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

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

he actually brings it all back to a God, the God, his God
Actually, in all our back & forth across multiple threads, and in my back & forth with other folks, I've never done that.

If you were actually payin' attention instead of lookin' to get a leg up, you'd know that.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Here of course I always come back to Ayn Rand.

As with many Libertarians, the Randroid Objectivists always place this emphasis on both Reason and the Individual. But if the individual dared to reject the Reasons of Ayn Rand herself, they were excommunicated and then booted out of her "collective".

What makes Henry's "my way or the highway" "individualism" particularly bizarre to me is that, unlike Rand, he actually brings it all back to a God, the God, his God. A Deist God who imparted in him the capacity to grasp that buying and selling bazookas and tanks is Rational and Natural but doesn't seem to allow that other Deists might be convinced that it's not Rational or Natural at all.

Or, in any event, Henry doesn't seem to allow for it.

Clearly, if the "psychology of objectivism" -- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296 -- is applicable to anyone here, it is Henry.
henry quirk wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 10:17 pm Actually, in all our back & forth across multiple threads, and in my back & forth with other folks, I've never done that.

If you were actually payin' attention instead of lookin' to get a leg up, you'd know that.
As per usual, he'll take a snippet of what I post and just ignore all the rest.

But how can he posit the existence of a God, the God, my God, insist that this God imparts in him the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" and then not connect the dots between this God and his own moral and political dogmas?

Either he figures his God would nod in approval at the objectivist dogmas he champions here or he figures that his God might instead nod in approval at those who champion strict gun control laws as a Reasonable and Natural behavior?

Which is it?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

As per usual, he'll take a snippet of what I post and just ignore all the rest.
The rest is usually you preachin' (and you don't need my imput on that) or it doesn't have anything to do with me (like Rand, for example: I'm not a fan, so why should I comment on her or your lil thoughts about her?).
But how can he posit the existence of a God, the God, my God, insist that this God imparts in him the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" and then not connect the dots between this God and his own moral and political dogmas?
I explained this recently to Walker *in another thread, a thread where you were or still are talkin' to him. Like I say: you don't pay attention.
Either he figures his God would nod in approval at the objectivist dogmas he champions here or he figures that his God might instead nod in approval at those who champion strict gun control laws as a Reasonable and Natural behavior?
For somebody who thinks he knows what deism is, you sure do keep gettin' things wrong about it, my particular take, and me.




*correction: in this thread
Last edited by henry quirk on Wed May 04, 2022 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Walker »

iambiguous wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 5:38 pm
Again, where is the argument [philosophical or otherwise] that establishes which political prejudice rooted subjectively in dasein is not really a political prejudice rooted subjectively in dasein at all but the actual objective truth.
Getting the enquiry just right seems like an attempt to get the response just right. :D

The actual objective truth, even for Karens, is self-interest. Self-interest varies among individuals. Expressions of self-interest also varies. However, the presence of self-interest, and the expression of self-interest, is ubiquitous and therefore, the actual objective truth.

I Am ... says to Self-Interest, “You complete me, and connect the dots.”
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

As per usual, he'll take a snippet of what I post and just ignore all the rest.
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:46 amThe rest is usually you preachin' (and you don't need my imput on that) or it doesn't have anything to do with me (like Rand, for example: I'm not a fan, so why should I comment on her or your lil thoughts about her?).
Okay, fine, we can leave it to others here to decide for themselves if it's me "preaching" or you avoiding actual substantive exchanges with me regarding the points I raise above and elsewhere.

And my argument about Rand revolves not around the points she raised but around the manner in which she herself championed individuals "owning" themselves. And owning their points. Like you sans God. But then the manner in which she demanded that others share her own views about, well, everything. Just like [from my frame of mind] you do here. I'm sure the ARI has an official policy on gun control and abortion. And I'm sure that collectively all individuals who call themselves Objectivists had damn well better share it.

How does the irony here not leap out at us?
But how can he posit the existence of a God, the God, my God, insist that this God imparts in him the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" and then not connect the dots between this God and his own moral and political dogmas?
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:46 am I explained this recently to Walker *in another thread, a thread where you were or still are talkin' to him. Like I say: you don't pay attention.
Like I said...
...how can he posit the existence of a God, the God, my God, insist that this God imparts in him the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" and then not connect the dots between this God and his own moral and political dogmas?
On this thread.
Either he figures his God would nod in approval at the objectivist dogmas he champions here or he figures that his God might instead nod in approval at those who champion strict gun control laws as a Reasonable and Natural behavior?
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 12:46 am For somebody who thinks he knows what deism is, you sure do keep gettin' things wrong about it, my particular take, and me.
Okay, how is your take in sync or not in sync with this...

