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

Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:02 pm I coloured in the circular bits for you.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

Are you perhaps implying that arguments shouldn't be circular? Because that would be circular...
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:02 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 7:35 pm No, I think you missed the point, morality should be based upon its proper subject
I coloured in the circular bits for you.
Is your statement referring to the interplay between subject biology and object culture, the fact that there is this back-and-forth one informing the other? Please clarify. Do please enlighten!
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 4:52 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:47 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 2:42 am

Yes, culture is a complex thing but it is plastic and a reflection of the population's psyche. Also, culture has as its foundation in the physical geography of place and climate. Culture is there for us to read and partake of it as tutor, if what we see is ugly, we need to look at the collective psyche that manifested this ugliness. I do think that is what people do anyway but it seems often without any first principles to guide them, so they end up creating chaos. As far as any social order goes it cannot please everybody, that is the recipe for chaos. This is without considering the global community but the principles would be the same I think, we would still be talking about community.
Moral relativism is an aspect of cultural relativism so the culture I am immersed in holds that some other cultures of belief and/or practise are bad cultures. My culture holds that Taliban culture is bad, and that Nazism is a bad culture, and that building faulty blocks of flats is a bad culture.
I'd like to find first principles as a guide to what constitutes a good culture.
The front runner in the first principle race is human nature as a biological animal.

The biological animal is innocent not guilty of original sin. As innocent, the human is entrapped in shades of the prison house while still a child
Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar:
Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home:
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
Shades of the prison-house begin to close
Upon the growing Boy,
That's viciously circular. You want to use the moral framework derived from your cultural preference to determine which cultural preferences create the best moral frameworks.
It's "circular" because all we have is subjectivity or the intersubjectivity of a culture. The best we can hope for is to learn cultural change from each other. There is no God that transcends subjectivity. God is a human creation. So far we 'all' have learned that what does transcend subjectivity is negative theology (apophatic theology) and its near relative the indefinable virtues of good, truth, and beauty.
There is more good, truth, and beauty in Nature including the biologically human than there is in any cultural creed. There is a reason for this. Human cultures are often deliberately skewed by human individuals, whereas Nature can't tell lies.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:25 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 4:52 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:47 am

Moral relativism is an aspect of cultural relativism so the culture I am immersed in holds that some other cultures of belief and/or practise are bad cultures. My culture holds that Taliban culture is bad, and that Nazism is a bad culture, and that building faulty blocks of flats is a bad culture.
I'd like to find first principles as a guide to what constitutes a good culture.
The front runner in the first principle race is human nature as a biological animal.

The biological animal is innocent not guilty of original sin. As innocent, the human is entrapped in shades of the prison house while still a child

That's viciously circular. You want to use the moral framework derived from your cultural preference to determine which cultural preferences create the best moral frameworks.
It's "circular" because all we have is subjectivity or the intersubjectivity of a culture. The best we can hope for is to learn cultural change from each other. There is no God that transcends subjectivity. God is a human creation. So far we 'all' have learned that what does transcend subjectivity is negative theology (apophatic theology) and its near relative the indefinable virtues of good, truth, and beauty.
There is more good, truth, and beauty in Nature including the biologically human than there is in any cultural creed.
I never have and never will be asking you about religion, so yet another random segue into your tedious obsession with God will never be a useful aside for you.

So we are agreed that it's circular. There's no point wasting perfectly good "scare quotes" on what is a basic and obvious fact.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:30 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:25 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 4:52 pm
That's viciously circular. You want to use the moral framework derived from your cultural preference to determine which cultural preferences create the best moral frameworks.
It's "circular" because all we have is subjectivity or the intersubjectivity of a culture. The best we can hope for is to learn cultural change from each other. There is no God that transcends subjectivity. God is a human creation. So far we 'all' have learned that what does transcend subjectivity is negative theology (apophatic theology) and its near relative the indefinable virtues of good, truth, and beauty.
There is more good, truth, and beauty in Nature including the biologically human than there is in any cultural creed.
I never have and never will be asking you about religion, so yet another random segue into your tedious obsession with God will never be a useful aside for you.

So we are agreed that it's circular. There's no point wasting perfectly good "scare quotes" on what is a basic and obvious fact.
Are you at all interested in the concepts being entertained in the conversation?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:30 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:30 pm
Belinda wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:25 pm
It's "circular" because all we have is subjectivity or the intersubjectivity of a culture. The best we can hope for is to learn cultural change from each other. There is no God that transcends subjectivity. God is a human creation. So far we 'all' have learned that what does transcend subjectivity is negative theology (apophatic theology) and its near relative the indefinable virtues of good, truth, and beauty.
There is more good, truth, and beauty in Nature including the biologically human than there is in any cultural creed.
I never have and never will be asking you about religion, so yet another random segue into your tedious obsession with God will never be a useful aside for you.

So we are agreed that it's circular. There's no point wasting perfectly good "scare quotes" on what is a basic and obvious fact.
Are you at all interested in the concepts being entertained in the conversation?
The bits that aren't silly mystical shit, sure. Circular arguments are logically fallacious though, no amount of woo is going to change that, and neither is some ad hominem whinge.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:14 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:30 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 8:30 pm
I never have and never will be asking you about religion, so yet another random segue into your tedious obsession with God will never be a useful aside for you.

