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

Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Emotional intelligence is no fad.
(Belinda)
Well, the more recent critiques give good reasons for us to know it is.

Moreover, even in the ways its been "effective," a very dark side of it has now emerged. See The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ce/282720/

So it's clearly not necessarily even a good thing. Narcissists and sociopaths can be very good at it.

It's like technology -- not a bad thing in itself, but everything depends on the moral character of the person wielding it.
Yes, but emotional intelligence means not empathy but sympathy.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 11:28 pm Yes, but emotional intelligence means not empathy but sympathy.
EI doesn't actually really "mean" anything we can measure.

And both empathy and sympathy are easy to misguide, like the article says.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Sculptor »

Belinda wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 11:28 pm Immanuel Can wrote:
Emotional intelligence is no fad.
(Belinda)
Well, the more recent critiques give good reasons for us to know it is.

Moreover, even in the ways its been "effective," a very dark side of it has now emerged. See The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ce/282720/

So it's clearly not necessarily even a good thing. Narcissists and sociopaths can be very good at it.

It's like technology -- not a bad thing in itself, but everything depends on the moral character of the person wielding it.
Yes, but emotional intelligence means not empathy but sympathy.
Surely it means both.
I would suggest that empathy is the greater quality.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 11:31 pm
Belinda wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 11:28 pm Yes, but emotional intelligence means not empathy but sympathy.
EI doesn't actually really "mean" anything we can measure.

And both empathy and sympathy are easy to misguide, like the article says.
Empathy and sympathy can be sort of measured by their results. Empathy however is as you pointed out liable to be used in hate or fear. Sympathy along with reason is what saves humankind from being absolutely devilish.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:04 am Empathy and sympathy can be sort of measured by their results.
No, actually...they can't. Such "results" are always equivocal and subject to confirmation bias and causal fallacies.

Neither is quantifiable, reproducible, testable, comparable, or any of the other things needed to make them a properly object of scientific confimation.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 4:36 am
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:56 am "God is conscious. That's not an issue.
Another bit of nonsense you couldn't know.
The only way there is any meaning to the physical world is because biological consciousness has bestowed meaning upon the earth.
"Biological consciousness"? :shock: I guess you must mean human beings. I don't think you mean that God created this "biological consciousness." You can't mean it just happened for no reason, or with no cause. You can't mean it's something cats or fish can have, and they create meaning... :?
Meaning is experience/knowledge and all creatures have experience knowledge. The physical world is cause to all reactionary creatures and all creatures are reactionary to an ever-changing world.

"But human beings are only contingent, temporal, perishing beings themselves. They can't "bestow" meaning on an inherently meaningless universe. They can only delude themselves, if they prefer to, for a time, and then die without any objective meaning being involved at all. [/quote]

All things are temporal. Could I ask you, where do you think meanings come from? There is no such thing as objective meaning, there is only subjective meaning, objectified by the subject.
Your faith is a violation of the principles of life...
It's just fabulous how you so freely invent these God-substitutes. First "biological consciousness" subs for God, and then "principles of life" magically appear, with no Giver. :shock: ...humanity's further development...[/quote]
And then you throw in teleology..."development," as if this whole affair is going somewhere, even though the universe is meaningless. :shock: [/quote]


Any creed/religion that closes the door on wonder when all is not known and cannot be known is a violation, an insult to one's intelligence. I am not suggesting god substitutes, I don't need the anthropomorphic god of the desert religions that you cherish so. There is a great mystery, one you have chosen to answer with ancient imaginations and a self-infected lobotomy. The macrocosm like the physical earth is only meaningful to life forms as far as we presently know. Fantasy is not a sound structure to establish a moral system even where fantasy is wide spread.

"So what have you appealed to...let's add it up. There's a "biological consciousness" that magically imparts meaning to an accidental universe. There are "principles of life" written into it, and they can be "violated," but shouldn't be -- so there's morality, as well. And the whole thing, the world's story, is "developing" toward some goal, and not only that, but one you can know and foresee, so as to tell me I'm "violating" it?
Wow. You need to work on your story. The plot's got too many holes, given the characters and assumptions you've written into it. An indifferent universe, with magical "consciousness," miraculously appearing "principles," objective morality, and its own teleology, even though the whole thing's nothing but a cosmic accident... :shock:
[/quote]