'Deism is not "conservative" nor "liberal". Deism and Deists follow the dictates of Reason and Nature. Regarding controversial issues such as abortion, gun control, etc., Deists are free to make up their own minds based on their own God-given reason. There are Deists who are on both sides of these issues. The only way to resolve these issues is to have a free exchange of ideas with open minds from people on both sides of the issues. In that spirit this article on abortion is presented.'

From this site: https://www.deism.com/post/should-abortion-be-legal

Let's think this through....

There is a God, the God, your God. You have faith in His existence. Faith unless of course you can actually demonstrate it is not a leap of faith at all...that in fact He does exist.

This God creates you and imparts in you the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature". Then He splits the scene.

But what if there are other Deists among us who "own" themselves and insist that owning bazookas and tanks is an irrational and unnatural behavior. And that having an abortion is a rational and natural behavior.

Or does every single Deist on Earth in worshipping and adoring their God as the followers of Ayn Rand worshipped and adored her, share the only Rational and Natural frame of mind there can be here?

How "for all practical purposes" does that work among Deists?

Now, no snippets please. Let's really dig down deep into these questions.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

iambiguous wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 5:38 pm
Again, where is the argument [philosophical or otherwise] that establishes which political prejudice rooted subjectively in dasein is not really a political prejudice rooted subjectively in dasein at all but the actual objective truth.
Walker wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:19 pm Getting the enquiry just right seems like an attempt to get the response just right. :D
Okay, in regard to buying or selling bazookas and tanks or performing or having an abortion, what constitutes getting the "enquiry just right?" Is it more likely to be derived from Henry following the dictates of Reason and Nature derived from his Deist God or from the arguments I make regarding how value judgments are rooted subjectively/existentially in dasein...in the lives we actually live out in a particular world historically and culturally and experientially predisposing us to embrace one moral and political prejudice rather than another.

How about your own moral convictions here? What are they? Do they reflect getting the enquiry just right? If so, how specifically do you go about demonstrating this such that all rational and virtuous men and women would be obligated to think about them exactly as you do.

And are your own value judgments wholly in sync with Henry's? After all, you can't both be correct about the right enquiry and response unless you agree with each other entirely about what that consist of in regard to buying and selling bazookas and tanks and having an abortion.
Walker wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:19 pm The actual objective truth, even for Karens, is self-interest. Self-interest varies among individuals. Expressions of self-interest also varies. However, the presence of self-interest, and the expression of self-interest, is ubiquitous and therefore, the actual objective truth.
Huh?!!!

Leaving aside my own argument that the self acquires interests [and value judgments] existentially re the embodiment of dasein -- viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34319 -- how would this frame of mind work "for all practical purposes"?

Consider...

We are outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic. There is a protest going on attended by those who support a woman's right to choose an abortion and those who support the right of the fetus to be born.

You note this argument for them to mull over.

How are they supposed to react to it? Many on both sides might agree that "self-interest" is the objective truth. But they then insist that the manner in which they construe self-interest here [the "natural rights" of the unborn vs. the "political rights of the pregnant women] is also the objective truth.

What then?

How do you settle that for them? How would Henry?

Me, I'm stuck. Why? Because I agree with both sides. Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. Forcing women to give birth scuttles any real possibility for equality between men and women in a world where only women can get pregnant.

Drawn and quartered. Fractured and fragmented.

But that's me. Here and now. The moral nihilist. The moral relativist.

How about you?

Connect the dots here as you see them.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

DPMartin wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:20 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:18 pm
DPMartin wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:37 pm

the question was; how do men coexist peacefully without agreement? not whether or not life exist without existence. the observation that life exist without agreements is as redundant as, most cars have four wheels
You are missing my point, peaceful coexistence is not necessary. In other words, what exists exists.
in the wild, you're right its not necessary, but for mankind to coexist, its absolutely necessary. in mankind's case, no honor of agreement brings chaos.
And we see chaos exist in the world and humans still existing through it.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

Now, no snippets please. Let's really dig down deep into these questions.
Okay.

In return, I have two requests...

Read my post in its entirety before respondin' to any particular section.

Don't dismiss what I've written or lapse back into 3rd person references.

-----
And my argument about Rand revolves not around the points she raised but around the manner in which she herself championed individuals "owning" themselves. And owning their points. Like you sans God. But then the manner in which she demanded that others share her own views about, well, everything. Just like [from my frame of mind] you do here. I'm sure the ARI has an official policy on gun control and abortion. And I'm sure that collectively all individuals who call themselves Objectivists had damn well better share it.
As I say: I'm no fan of Rand. I'm not an Objectivist. If she championed ownness good on her. Rand was pushy and so am I but, unlike Rand...
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:50 amI have no time, no resources, and, most importantly, no inclination to police the world, and not you or anyone else here can point to any post of mine that sez otherwise.