So we are agreed that it's circular. There's no point wasting perfectly good "scare quotes" on what is a basic and obvious fact.
Are you at all interested in the concepts being entertained in the conversation?
The bits that aren't silly mystical shit, sure. Circular arguments are logically fallacious though, no amount of woo is going to change that, and neither is some ad hominem whinge.
I saw that program too, the woo factor, ok fair enough, live long and prosper.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

popeye1945 wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:43 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:14 am
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:30 pm

Are you at all interested in the concepts being entertained in the conversation?
The bits that aren't silly mystical shit, sure. Circular arguments are logically fallacious though, no amount of woo is going to change that, and neither is some ad hominem whinge.
I saw that program too, the woo factor, ok fair enough, live long and prosper.
The Woo Factor according to Google is a pop group. What do people mean by "woo" ? From the context I guess woo is either mysterian or supernatural, or may be both those. The big words I used in that last sentence are the most precise I know and it's not my fault the words are long and jargon. Woo is pleasantly short and snappy but it's too imprecise for philosophy.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Belinda wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 10:51 am
popeye1945 wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:43 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 12:14 am
The bits that aren't silly mystical shit, sure. Circular arguments are logically fallacious though, no amount of woo is going to change that, and neither is some ad hominem whinge.
I saw that program too, the woo factor, ok fair enough, live long and prosper.
The Woo Factor according to Google is a pop group. What do people mean by "woo" ? From the context I guess woo is either mysterian or supernatural, or may be both those. The big words I used in that last sentence are the most precise I know and it's not my fault the words are long and jargon. Woo is pleasantly short and snappy but it's too imprecise for philosophy.
Here's the the meaning of woo: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woo-woo

It refers to your habit of responding to simple logical issues with rambling rants about God and other irrelevant, imaginary, spiritual entities that have no bearing on anything except your woo-woo obsession.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 4:24 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 10:51 am
popeye1945 wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:43 am

I saw that program too, the woo factor, ok fair enough, live long and prosper.
The Woo Factor according to Google is a pop group. What do people mean by "woo" ? From the context I guess woo is either mysterian or supernatural, or may be both those. The big words I used in that last sentence are the most precise I know and it's not my fault the words are long and jargon. Woo is pleasantly short and snappy but it's too imprecise for philosophy.
Here's the the meaning of woo: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woo-woo

It refers to your habit of responding to simple logical issues with rambling rants about God and other irrelevant, imaginary, spiritual entities that have no bearing on anything except your woo-woo obsession.
I am an atheist, woo- woo is just nonsense reworked.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

I don't believe in ghosts or a supernatural form of being. I believe God in all the word's diverse shades of meaning is a human creation and has no existence apart from human ideation.

I sometimes discuss God in an objective spirit and suggest that it could be a helpful idea if people could and would regard God as a human creation.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Belinda wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:16 pm I sometimes discuss God in an objective spirit and suggest that it could be a helpful idea if people could and would regard God as a human creation.
But sometimes you only bring God into it because you were asked about a circular depency in an argument you presented, and rather than just recognise that the circularity is a problem you opt to bullshit instead. So you can keep that umbrage of yours bottled up, you don't have the right to spill it today.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 7:43 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:16 pm I sometimes discuss God in an objective spirit and suggest that it could be a helpful idea if people could and would regard God as a human creation.
But sometimes you only bring God into it because you were asked about a circular depency in an argument you presented, and rather than just recognise that the circularity is a problem you opt to bullshit instead. So you can keep that umbrage of yours bottled up, you don't have the right to spill it today.
'God' for philosophers refers to a reality that makes sense even if there were no living beings in the universe. The word God is a place holder for ideas that transcend the human brain-mind.

Some people ( I guess most theists) think 'God' refers to a supernatural person who intervenes in history.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Why Moral Nihilism is Problematic
From The Retrospective
However, some people in this group [above] are moral nihilists. Rather than seeking to provide some account of what morality might actually be, moral nihilists reject the concept of morality entirely.
Not this moral nihilist. And, more to the point, it's not the "concept" of moral nihilism that is of interest to me. It is taking whatever one concludes the concept to be down here among us mere mortals in what is presumed to be a No God world. Moral nihilism pertaining to social, political and economic interactions. The part "where the rubber meets the road". The part where dasein comes into play.
Moral nihilists think there is no credible basis on which to think one’s behaviour is guided by moral considerations. Rather than acting in accordance with one’s morals, moral nihilists think people act simply in accordance with social conventions.
Again, some moral nihilists. Certain sociopaths, for example. Those who reject both morality and social conventions. And those who recognize that what we call morality is just the "for all practical purposes" need for any community to establish "rules of behavior" given that conflicting goods -- conflicting wants and needs -- are always going to be a part of the "human all too human condition".
Moral nihilists therefore think morality as a concept is a total contrivance, a fabrication, an artificial method of social control. The implication of this view is that there is nothing truly right or wrong, good or bad.
Here though the problematic element revolves around just how tricky a belief can be. Yes, some are particularly cynical and manipulate people into believing in morality [God or No God] merely in order to sustain their own selfish interests. "Morality is the opiate of the people" might be their motto. In other words, when morality as a concept becomes the actual law of the land. When moral nihilists gain actual political power and run the government.

But other moral nihilists...those not "fractured and fragmented" as I am...are able to convince themselves that through "democracy and the rule of law"/"moderation, negotiation and compromise" we can sustain something that is at least in the vicinity of "the best of all possible worlds". No objective moral absolutes perhaps but laws thought to be clearly more ethical than others.
But the problems with moral nihilism are actually quite obvious and intuitive.
Anyone here believe this? Okay, let's agree on a context and explore it it further.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by popeye1945 »

Nihilism is the lack of meaning, or the state of the physical world in the absence of a conscious subject, for biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.
Post Reply