Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

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

Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 12:10 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:51 am If you want to draw the distinction - draw it for whatever purposes suits you. But that doesn't diminish the facts.
Yes, I did draw the distinction. Or redrew it.
I think it's useful to distinguish between what gets called immoral behavior from mistakes
OK. Is it so useful that you have to treat them as different discrete categories; or will a continuum suffice?

There's a fuzzy line on the continuum where certain mistakes are serious enough that we must do something about them e.g they must be corrected; and norms enforced. Where other transgressions can be overlooked as unimportant.
Why MUST they be 'corrected'?

And, in what WAYS can they be 'corrected'?
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 12:10 pm To me it's a question of strictness (which is also a sliding scale). You can let everything slide if you so choose. You can be a sanctimonious p**** and be strict about any deviations from any standards. Go be a Grammar Nazi if that's your thing.

Hence the point that the transgression is only a difference in severity but not in kind. An error is an error is an error. It' carries negative connotation - a failing on our part. Not positive. Not neutral. Negative.
But that ALL DEPENDS ON the 'error', correct?
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 12:10 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am , even if a meritocracy may conflate the kids in math class, though generally only at the ends of the bell curve. I play sports with people of different levels. I see and it seems even like a norm to see a difference between cheating and making mistakes.
So why do you call it a "mistake"? The word contains the connotation of something being "wrong".

When we say that somebody is incorrect/wrong about something there is always the connotation that they OUGHT to have done otherwise.

Now, you are welcome to sub-divide oughts into moral and non-moral, but the is-ought gap doesn't pertain to moral oughts. It pertains to all oughts.

Every judgment of error (moral or otherwise) comes from a place of an imagined counterfactual reality in which the error wasn't made.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 12:10 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am Or fouling me and repeatedly dropping a pass. 1) someone who is a dick on the court, I generally find is dick elsewhere. It says something about how they treat other people. Generally not being good at the game doesn't say that to me. There can be overlaps. And someone who lacks hand-eye coordination I won't want driving a forklift at my warehouse. But it's much more specific for me. Behaviors that indicate stuff about what used to get called character (used to be called that mroe widely) I put more on the moral end. Which is different for me than skills, including skills around producing correct answers, especially if restricted to certain fields.
All I am hearing so far is that people ought to have done better (N.B better, not just differently) by you. With the fine print that some oughts are more serious than others..
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am My wife has a brain injury. It affects her memory for people's names, mainly, nouns to some degree in general. It's pretty regular. It has nothing to do with morals. She did not become less moral after her injury. That's nonsense.
Morality isn't an intrinsic property to individuals. It's an emergent property of collectives. Don't take it personally.

If a doctor's capacity to heal people is diminished by a brain injury their morality is diminished. That doesn't make them immoral. Just less moral in practical terms - their capaity for goodness is diminished.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am It wouldn't be nonsense to say that she makes a lot more mistakes.
And that comes from a place where you wish that she didn't. Otherwise you wouldn't call them "mistakes."

It's just what your wife does. Why is it a "mistake"? Because it would've been better if she hadn't done that.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am It's tricky with things like math class, yes. I have to avoid being put in the position of trying to defend society which has different values than mine. But even while society does punish people who fail math, it doesn't treat moral and skill/informational mistakes the same. And I think there are good practical reasons for this.
But we do treat them the same. We wish they didn't happen and we do what we can to avoid repeats. We do what we can to make the future better.
How is driving a motor vehicle, which is polluting the air future human beings NEED in order to live, making the future BETTER, EXACTLY?

Be it by giving the kid extra Maths lessons; or sending the murderer to a corerctional facility.
But NEITHER necessarily MAKES them, NOR the future, ACTUALLY BETTER, AT ALL.

In fact the past was BETTER back when maths did NOT even exist.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 12:10 pm We (attempt to) correct!
But WHO does?

If it is 'you', adult human beings, then would it NOT be BETTER that 'you', adult human beings, ACTUALLY ALREADY KNEW the ACTUAL DISTINCTION between what IS Right and what IS Wrong, in Life?

So, what is 'it', EXACTLY, which 'you', adults, are, SUPPOSEDLY, 'correcting' in relation to?
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 12:10 pm Sure - one is more servere than the other but neither failure is treated with indifference.

Do that over thousands of years about multiple aspects of human affairs and you end up with compound interest in improvement in our circumstances. It's so deeply ingrained in who we are there even our words have positive and negative connotation!

That's how morality works.
BUT JUDGING, PUNISHING, RIDICULING, and/or HUMILIATING "others" is NOT 'Morality', Itself.

HOW True 'Morality' ACTUALLY WORKS IS MUCH DIFFERENT.