What exactly have I done to assert a right to tell folks what they can and can't do beyond my talkin' about natural rights? And what power have I exercised to get folks to recognize natural rights beyond debate and conversation?
And not bein' a member or supporter of ARI, I can't tell you anything about their positions or policies.
Like I said...how can he posit the existence of a God, the God, my God, insist that this God imparts in him the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" and then not connect the dots between this God and his own moral and political dogmas?
And like I said...
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:26 pmWell before I shifted to deism (sumthin' I did only three or four years back), I recognized myself as a free will with a right to myself...hell, I've known these things my entire life...as a child, well before I had the language to express it, I understood I had causal power; I understood I was my own and it was not right, when I'd done no wrong, to be used against my will.

Reason, as I grew up, brought me to the recognition that as I am a free will with a right to myself, so it is for all other folks too.

As I say: I've known these things my entire life and, as various verifiable conversations and debates in-forum, stretchin' back years, illustrate, I was an advocate and defender for these ideas as an atheist, not a deist.

It was my bein' a free will with an inalienable claim to my life, liberty, and property (and conversations with a thoughtful friend) that brought me, relatively late in life, to God. In other words: bein' a free will with natural rights, I came to see atheism's rudderless, skipperless, take on reality as the vacant thing it is: explainin' nuthin' about nuthin' to no one, demandin' I de-recognize myself as a free will with natural rights and accept myself as a cog with no claim to himself.

A prime mover, The Prime Mover, is the explanation why man, in a deterministic universe, is a wild card and why, amongst life that is mindless and amoral, man is mind-imbued and moral.
The dots, as you say, connected after, not before.

And this whole "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" schtick: I never said any of that. Other deists may adhere to that, but me, I say: God created Reality; for reasons He hasn't revealed to me, He built Reality so that free wills, each with a natural claim to himself, would exist as wildcards in a deterministic world. Where He is: I cannot say (though, to be honest, I'm not disappointed He's apparently gone...last thing I need or want is a deity pokin' His nose into my business).

Hey, if you can have your own version of dasein I can have my own version of deism.
Either he figures his God would nod in approval at the objectivist dogmas he champions here or he figures that his God might instead nod in approval at those who champion strict gun control laws as a Reasonable and Natural behavior?
Frankly, I don't give a rat's dirty rear end what He has to say about it. I'm enormously grateful He made me, but He made me a free will who belongs to himself, not a robot. I see no evidence of commandments beyond natural rights which I codify as a man's life is his, his life, liberty, and property are his.

Where our agendas -- His and mine -- align: great. Where our agendas differ: well, if He has a problem with it, I'm sure He knows where to find me.
Okay, how is your take in sync or not in sync with this...

'Deism is not "conservative" nor "liberal". Deism and Deists follow the dictates of Reason and Nature. Regarding controversial issues such as abortion, gun control, etc., Deists are free to make up their own minds based on their own God-given reason. There are Deists who are on both sides of these issues. The only way to resolve these issues is to have a free exchange of ideas with open minds from people on both sides of the issues.'
Not only deists, but everyone is free to make up his mind based on reason, emotion or a coin flip. And I'm all for free exchange and debate. But, as I say I, like everyone else, have a right to my life, liberty, and property. I don't violate others and I won't be violated.

My bazooka (if I actually had one), for example: I transacted fairly for it. It's my property. I understand other folks are squeamish about such things. I respect their view and their choice to do without firearms. I certainly won't demand they arm themselves, nor will I parade mine in front of them. But, as I say, if I've done them no harm with my bazooka, or shotgun, or weighted tire knocker, or utility knife, then they got no say in my ownin' any of 'em. I also understand that some folks think they do have a say which is why I wouldn't talk about my bazooka and don't talk about my shotgun outside of this place. Hell, most of my family doesn't know I'm armed.

And abortion: yeah, I think most abortions are unjust killings of human beings. I've said so many times. What I haven't done is suggest a solution. As I say...
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:50 amThe absent lace climbed up my butt on this very subject many, many moons ago. Like you, she thought becuz I opposed violations of life, liberty, and property, that I was out & about everyday crusadin'. I don't. I, very quietly, live my life exactly as I want to and I leave others to do the same.

So, yeah, I think abortion is killing a person, and I think most abortions are flat out murder, but I have no time, no resources, and, most importantly, no inclination to police the world, and not you or anyone else here can point to any post of mine that sez otherwise.
...and...
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:59 amin context: I use murder to mean an unjust killng (as opposed to a just killing), not as a legal classification.