Again, I ask you, where do you think meanings come from? Ponder it, it's your everyday life experience. Like most things in the world and the cosmos, things apparently just are. The story of an old Buddhist teacher comes to mind, holding up a flower before a gathering of his students in anticipation of an answer. A student at the back indicates he knows the teacher's lesson, the lesson is, the flower has no meaning, it just is. You replace the great mystery with the ignorance of your ancestors, but living in their times this was more understandable, you do not have the same excuse. Take it straight, it is a great mystery saying it is not is willful ignorance, dishonest and absurd.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

popeye1945 wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:45 am Meaning is experience/knowledge
Um...no, no, it's not. I have no idea why you'd think it was either of those things. "Meaning" means "purpose," or "intention," or "outcome," or "teleology." It certainly has no synonym in either of the terms you suggest.
"But human beings are only contingent, temporal, perishing beings themselves. They can't "bestow" meaning on an inherently meaningless universe. They can only delude themselves, if they prefer to, for a time, and then die without any objective meaning being involved at all.
All things are temporal.
God isn't.

But if all things are temporal, and God did not exist, that would only make the situation worse, not any better. If we were to decide that even eternal things cannot impart meaning, that doesn't imply that temporal things suddenly can. They are even less capable than the eternal.
Could I ask you, where do you think meanings come from?
Sure. God. God has made this universe for meaning.
There is no such thing as objective meaning
That's an assumption, maybe...I don't know what evidence you could offer to show we have any reason to think it's true.
Your faith is a violation of the principles of life...
It's just fabulous how you so freely invent these God-substitutes. First "biological consciousness" subs for God, and then "principles of life" magically appear, with no Giver. :shock: ...humanity's further development...And then you throw in teleology..."development," as if this whole affair is going somewhere, even though the universe is meaningless. :shock:
Any creed/religion that closes the door on wonder...
That's a strange phrase. I have to "wonder" what it means.

Are you suggesting there are particular religions or creeds that have some kind of an antipathy to wonder? I would have thought that a great many of them incorporate all sorts of mysterious and unexplained phenomena, and that wonder was an essential part of what they attempt to offer.

Take Catholicism. (I'm not one.) They have bells and smells, robes and chants, mysteries and miracles, all kinds of spooky stuff. Or how about Buddhism? They've got incense and priests, and transcendence, and meditation, and spirits and mysteries of all kinds; wonder is surely one of the things they rely heavily upon, especially because of the irrationality of much of what they believe. They often punt to "wonder" when reasoning becomes too demanding on them.

Do you know an ideology that hates wonder? Maybe Materialism does. I have a hard time thinking of any other.
"So what have you appealed to...let's add it up. There's a "biological consciousness" that magically imparts meaning to an accidental universe. There are "principles of life" written into it, and they can be "violated," but shouldn't be -- so there's morality, as well. And the whole thing, the world's story, is "developing" toward some goal, and not only that, but one you can know and foresee, so as to tell me I'm "violating" it?
Wow. You need to work on your story. The plot's got too many holes, given the characters and assumptions you've written into it. An indifferent universe, with magical "consciousness," miraculously appearing "principles," objective morality, and its own teleology, even though the whole thing's nothing but a cosmic accident... :shock:
Again, I ask you, where do you think meanings come from?
And again, I say God.

This universe is not some sort of cosmic accident. It's a Creation, the deliberate and purposeful arrangement by an intentional God. He "meant" something when He created it: He gave it teleological purpose and direction, laws and scientific principles, moral status, and human beings as the lone creatures capable of processing all of them and thus understanding "meaning."
...things apparently just are.
I don't think that's the least bit obvious or "apparent". It does not seem that way to me.

Random things are marked by chaos, chance, haphazardness, lack of organization, disorder, amorality and irrationality. That's not like any place we're living.

I think the most obvious postulate is that there is a God who created this world, and us. Things "are" what they "are" at His pleasure, and for His purposes. They're way too coherent, regular, logical, rational, extraordinary, unexpected and stable to be random.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12376
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:20 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 9:03 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Nov 16, 2022 6:33 am
"Intelligence" can't be valued universally, or even generally. Like every other possible criterion, it's relative to the percipient. There's nothing to tell us that "intelligence" is an objectively "good" thing, if subjectivism is true.
As usual you missed out the critical parts,
I stated therein,
"there is a positive trend of the increase of intelligence of the average human since say 5000 years ago to the present."
That's actually not important at all, unless we can show that "intelligence" is objectively a good thing for us to be gaining.

As a secondary note, I think you'll find that you've misunderstood what "intelligence" is. It's not information, technology or the accumulation of knowledge: it's processing ability, such as is indicated by IQ.
And in those terms, there's no evidence of greater mental processing power between, say, 5000 years ago and today.
Even the most enthusiastic Evolutionists are going to tell you that 5000 years is far too short a span for that. They'll want you to measure it in millions of years.

