved later] in the brain.

You are ignoring this?

Here is a conclusion of a systematic review of available research done on the topic: is a moral function or sense innate and universal in all humans?

Therefore, moral sense is found to be naturally occurring; it can further be developed through exposure to constructive and interactive environments and social relationships.
In conclusion, the questions of this systematic review have been answered.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 87537/full

I fully understand what I am saying. Please watch the video you shared once more.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It does not matter what he says. He also mentioned that to him morality is universal while only a fraction of children show moral behavior!

You don't understand and decipher the point,
"He also mentioned that to him morality is universal while only a fraction of children show moral behavior!"

Where did he mentioned only a fraction of children show moral behavior?
What sort of fraction are you talking about? 1%, 10%.
For him to conclude that "morality is universal" the results must be significant that children show moral behavior.
You were misled by other themes in the video, e.g. the earlier inherent tribalism impulse which is inherent but it does not obviate the corresponding existence of an inherent moral function [evolved later] in the brain.

You are ignoring this?

Here is a conclusion of a systematic review of available research done on the topic: is a moral function or sense innate and universal in all humans?

I fully understand what I am saying. Please watch the video you shared once more.

I have downloaded the full transcripts and read it, thus my posting of the points above.
Show me where I am wrong?
The researchers do not deny the existence of innate moral sense but only that improvements are needed to what is already pre-existing.

What above the conclusion the systematic review of available research done on the topic [linked]: i.e. a moral function or sense innate and universal in all humans.
Links to the relevant research are show there in.

[Iwannaplato]

And children all dream. They have innate dreaming behavior (REM, processing of images, and so on). This doesn't mean there is the correct dream or that dreams are correct about the nature of the world or that there is a universal dream we can live by, and certainly not one we should live by. This is all misdirection, as in magic acts.

[bahman]

You don't understand and decipher the point,
"He also mentioned that to him morality is universal while only a fraction of children show moral behavior!"

Where did he mentioned only a fraction of children show moral behavior?
What sort of fraction are you talking about? 1%, 10%.
For him to conclude that "morality is universal" the results must be significant that children show moral behavior.
You were misled by other themes in the video, e.g. the earlier inherent tribalism impulse which is inherent but it does not obviate the corresponding existence of an inherent moral function [evolved later] in the brain.

You are ignoring this?

I fully understand what I am saying. Please watch the video you shared once more.

I have downloaded the full transcripts and read it, thus my posting of the points above.
Show me where I am wrong?
The researchers do not deny the existence of innate moral sense but only that improvements are needed to what is already pre-existing.

What above the conclusion the systematic review of available research done on the topic [linked]: i.e. a moral function or sense innate and universal in all humans.
Links to the relevant research are show there in.

You cannot expect that 100% of children show a behavior in an experiment! In fact, the result of the first experiment shows that only three-quarters of the children choose the good guy instead of the bad guy. The same applies to other experiments. Moreover, it is shown that children are selfish and racist!

[Veritas Aequitas]

I fully understand what I am saying. Please watch the video you shared once more.

I have downloaded the full transcripts and read it, thus my posting of the points above.
Show me where I am wrong?
The researchers do not deny the existence of innate moral sense but only that improvements are needed to what is already pre-existing.

What above the conclusion the systematic review of available research done on the topic [linked]: i.e. a moral function or sense innate and universal in all humans.
Links to the relevant research are show there in.

You cannot expect that 100% of children show a behavior in an experiment! In fact, the result of the first experiment shows that only three-quarters of the children choose the good guy instead of the bad guy. The same applies to other experiments. Moreover, it is shown that children are selfish and racist!

1. You didn't listen to the full video properly.
Where children choose the bad guy is with reference to a hypothesis that is different from the hypothesis on morality.

2. Here are the points again that support the hypothesis, there is an inherent moral function in humans.

5:23 So, do you think that babies, therefore, are born with an innate sense of justice?
5:27 Wynn: At a very elemental level, I think so.

5:30 Paul Bloom: We think we see here the foundations for morality.[

6:17-23 Bloom: What we're finding in the baby lab is that there's 6:20 more to it than that, that there's a universal moral core that all humans share.

6:26:29 The seeds of our understanding of justice, our understanding of right and wrong, are part of our biological nature.

9:19 We have an initial moral sense that is, in some ways, very impressive[/b]

How can you ignore what is asserted literally?

3. Btw, you ignore this again
What above the conclusion the systematic review of available research done on the topic
Links to the relevant research are show there in.

Therefore, moral sense is found to be naturally occurring; it can further be developed through exposure to constructive and interactive environments and social relationships.
In conclusion, the questions of this systematic review have been answered.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 87537/full

You need to address the 3 points above.

[Iwannaplato]

You cannot expect that 100% of children show a behavior in an experiment! In fact, the result of the first experiment shows that only three-quarters of the children choose the good guy instead of the bad guy. The same applies to other experiments. Moreover, it is shown that children are selfish and racist!

Here's one general problem I see, perhaps in both of your positions in the thread. Some things the children do are considered moral behavior. So, we start the whole experiment with the assumption that some behavior is moral and some is not. Then we look for it. They children do a wide variety of things, some fitting our ideas of moral behavior, some not. So, there's an assuming the conclusion in the arguments.