I, for the record, don't favor The State's involvement in this, or any other, matter.
All of which is a long-winded way of sayin': I don't approve and I believe my disapproval is well-founded, but -- outside of statin' my case -- I leave other folks be to make their (sometimes awful) mistakes. Policin' them ain't my job or right. And, as I view The State as an illegitimate construct, I don't, won't, go to it to act as my proxy policeman (The State and its agents are not my friends).
There is a God, the God, your God. You have faith in His existence. Faith unless of course you can actually demonstrate it is not a leap of faith at all...that in fact He does exist.
Yes, I believe in God. I believe, as I say...
henry quirk wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 3:49 am Man is the proof. In a determined universe, he's the wildcard. As a free will, he starts, ends, and bends causal chains. He is a point of creative power. He does what no other matter, or life, can: he self-directs, self-relies, and is self-responsible. He reasons, chooses, and considers consequence. There's nuthin' about a blind, deterministic interplay of forces that could have brought him into existence.
...but I understand that's a proof that works for me and mebbe not for other folks. And that's okay cuz I'm not in the conversion business. As I say: I have no paster or church to support and no edict to preach the good news to follow.
This God creates you and imparts in you the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature". Then He splits the scene.
He created Reality, made it so free wills with rights came to be, then went away? died? never existed to begin with? sits watchin' the show that is us from just outside? Hell I know. I'm curious but not so much that I dedicate my life to the question. Mebbe, one day, He'll come back to communicate the skinny to us all.
But what if there are other Deists among us who "own" themselves and insist that owning bazookas and tanks is an irrational and unnatural behavior. And that having an abortion is a rational and natural behavior.
I'm sure there are. I think they're wrong and with good reason, but their lives and the contents of their heads are theirs. Until one of them decides to infringe on my life, liberty, and property I'm not too concerned with what they think (though zi will debate 'em if given the chance).

An aside: I've never met or had any communications with another deist. Nor have I met or had any communications with any other libertarian (of any strain). The literature of either I find boring, so I'm not caught up with whatever the current thinkin' is in either area.
Or does every single Deist on Earth in worshipping and adoring their God as the followers of Ayn Rand worshipped and adored her, share the only Rational and Natural frame of mind there can be here?
Well, I don't worship or bend a knee to anyone, even if He is God. And even though I have no experience with other deists, I find it hard to imagine a believer in an impersonal, absent God would worship Him, but it's possible (more power to 'em, I say). And, no, I don't imagine there's any kind of monolithic perspective born of a Rational and Natural frame of mind which, of course, means some of us deists (like me, mebbe) are wrong about some things. It is what it is. At the end of the day, each of us, all of us, are gonna make up our minds however we do (thru reason, emotion or a coin flip) and we'll have to live with the consequences.
How "for all practical purposes" does that work among Deists?
It works like it does for everyone else: some folks contend with each other in the public sphere lookin' to get a leg up by way of The Big Stick of The State; others quietly go about their business, doin' as they see fit, without advertisin' themselves ('cept mebbe as a poster in an obscure philo-forum).
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Walker »

iambiguous wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:12 pm
Walker wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 3:19 pm The actual objective truth, even for Karens, is self-interest. Self-interest varies among individuals. Expressions of self-interest also varies. However, the presence of self-interest, and the expression of self-interest, is ubiquitous and therefore, the actual objective truth.
Huh?!!!
Every person acts out of self interest. Tracing the thread of self interest can be a jumbled route because as we know, folks can be complex even when talking face-to-face. Sometimes folks are talking to an amalgamation of memory, similarities, prejudices, and what they know/deduce about the other, rather than reacting to outside-the-skin reality. Thus the need to get to the root.

The root is self-interest. Everyone acts out of self-interest. Everything else is an offshoot, dependent on the root.

Every person working in the abortion clinic is working out of self-interest. Every individual procuring the services of the clinic is acting out of self interest. Ditto for the supporting demonstrators and the protesting demonstrators.

If you would walk up to the them on the sidewalk and ask them why, you would hear either anecdotes, or boiler-plate. What would you be unlikely to hear, concerning why they are there, is: "Because of Self Interest!"

But do some rooting around in every situation, even those of professed altruism, and that's the root that will be uncovered.

Why do you think that is?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Belinda »

henry quirk wrote: Tue May 03, 2022 8:25 pm B,
It's part of Donald Trump's strategy to tell the people that he is freeing them from unnecessary government and also to tell the people they can safely leave the politics to him and he will get minimal government done.
Uh, where did I say I hired him to free me from unnecessary governance or any of that?
I have read your posts for years and with enjoyment, as you are concise and funny. I have a pretty good idea you support Republicans not Democrats even if you don't vote.

Libertarian ideas are okay as far as they go but they are simplistic. You say nothing of your good luck in being a literate American male instead of, say, an illiterate Sudanese woman. You actually owe a lot to America and Americans as a collective for your good luck in being thrown amongst Americans perhaps as a middle class male (as I presume you are) and having American parents who taught you to look after yourself.
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
John Donne
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: moral relativism

Post by henry quirk »

I have a pretty good idea you support Republicans not Democrats even if you don't vote.
Your idea is neither pretty nor good.