But the important point is merely this: how do you show that "intelligence" or any other quality you hope is increasing, is "good," if you are a subjectivist? For then, you have to say it's not objectively good. So subjectivism implies it's only good for those who prefer to think it is, but they may be objectively wrong, for all we can know. :shock:
Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving.
More generally, it can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence

The above denote humans has multi-intelligence,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of ... elligences
ntelligence modalities
2.1 Musical-rhythmic and harmonic
2.2 Visual-spatial
2.3 Linguistic-verbal
2.4 Logical-mathematical
2.5 Bodily-kinesthetic
2.6 Interpersonal
2.7 Intrapersonal
2.8 Naturalistic
The concept of multiple intelligence may be disputed by some, but common sense will show that there are some who are more mathematical intelligent than others. It is the same with musical and other intelligence. Such abilities can be measured objectively.

Btw, I believe you are ignorant or resist the fact that what is 'objective' is intersubjective.
That is no such thing as absolutely absolute objectivity.
E.g. scientific objectivity [you cannot deny this?] is conditioned upon scientists as subjects, thus ultimately subjective via intersubjectivity.

As such, what is objectively good is based on results that are consistently net good.
The increase of IQ [as defined] of the average humans over the last 5000 years has a net-good result while providing for the possibility of its potential negatives.

Re the increase of average intelligence [IQ] of the average human.
The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in both fluid and crystallized intelligence test scores that were measured in many parts of the world over the 20th century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

The fact that there is a greater % of non-theists at present as compared to 2000 or even 500 years ago is an indication there is a corresponding increase in rational intelligence among humans.
Theism is based on faith [irrational and not-intelligent] and one critical aspect of intelligence in general and IQ is reasoning based on evidence and justification.

Show me evidence [in totality] our ancestors 5000 years on average has the same IQ as the average person on Earth as in 2022?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 11:01 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:20 pm But the important point is merely this: how do you show that "intelligence" or any other quality you hope is increasing, is "good," if you are a subjectivist? For then, you have to say it's not objectively good. So subjectivism implies it's only good for those who prefer to think it is, but they may be objectively wrong, for all we can know. :shock:
Intelligence has been defined...
No, no...I know what intelligence IS. What you need to show is that, in the moral sense, we OUGHT to value intelligence.
Such abilities can be measured objectively.
Yes, but measurability doesn't prove they are morally valuable qualities. And that they are objectively measurable doesn't make them objectively moral. We can also very precisely measure the number of murders or rapes, or the number of slaves. That won't show that murder, rape or slavery are moral.
Btw, I believe you are ignorant or resist the fact that what is 'objective' is intersubjective.
No. I'm aware of that error. It's not plausible, for obvious reasons.

To say that something is "intersubjective" doesn't make it any more moral than if it's "subjective." The "inter" doesn't add anything except numbers. And to think it did would be to fall prey to a very obvious bandwagon fallacy.
That is no such thing as absolutely absolute objectivity.
You mean "there"? Not "that," right?

No, that's not true. What God knows is absolutely objective.
E.g. scientific objectivity [you cannot deny this?] is conditioned upon scientists as subjects, thus ultimately subjective via intersubjectivity.
I've already said that scientific or empirical knowledge is all only probabilistic, not absolute.
As such, what is objectively good is based on results that are consistently net good.
No: that's still an "is" with no "ought."
The increase of IQ [as defined] of the average humans over the last 5000 years has a net-good result while providing for the possibility of its potential negatives.
"Net-good result" and "potential negatives" are value-laden terms. Which scheme of values are you drawing on, when you make that assessment? Your own intuitions, your society's beliefs, or something more objective?
The fact that there is a greater % of non-theists at present as compared to 2000 or even 500 years ago is an indication there is a corresponding increase in rational intelligence among humans.
That's actually statistically untrue. You're perhaps judging by your own locale. On a world scale, 92% remain "religious" in one form or another, 4% remain agnostic, which means they are still open to it as a possibility, and only 4% are outright Atheists. (CIA Factbook) If you want to argue that numbers make a difference, you'd have to say that Atheism is not particularly popular, and statistically, it isn't growing but shrinking (Neuroscience mag.)