The other funny thing, to me, is that VA does not consider animals moral agents.

But when we talk about innate vs. learned senses of morality animals, having less plastic brains than us, have more morality built in. The social mammals that is. They have all sorts of behaviors and habits that fit under fairness, justice, altruistic behavior - generally in relation to their group or pack, but not restricted to this.

Humans, with their more neuroplastic brains get much more of their sense of morality from experience: culture, parenting, etc.

Yes, some comes innate in humans. Very proto-moral, category level stuff.

But it's less than in animals. One can Google inequity aversion or fairness in animals and find that scientists consider animals to be moral agents.

One advantage of neuroplasticity is that we can learn more. Disadvantages are that babies are more dependent on their parents in humans. Some animals are up and running on day 1, literally. We are also more vulnerable to PTSD, since we can 'learn' more from a trauma and it takes longer to unlearn it.

[Gary Childress]

Moral Relativists are morally indifferent, accept and are implicit to genocides and all other forms of evil acts. Moral relativists do not have a moral compass [by definition has a fixed standard].

I have to wonder if there really is such a thing as a "moral relativist". I suspect that if push comes to shove and these alleged "moral relativists" found themselves on the brink of being victims of genocide they would probably object vigorously. If what you are describing is "indifference" then it seems like a different thing altogether. Probably everyone is indifferent toward some atrocities. I mean, how many of us toss an envelope with a picture of a starving child in the trash without donating to that cause?

Or to be Peter Singeresque, how many of us sacrifice all of our "wants" to help people without basic needs in life?

[bahman]

You cannot expect that 100% of children show a behavior in an experiment! In fact, the result of the first experiment shows that only three-quarters of the children choose the good guy instead of the bad guy. The same applies to other experiments. Moreover, it is shown that children are selfish and racist!

Here's one general problem I see, perhaps in both of your positions in the thread. Some things the children do are considered moral behavior. So, we start the whole experiment with the assumption that some behavior is moral and some is not. Then we look for it. They children do a wide variety of things, some fitting our ideas of moral behavior, some not. So, there's an assuming the conclusion in the arguments.

I agree.

The other funny thing, to me, is that VA does not consider animals moral agents.

But when we talk about innate vs. learned senses of morality animals, having less plastic brains than us, have more morality built in. The social mammals that is. They have all sorts of behaviors and habits that fit under fairness, justice, altruistic behavior - generally in relation to their group or pack, but not restricted to this.

Humans, with their more neuroplastic brains get much more of their sense of morality from experience: culture, parenting, etc.

Yes, some comes innate in humans. Very proto-moral, category level stuff.

But it's less than in animals. One can Google inequity aversion or fairness in animals and find that scientists consider animals to be moral agents.

One advantage of neuroplasticity is that we can learn more. Disadvantages are that babies are more dependent on their parents in humans. Some animals are up and running on day 1, literally. We are also more vulnerable to PTSD, since we can 'learn' more from a trauma and it takes longer to unlearn it.

Thanks for the information. I was not aware of these.

[Iwannaplato]

You cannot expect that 100% of children show a behavior in an experiment! In fact, the result of the first experiment shows that only three-quarters of the children choose the good guy instead of the bad guy. The same applies to other experiments. Moreover, it is shown that children are selfish and racist!

Here's one general problem I see, perhaps in both of your positions in the thread. Some things the children do are considered moral behavior. So, we start the whole experiment with the assumption that some behavior is moral and some is not. Then we look for it. They children do a wide variety of things, some fitting our ideas of moral behavior, some not. So, there's an assuming the conclusion in the arguments.

I agree.

Great.
Here's the other thing I thought of mentioning. Thank goodness children do not have adult strength and ability to use tools. A two year old with adult strength and access to a fork or a hammer would lead to many homicides.

I am not saying they are bad or evil. They simply don't know. They don't', when younger than two and sometimes older also, in a real way that other people exist and are other people. In some ways it is silly to think of them as moral beings, though they can be beautiful beings and can love in a certain sense and can be kind or what is very similar to kindness between adults who do realize (at least many of them) that other people are other people with internal lives.

He easily dismisses animals as moral agents but adult animals can have higher IQs than children and even risk their own lives and/or do things that scare them to help others, even across species.

They can understand risk and out of concern for what they understand to be another living being, take that risk. Now that is moving into a moral realm, at least potentially, given the interpersonal nature of morals (even if only interpersonal in relation to a deity].

Now I do think there is a kind of protomorality in human children, even without parental intervention. And I know there is scientific support for this. But there are still fundamental variations in that morality - and I think the thought experiment with hammers and adult strength would lead any sane adult and certainly any who has worked with small children in a daycare say or as a parent to conclude that we don't find an objective set of moral facts in children.

For years now VA conflates these two things: the fact that moralities exist and then that this morality is singular. Even his not rule based non-deontological morality is simply not there in children or humans in general and we have no tools to decide whose is correct. We can all try to get the world to be what we want it to be: for some this would include more compassion and empathy; for others, well, we can look around at see the wide variety of ways people want the world to be and the human character to be.