Also, one could ONLY Truly 'Correct' "another" ONLY WHEN that one ACTUALLY KNEW what IS Right and Wrong, in Life.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 12:10 pm In any case, this entire phenomenon of gradual and continuous micro or macro corrections we humans do is what I call "morality".
Ah, now here is an IRREFUTABLY True STATEMENT and CLAIM, which, OBVIOUSLY, NO one could REFUTE.

SEE, I KNEW we WOULD get to the ACTUAL Truth of 'things' here.

Oh, and by the way, the VERY, VERY SLOW 'gradual and continuous corrections' being made COULD and WILL BE SPED UP, EXPONENTIALLY, SOON ENOUGH.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 12:10 pm I am talking about an objective/empirical global-scale phenomenon that can be traced throughout human history. It's the on-going pursuit of living up to higher standards - it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
There is a LOT of truth in this.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 12:10 pm If you strip away this moral connotation ingrained so deeply into our language then you can't even say that somebody is getting "better" at something! You can't even say that things are getting "worse"! You can't make any value judgments with respect to any change in any direction.
The WHOLE PURPOSE of 'Life', Itself, and of 'you', human beings, is to MAKE Life, Itself BETTER, for EVERY one, as One.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 12:10 pm Yeah, things are different now than they were 2000 years ago. We die less. We are more healthy. We are more educated. Less starvation. Less war. More equality. More justice. We are happier. Things are by all accounts changing in a particular direction. There's a definite historical trend.
BUT it is a VERY NARROWED and VERY TINY VIEW and PERSPECTIVE of 'things', as it is ONLY ABOUT and IN RELATION TO 'you', 'human beings' ONLY.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 12:10 pm But is any of that change "better"? Are we actually improving anything or are we making things worse?
YES in regards to SOME 'things', But NO in regards to OTHER 'things'.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 12:10 pm
OK. Is it so useful that you have to treat them as different discrete categories; or will a continuum suffice?
Some things I see as clearly on one side.
Like 'what', for example?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm Some acts are trickier. You might make what I would call mistakes, but there is a lack of care involved, so there is a moral aspect or character aspect to those mistakes.
But what you so-call 'care about', which "others" do NOT, is NOT necessarily a 'moral' NOR 'character' aspect AT ALL.

What is COMING-TO-LIGHT here are 'your' OWN JUDGMENTAL issues, or aspects, OF "others", which some say is a True SIGN of the LACK OF 'morality' in that one.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm You are my employee and you mess up some interaction with a customer and cost us 500 bucks,
Here we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of just how BLINDED these human beings REALLY WERE, back in THOSE DAYS.

This thread and discussion IS/WAS about 'morality' or 'moral issues', HOWEVER, and LAUGHABLY 'money' gets ADDED into the mix, SOMEHOW.

GREED, which is WHY one would talk ABOUT a so-called "employee" 'costing a VERY MISERABLE and, LITERALLY, WORTHLESS amount of so-called '500 bucks', is NOT a 'moral issue' AT ALL. This is just a SIGNAL of the SELFISHNESS within 'you'.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm I don't fire you. Habitual smaller mistakes, but otherwise you are a good worker, I'd probably try to train you or place you somewhere else.
How about someone 'try to train' 'you' that 'money' is Truly NOT WORTH ANY 'thing' AT ALL, and ONLY exists BECAUSE of your Truly GREEDY and SELFISH WAYS.

'you', "iwannaplato", are CERTAINLY NOT in a POSITION to 'try to train' absolutely ANY one. Besides "your" OWN 'self', OF COURSE.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm You steal 50 bucks, you're out.
NO questions ASKED, right?

NO DISCOVERING WHY, correct?

And,

Maybe even NO FINDING OUT what ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE, EITHER, true?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm Even though the consequences of the single act are even less, one reflects on intentions, interpersonal attitudes and character traits.
BUT having a JUDGMENTAL attitude and/or character may well be the WORST attitude and character trait one could EVER possess AND have.

We WILL just have to WAIT, to SEE, correct?

ALSO, GREED and SELFISHNESS might well be the SECOND and THIRD WORST attitudes and characters to have. While, OBVIOUSLY, 'firing' or 'sacking' one over '50 bucks' is a SURE SIGN that one is VERY, VERY GREEDY AND SELFISH.

Furthermore, what about the EXTRA '50' or '500' bucks OVER you are 'SELLING' to, (or 'STEALING' FROM), "customers", which you OBVIOUSLY do NOT 'need'?

WHY is 'that' NOT 'STEALING', itself?

Or, is it, but you have just "justified", to "yourself", that that kind of stealing' is an 'all right behavior'?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm One is a skill issue or even just, well, one of those things that happens if it was a single instance. Gray areas arise if i think intentions and interpersonal attitudes and character traits are causal in your mistakes.
There's a fuzzy line on the continuum where certain mistakes are serious enough that we must do something about them
Sure, that's why I chose a work example where even though the consequences are less, my response would immediately be more severe, and my intentions, attitudes and my interperonal relation with the person would also change. It's in that realm that the stealing moves the isue.
But 'your' OWN STEALING, FROM "others", is PERFECTLY OKAY, right "iwannaplato"?