So you're making an assumption that being an Atheist causes, or indicates, intelligence. But that's not a causal link anyone has been able to show, even when they really wanted to. What we know is that more-intuitive people tend to be religious, but also so do many of the hyper-intelligent. This only suggests that some "religious" awareness is a general human inclination, more likely to include a broad range of persons, but Atheism is a narrow taste of the semi-educated West. It doesn't suggest that more-intelligent people are automatically secular, far less that Atheism causes intelligence or correlates with it causally.

You have to interpret the data carefully. As the old axiom goes, "Correlation is not causality." What seems to be the case is that more people of middle intelligence choose Atheism than those of low or high intelligence...but it's not clear why they do, nor do the data suggest that their doing so is a better or more intelligent thing.
Theism is based on faith [irrational and not-intelligent]
That's perhaps your defintion of "faith." It's not mine, and it's not a lot of people's. Personally, it seems to me incredibly naive.

But as you can see, some sort of level of "faith" (your definition) of some kind is manifest in at least 96% of the population, and I would make the case it's 100%, since Atheism is, itself nothing more than a "faith" position (if we use your definition). That is, Atheism is non-evidentiary. It's a wish, not a set of data.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:51 am
Belinda wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 12:04 am Empathy and sympathy can be sort of measured by their results.
No, actually...they can't. Such "results" are always equivocal and subject to confirmation bias and causal fallacies.

Neither is quantifiable, reproducible, testable, comparable, or any of the other things needed to make them a properly object of scientific confimation.
While the human sciences can't include active experimenting with people, the humans sciences do in fact observe and quantify. Results of sympathy are usually detectable by common sense, and results of sympathy are easy to quantify according to e.g. how much faster learning happens after and during sympathetic teaching. And e.g. how much the rate of quantifiable improvement in health and ability improves after and during sympathetic nursing, training, and teaching.

Empathy is of course also useful for therapy, education , and training, but as you pointed out empathy can be used to facilitate crimes. In the latter connection I mention particularly scamming.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:30 pm ...the humans sciences do in fact observe and quantify.
Actually, they don't. They try to. That's not the same thing as succeeding.

Human "sciences" is actually a misnomer, if we understand "science" to be what deals with the repeatable, the testable, the demonstrable, and so on, like in physics or chemistry, the "hard sciences". They're not really "sciences" at all, so much as a kind of informal observing and theorizing, really. They bridge the gap between the hard sciences and things like literary and cultural studies.

You should read Paul Bloom's Against Empathy. It would surprise you how many ways empathy can go wrong. And even he doesn't catalogue them all.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 10:19 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:30 pm ...the humans sciences do in fact observe and quantify.
Actually, they don't. They try to. That's not the same thing as succeeding.

Human "sciences" is actually a misnomer, if we understand "science" to be what deals with the repeatable, the testable, the demonstrable, and so on, like in physics or chemistry, the "hard sciences". They're not really "sciences" at all, so much as a kind of informal observing and theorizing, really. They bridge the gap between the hard sciences and things like literary and cultural studies.

You should read Paul Bloom's Against Empathy. It would surprise you how many ways empathy can go wrong. And even he doesn't catalogue them all.
All categorising in the natural sciences, in the human sciences, and in common sense is based partly upon probablities and partly upon what categories are socially useful.

Thus 'weapon' : 'animal': 'food': 'poison' : 'weed': 'religion': 'crime': 'love': 'human': 'skeletal' : 'shelter' : 'physical': 'sacred': 'elite': 'etymological': and so forth
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 2:46 pm All categorising in the natural sciences, in the human sciences, and in common sense is based partly upon probablities and partly upon what categories are socially useful.
"Categorizing"? That's one activity science does, but not nearly all it does, and things that are not scientific involve it, too.

Why are we talking about that?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 3:04 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 2:46 pm All categorising in the natural sciences, in the human sciences, and in common sense is based partly upon probablities and partly upon what categories are socially useful.
"Categorizing"? That's one activity science does, but not nearly all it does, and things that are not scientific involve it, too.

Why are we talking about that?

Because science involves observation and quantification, and both of those require ideas and things are categorised or re-categorised. The human sciences and the natural sciences are sciences with respect to the above.

Oh yes they are!
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 6:58 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 3:04 pm
Belinda wrote: Sat Nov 19, 2022 2:46 pm All categorising in the natural sciences, in the human sciences, and in common sense is based partly upon probablities and partly upon what categories are socially useful.
"Categorizing"? That's one activity science does, but not nearly all it does, and things that are not scientific involve it, too.

Why are we talking about that?
Because science involves observation and quantification,
Those are different from "categorization." They're three distinct operations. One can observe or quantify without having to categorize, and categorize without quantifying, and observe while doing neither.
Post Reply