While it's true some repub notions are marginally closer to my own than the dems, the bottomline is they're all mercenary, parasitical sociopaths just like their dem counterparts, and -- like the dems (or any other party [includin' the capital-l libertarians]) -- they look to get a leg up by way of the machinery of The State. They want to, believe they're entitled to, manage me, and they want me to pay them to do it.

To hell with that noise.
Libertarian...yourself.
All of which has nuthin' to do with my beef, that bein' you sayin' I'm a sheep in line to be sheared.

I'm a lotta of things...some not particularly nice...but, I ain't no sheep.
DPMartin
Posts: 635
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by DPMartin »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:26 am
DPMartin wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:20 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:18 pm

You are missing my point, peaceful coexistence is not necessary. In other words, what exists exists.
in the wild, you're right its not necessary, but for mankind to coexist, its absolutely necessary. in mankind's case, no honor of agreement brings chaos.
And we see chaos exist in the world and humans still existing through it.
its not chaos, to you maybe, but its agreements kept, not kept, or there was no agreement in the first place, so it was ok to take advantage.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

Recognizing Moral Identity as a Cultural Construct
Fanli Jia and Tobias Krettenauer at Frontiers In Psychology website
Moral Psychology and Cultural Criticism

Lawrence Kohlberg’s work has heavily influenced the development of moral psychology. His model of moral reasoning and judgment is based, in part, on Piaget’s model of cognitive development. Kohlberg’s theory of moral development proposes six universal stages of development of moral reasoning. This sequence begins with children’s focus on avoiding punishment by authority (Stage 1) and potentially ends with an endorsement of universal principles of justices and rights (Stage 6).
Let's consider all six stages: https://sproutsschools.com/kohlbergs-6- ... velopment/

But: Given a particular context that has generated more big bold headlines these days: abortion.

Stage one: Obedience and punishment

How does this not basically revolve around someone being indoctrinated to believe what others tell them about the morality of abortion...and then going along with it in order to avoid punishment. Either out of conviction or convenience.

Stage Two: Self-interest

Given a particular context in which others will react to how you react to an abortion, what is best for you? And how is this not perceived as a manifestation of dasein? Again either out of conviction or convenience.

Stage three: Interpersonal accord and conformity

Same thing. You recognize what others around you think about abortion and you take the path of least resistance. You want to be seen as "one of us". But this can revolve around either a pro-woman choice or a pro-fetus life frame of mind no less rooted in dasein.

Stage four: Authority and maintaining social order

Same thing. Only now "those around you" are expanded to include those in positions of authority...those in power. But what remains crucial is not that an argument exist establishing abortion as either necessarily moral or immoral, but that "those around you" embrace one rather than the other conviction and in order to maintain "social order" you go along with the authorities.

Stage 5: Social Contract

No getting around that in any community...aside from those where might makes rights prevails in regard to conflicting goods like abortion. But how is that contract not going to be embedded in particular historical and cultural contexts? And how is your own reaction to it not going to become a manifestation of dasein? Whose interpretation of the "right rules" for the "right purpose" will prevail?

Stage Six: Universal Ethical Principles

Need I actually go here in regard to the morality of abortion? Or, perhaps, we should all just agree that beyond any doubt whatsoever your own universal ethical principles must prevail.
The findings from a number of cross-cultural studies have suggested that some aspects of Kohlberg’s theory of morality are universal. For example, Gibbs et al. revisited Kohlberg’s universality claims by reviewing 75 cross-cultural studies conducted in 23 countries. From this investigation, Gibbs et al. concluded that there is evidence that Kohlberg’s first four stages may be universal.
Okay, with respect to the morality of abortion, would someone here care to explain to us why and how the first four stages may be universal?

What particular "conflicting goods" did Gibbs actually focus in on in order to establish this? In other words, obedience and punishment, self-interest, interpersonal accord and conformity and authority and maintaining social order may all be unfolding in these 23 countries. But what does that tell us regarding any particular individual's thoughts and feelings about the morality of abortion?