Also, WHO gave 'you' the 'right' for 'you' to MIS/BEHAVE and HAVE CONTROL OVER "others", the way 'you' are SHOWING here?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm
To me it's a question of strictness (which is also a sliding scale). You can let everything slide if you so choose. You can be a sanctimonious p**** and be strict about any deviations from any standards. Go be a Grammar Nazi if that's your thing.
And they get called grammar Nazis precisely because they are conflating realms.
Hence the point that the transgression is only a difference in severity but not in kind. An error is an error is an error. It' carries negative connotation - a failing on our part. Not positive. Not neutral. Negative.
Again that's why I chose that example. It's not severity, it's about the attitudes and interpersonal relations and character.
AGAIN, LOOKING AT "others" may well be the WORST attitude and interpersonal relation and character THERE IS.

ALSO, WHEN, and IF, you EVER FIND OUT what one BASES ALL of their OWN JUDGMENTS ON, EXACTLY, then they CLEARLY SEE WHY LOOKING AT and JUDGING "others" is one of the WORST traits one COULD HAVE.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm Likewise with my wife. Likewise that we do not consider developmentally disabled people in need of punishment.
But children, who could be considered the most 'developmentally disabled' people, are sometimes the most punished people around.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm We can think they are grand old people and consider them of good character, but we see to it they don't fly airplanes.
AGAIN, VERY JUDGMENTAL VIEWING of "others".

I would NOT be surprised AT ALL that what you would consider, and JUDGE, to be some 'developmentally disabled people' could fly airplanes or do other things far better than 'you' could "iwannoplato".
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm
So why do you call it a "mistake"? The word contains the connotation of something being "wrong".
Well the goal was for them to catch the pass. They wanted to, I wanted to. They punch me in the face when I go up for a rebound, I wouldn't let them baby sit my kids. Intention, character, interpersonal relations. Different category.
And there are some who would NOT have allowed you to even have kids. you KNOW, BECAUSE of your intention/s, character, interpersonal relations.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm
When we say that somebody is incorrect/wrong about something there is always the connotation that they OUGHT to have done otherwise.
But when it's an immoral act, that they intended to make the 'mistake.' There are gray areas, where someone drives too fast and kills someone.
'Too fast' is VERY, VERY relative.

Sometimes driving 'too fast' SAVES the lives of people.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm They are still considered to have acted immorally.
LOL So, to you, when someone is driving a car faster than a speed number that is posted on a sign, which was written into 'law' by some "OTHER" human being/s, then this is immoral, correct?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm Though they will be punished less than the person who runs over their exes new girlfriend. And part of the reason the negligent homicide person is punished as much as they are is they are considered to have knowingly put others at risk, even if they didn't have the intent to kill (that person).
LOL NO one KNOWS that driving say one mile per hour over some DESIGNATED number is KNOWINGLY putting "others" at risk.

With 'your' "logic" here, it could be said and argued that driving at the speed limit it is considered to have KNOWINGLY be putting "others" at risk, right?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm
Now, you are welcome to sub-divide oughts into moral and non-moral, but the is-ought gap doesn't pertain to moral oughts. It pertains to all oughts.
Again, I see moral oughts as aimed at a different category of situations.
Morality isn't an intrinsic property to individuals. It's an emergent property of collectives. Don't take it personally.

If a doctor's capacity to heal people is diminished by a brain injury their morality is diminished. That doesn't make them immoral. Just less moral in practical terms - their capaity for goodness is diminished.
I think that's an equivocation. They are no longer a skilled doctor.
'Skilled doctor' is ANOTHER VERY, VERY relative term.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm And if you can show them this the moral ones will stop being doctors.
So, to you, it would be IMMORAL for a so-called 'no longer skilled doctor' to keep being A "doctor", who may well save more lives of "others", true?

Also, WHO JUDGES the so-called 'skilled doctors' from the so-called 'no longer skilled doctors', 'you'?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm And it shows nothing about their character, intentions or interpersonal relations in general.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am It wouldn't be nonsense to say that she makes a lot more mistakes.
And that comes from a place where you wish that she didn't. Otherwise you wouldn't call them "mistakes

It's just what your wife does. Why is it a "mistake"? Because it would've been better if she hadn't done that.
Obviously. I said that. It wouldn't be nonsense to say she makes more mistakes. It would be nonsense to say she is now less moral.
To answer "skepdick's" question here, WHY "iwannoplat" JUDGES what the "other" person does here as 'mistakes' is BECAUSE "iwannoplato" BELIEVES that 'it' has the 'right' to JUDGE "others" on what they do or do not do.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 12:10 pm
OK. Is it so useful that you have to treat them as different discrete categories; or will a continuum suffice?
Some things I see as clearly on one side. Some acts are trickier. You might make what I would call mistakes, but there is a lack of care involved, so there is a moral aspect or character aspect to those mistakes.