Your own, for example. Fit yourself into these 6 stages.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: moral relativism

Post by iambiguous »

And my argument about Rand revolves not around the points she raised but around the manner in which she herself championed individuals "owning" themselves. And owning their points. Like you sans God. But then the manner in which she demanded that others share her own views about, well, everything. Just like [from my frame of mind] you do here. I'm sure the ARI has an official policy on gun control and abortion. And I'm sure that collectively all individuals who call themselves Objectivists had damn well better share it.
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:49 am As I say: I'm no fan of Rand. I'm not an Objectivist. If she championed ownness good on her.
How is this really relevant to the point I am making here? How are your moral convictions -- as convictions -- regarding bazookas and abortion really any different from hers? Aside from your Reason being derived from God's Reality and her own Reason being derived from a No God "metaphysical" philosophy rooted in the objective Self?
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:49 am Rand was pushy and so am I but, unlike Rand...
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:50 amI have no time, no resources, and, most importantly, no inclination to police the world, and not you or anyone else here can point to any post of mine that sez otherwise.

What exactly have I done to assert a right to tell folks what they can and can't do beyond my talkin' about natural rights? And what power have I exercised to get folks to recognize natural rights beyond debate and conversation?
Okay, let's explore this in regard to buying and selling bazookas.

You live in a community where in "owning" yourself, you conclude that buying and selling bazookas is a "natural right". But another Deist in that community argues that in "owning" herself she concludes that buying and selling bazookas is not a "natural right", but an irrational frame of mind. Same God, same access to Reason. But completely conflicting conclusions.

And you may not be inclined to police the world, but in your community those who, in "owning" themselves and in rejecting the right of private citizens to buy and sell bazookas -- or any gums at all -- may be in a position of power to pass laws that take yours away.

So, you can insist that your moral convictions here are just about debate and conversation but out in the world that we live in it can get considerably more existential.
Like I said...how can he posit the existence of a God, the God, my God, insist that this God imparts in him the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" and then not connect the dots between this God and his own moral and political dogmas?
henry quirk wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 1:49 am And like I said...
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:26 pmWell before I shifted to deism (sumthin' I did only three or four years back), I recognized myself as a free will with a right to myself...hell, I've known these things my entire life...as a child, well before I had the language to express it, I understood I had causal power; I understood I was my own and it was not right, when I'd done no wrong, to be used against my will.

Reason, as I grew up, brought me to the recognition that as I am a free will with a right to myself, so it is for all other folks too.

As I say: I've known these things my entire life and, as various verifiable conversations and debates in-forum, stretchin' back years, illustrate, I was an advocate and defender for these ideas as an atheist, not a deist.

It was my bein' a free will with an inalienable claim to my life, liberty, and property (and conversations with a thoughtful friend) that brought me, relatively late in life, to God. In other words: bein' a free will with natural rights, I came to see atheism's rudderless, skipperless, take on reality as the vacant thing it is: explainin' nuthin' about nuthin' to no one, demandin' I de-recognize myself as a free will with natural rights and accept myself as a cog with no claim to himself.

A prime mover, The Prime Mover, is the explanation why man, in a deterministic universe, is a wild card and why, amongst life that is mindless and amoral, man is mind-imbued and moral.
Right, like those who are utterly opposed to buying and selling bazookas can't frame their own convictions using precisely the same argument. God or No God.

What then? Flip the coin?

Instead, I suggest to those on both ends of the political spectrum that the spectrum itself is comprised of individuals out in particular worlds understood in particular ways who come to embrace their own value judgments as the subjective/intersubjective embodiment of dasein. As political prejudices derived existentially from the life that they lived.

A life such that, had any number of experiences been different, they might well be in here arguing exactly the opposite of what they believe now.
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:26 pmAnd this whole "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" schtick: I never said any of that. Other deists may adhere to that, but me, I say: God created Reality; for reasons He hasn't revealed to me, He built Reality so that free wills, each with a natural claim to himself, would exist as wildcards in a deterministic world. Where He is: I cannot say (though, to be honest, I'm not disappointed He's apparently gone...last thing I need or want is a deity pokin' His nose into my business).
Again, leaving aside the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, you believe all of these things about a God, the God, your God as but one more "existential leap of faith" to this particular God and not to the many, many, many, many others that are said to exist, how do you reconcile your God's Reality, with the reality that you as a mere mortal among billions of others have come to accept? How is that not a manifestation of dasein? And what on earth does your God's Reality have to do with your own personal assessment of bazookas? Especially if others believe in the same Deist God but believe the opposite of what you do about bazookas.

What of this God's Reality then? It's got to be a lower-case deist and a capital letter Reality for a Reason.
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:26 pmHey, if you can have your own version of dasein I can have my own version of deism.
Fair enough. On the other hand, given my own understanding of dasein, you came to embrace your own understanding of the lower-case deism given the assumptions I make regarding the acquisition of value judgments as the embodiment of dasein. We're definitely stuck here.
Either he figures his God would nod in approval at the objectivist dogmas he champions here or he figures that his God might instead nod in approval at those who champion strict gun control laws as a Reasonable and Natural behavior?
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:26 pmFrankly, I don't give a rat's dirty rear end what He has to say about it. I'm enormously grateful He made me, but He made me a free will who belongs to himself, not a robot. I see no evidence of commandments beyond natural rights which I codify as a man's life is his, his life, liberty, and property are his.
So, apparently you "just know" this about your God and His Reality. You have absolutely no way in which to actually demonstrate that this is the case, but, then, neither do any of the other Deists/deists out there. There's just what existentially you have come to believe "in your head" is true about "natural rights".

The bottom line being that what you do believe is true "in your head" allows you to anchor your Self in The Right Thing To Do and it is this psychological defense mechanism that sustains your own comfort and consolation. And, with any luck, all the way to the grave. And who really knows what your God's Reality is then?

I think I get it.
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:26 pmWhere our agendas -- His and mine -- align: great. Where our agendas differ: well, if He has a problem with it, I'm sure He knows where to find me.
The implication being that perhaps He is like all the other Gods. Like IC's Christian God. If your agendas are not in sync...Judgment Day? But that is just one more thing you have absolutely no understanding of at all about this "private and personal" deist god of yours. You figured out what was Natural because you figured out how to "own" yourself and that allows you to feel content. End of story. Just like all the others here and elsewhere who figured out it was their own God and their own ideology and their own philosophy and their authoritarian dogmas that give them access to good over evil.
Okay, how is your take in sync or not in sync with this...

'Deism is not "conservative" nor "liberal". Deism and Deists follow the dictates of Reason and Nature. Regarding controversial issues such as abortion, gun control, etc., Deists are free to make up their own minds based on their own God-given reason. There are Deists who are on both sides of these issues. The only way to resolve these issues is to have a free exchange of ideas with open minds from people on both sides of the issues.'
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:26 pmNot only deists, but everyone is free to make up his mind based on reason, emotion or a coin flip. And I'm all for free exchange and debate. But, as I say I, like everyone else, have a right to my life, liberty, and property. I don't violate others and I won't be violated.
And this is what you construe to be an adequate reaction to the points I raise above. You have your own understanding of God, of reason, of natural behavior. And the points I raise regarding dasein are simply not applicable to you. And though other deists/Deists, and other religious denominations, and countless other secular narratives with countless other political agendas can use the same reasoning that you do to arrive at their own profoundly conflicting conclusions...you "just know" that your conclusions reflect the One True Path to bazookas.
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:26 pmMy bazooka (if I actually had one), for example: I transacted fairly for it. It's my property. I understand other folks are squeamish about such things. I respect their view and their choice to do without firearms. I certainly won't demand they arm themselves, nor will I parade mine in front of them. But, as I say, if I've done them no harm with my bazooka, or shotgun, or weighted tire knocker, or utility knife, then they got no say in my ownin' any of 'em. I also understand that some folks think they do have a say which is why I wouldn't talk about my bazooka and don't talk about my shotgun outside of this place. Hell, most of my family doesn't know I'm armed.
And that works fine until, in any particular community, others don't share your thinking about buying and selling bazookas because any number of new contexts can arise such that if bazookas were widely owned [and used] the consequences could be...devastating? So, some [deists or not] organize politically to make the buying and the selling of bazookas [or tanks or grenades or military armaments] illegal.

The real world in other words. Not merely discussing and debating it here.
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:26 pmAnd abortion: yeah, I think most abortions are unjust killings of human beings. I've said so many times. What I haven't done is suggest a solution.
And, again, what you think here is not at all related to the arguments I propose regarding the acquisition of value judgments as the embodiment of dasein...your own conclusions really do reflect what is "naturally" rational. You can't make the arguments the other side raise go away but when your own private and personal deist God created Reality, that somehow included you "owning" yourself and arriving at the One True Path in regard to abortion too.

As you say...
henry quirk wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 1:50 amThe absent lace climbed up my butt on this very subject many, many moons ago. Like you, she thought becuz I opposed violations of life, liberty, and property, that I was out & about everyday crusadin'. I don't. I, very quietly, live my life exactly as I want to and I leave others to do the same.

So, yeah, I think abortion is killing a person, and I think most abortions are flat out murder, but I have no time, no resources, and, most importantly, no inclination to police the world, and not you or anyone else here can point to any post of mine that sez otherwise.
It ever and always stops at "what you think" here and now. How you came to think as you did and not another way given the life that you lived is truly irrelevant. You're not out to give a sermon on abortion but if in your community it becomes a capital crime and a woman you love has one...do you turn her in? Is she a premeditated murderer? If arrested, convicted and found guilty...send her to death row?

It's not merely abortion discussed and debated here, it's abortion if, here in America, the conservative moral objectivists seize control of Congress and the White House and make every abortion illegal.

Abortion and your deist God's Reality, along with your own authoritarian dogma...then.
There is a God, the God, your God. You have faith in His existence. Faith unless of course you can actually demonstrate it is not a leap of faith at all...that in fact He does exist.
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:26 pmYes, I believe in God. I believe, as I say...
henry quirk wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 3:49 am Man is the proof. In a determined universe, he's the wildcard. As a free will, he starts, ends, and bends causal chains. He is a point of creative power. He does what no other matter, or life, can: he self-directs, self-relies, and is self-responsible. He reasons, chooses, and considers consequence. There's nuthin' about a blind, deterministic interplay of forces that could have brought him into existence.
This actually is what you believe constitutes proof that of all the many, many, many Gods there are for mere mortals to choose from, your own private and personal deist God really is The One!!!

You simply assert all of this as true about him...

But, no, not quite...
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:26 pm...but I understand that's a proof that works for me and mebbe not for other folks. And that's okay cuz I'm not in the conversion business. As I say: I have no paster or church to support and no edict to preach the good news to follow.
Again, though, out in the real world, in actual flesh and blood human communities, laws will be passed and enforced regarding bazookas and abortions such that, while you might prefer to keep it all confined to "discussing and debating" it here, and in not persuading and "converting" others to think like you do, you'll have no choice but to join in or risk seeing what you believe shunted aside and the other side prevailing. Bazookas are outlawed, abortion on demand is the community standard.

Then the part that most interests me...
But what if there are other Deists among us who "own" themselves and insist that owning bazookas and tanks is an irrational and unnatural behavior. And that having an abortion is a rational and natural behavior.
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:26 pmI'm sure there are. I think they're wrong and with good reason, but their lives and the contents of their heads are theirs. Until one of them decides to infringe on my life, liberty, and property I'm not too concerned with what they think (though zi will debate 'em if given the chance).
Okay...

As I see it, you are basically suggesting here that, in any given community, they are right from their side, you are right from your side. That you have your Reasons, they have theirs. That this is all a manifestation of God's Reality. So it comes down to who can acquire the actual political power to enact the laws that either permit the buying and selling of bazookas or laws that prohibit it. Laws that permit abortions or laws that prohibit them.

And, if so, how is "moderation, negotiation and compromise" not a legitimate approach to it? Unless of course you are convinced that your side does have the power to embrace your own authoritarian, objectivist dogmas. Such as here in America, the pro fetal life folks might acquire in a couple of years.

But what if the other side prevails instead? Fuck all those dead fetuses...that's got nothing to do with me?
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:26 pm An aside: I've never met or had any communications with another deist. Nor have I met or had any communications with any other libertarian (of any strain). The literature of either I find boring, so I'm not caught up with whatever the current thinkin' is in either area.
Hmm...

You believe in the existence of the Deist God. But to you this revolves solely around your own private and personal deist God. But the "private and personal" part has nothing to do with how I construe the meaning of dasein on these threads:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Though, as I see it, you won't go into any great detail as to why my arguments are not applicable to you.
Or does every single Deist on Earth in worshipping and adoring their God as the followers of Ayn Rand worshipped and adored her, share the only Rational and Natural frame of mind there can be here?
henry quirk wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:26 pm Well, I don't worship or bend a knee to anyone, even if He is God. And even though I have no experience with other deists, I find it hard to imagine a believer in an impersonal, absent God would worship Him, but it's possible (more power to 'em, I say). And, no, I don't imagine there's any kind of monolithic perspective born of a Rational and Natural frame of mind which, of course, means some of us deists (like me, mebbe) are wrong about some things. It is what it is.
But you don't really know what it is. There is only what up until now you have thought yourself into believing that there is. Just like all those who have thought themselves into believing in very different things. You've all led different lives out in different worlds understood in different ways. But you are all convinced that how you do understand things "here and now" is the One True Path.

And it just doesn't occur to you that what you all have in common is the psychological need to believe that what you believe is the One True Path because being on it is what provides you with the comfort and the consolation of being able to believe that you are on the One True Path. That may be applicable to those who don't think like you do but not to you.

Something like that?

But you do seem to admit that you may well be wrong "here and now" about buying and selling bazookas and about having an abortion.

Right?

In other words, you might have new experiences, new relationships, access to new information and knowledge [in a world bursting with contingency, chance and change] that changes your mind about bazookas and abortions.

Right?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: moral relativism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

DPMartin wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 3:58 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 12:26 am
DPMartin wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 4:20 pm

in the wild, you're right its not necessary, but for mankind to coexist, its absolutely necessary. in mankind's case, no honor of agreement brings chaos.
And we see chaos exist in the world and humans still existing through it.
its not chaos, to you maybe, but its agreements kept, not kept, or there was no agreement in the first place, so it was ok to take advantage.
Chaos is opposition and we see opposition occur in the world and people still existing through it as agents of said chaos.
Post Reply