You are my employee and you mess up some interaction with a customer and cost us 500 bucks, I don't fire you. Habitual smaller mistakes, but otherwise you are a good worker, I'd probably try to train you or place you somewhere else. You steal 50 bucks, you're out. Even though the consequences of the single act are even less, one reflects on intentions, interpersonal attitudes and character traits. One is a skill issue or even just, well, one of those things that happens if it was a single instance. Gray areas arise if i think intentions and interpersonal attitudes and character traits are causal in your mistakes.
But you are still missing the forest for the trees.

The common property amongst any and all situations we deem "erroneous" or "wrong" is that we wish them to have been better/different.
We have a counter-factual idea of how the situation OUGHT to have been. You know that a better outcome is possible. You know that the current outcome is suboptimal.

That delta between what has come to be and what could have been. That's the common golden thread I am talking about.

Without that counter-factual there can be no such thing as "problem" because a "problem" implies something could've been different/better in some imaginable aspect.

If that aspect is unimaginable then there's no problem - it's just the way the world is and it can't get any better.
Although your USE of the 'problem' word here is NOT 'Correct', in regards to what is ACTUALLY True AND Right, your USE of that word here, which is the way most of 'you', adult human beings, would USE that word, in the days when this is being written, is EXPLAINING your POINT very succinctly. Well as 'it' SEE here anyway.

For what it is worth, your POINT is coming across LOUD and CLEAR. Well, to me anywa.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm
There's a fuzzy line on the continuum where certain mistakes are serious enough that we must do something about them
Sure, that's why I chose a work example where even though the consequences are less, my response would immediately be more severe, and my intentions, attitudes and my interperonal relation with the person would also change. It's in that realm that the stealing moves the isue.
So if you strip that scenario from any moral connotation you are still passing judgment on the situation from an imagined better counter-factual.

You are still in the domain of value-judgments and problem-solving. And in that sense you are still trying to improve the situation.
MAKING Life BETTER, after all, is the WHOLE PURPOSE of 'this', living and being alive experience and existence.

There IS NO purpose in making 'things' WORSE, but there is EVERY purpose in IMPROVING, or MAKING 'things' BETTER.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm And they get called grammar Nazis precisely because they are conflating realms.
They aren't conflating realms - they are being perfectly consistent with the game of social norm enforcement.
But what is/was classed as 'norm' in EVERY 'society' can BECOME 'NOT normal' AT ALL.

It would be MUCH BETTER if 'society norms' were NEVER instantly JUDGED or SEEN as being what IS Right and GOOD in Life.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm Some people are of the mindset of "What do rules even mean if they can be arbitrarily broken?"
Call them maladjusted or whatever but they are anything but inconsistent.
What do you mean here, EXACTLY?

What is the 'inconsistent' word here in relation to, EXACTLY?
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm Again that's why I chose that example. It's not severity, it's about the attitudes and interpersonal relations and character. Likewise with my wife. Likewise that we do not consider developmentally disabled people in need of punishment. We can think they are grand old people and consider them of good character, but we see to it they don't fly airplanes.
You are being too particular. The whole point is that we take the pragmatic factors and context into account while we seek for the most optimal ethical outcome.

But in the end the decision to stop old people from flying airplanes is made directly on the basis of ethics/morality.
I am NOT sure that this 'safety' issue here is REALLY an ethics/morality issue.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm We stop them from flying commercial airplanes at 65. But they are still free to fly their own private airplanes.

Because their bad judgments in a 2-seater have a lesser and more localised impact than their bad judgments in a commercial airliner.
But is it 'bad judgments' that these human beings over a particular number the REAL reason WHY they are prevented and stopped from flying commercial aircraft?
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm Ethics and systemic risk go hand-in-hand.
NOT necessarily, to me.

Adults, AND CHILDREN, are put INTO prisons, or 'systemic institutions, but they can be the MOST, literally, 'systemic risky' places on earth.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm
So why do you call it a "mistake"? The word contains the connotation of something being "wrong".
Well the goal was for them to catch the pass. They wanted to, I wanted to.
OK.So they did what they did and it coincide with the goal. Why is that a "mistake"?

See there's always this alterne timeline involved in every judgment... The pre-supposition that things ought to have been otherwise.

If it wasn't there you'd simply accept everything that happens to you.
Which, in A WAY, would PRODUCE and CREATE a MUCH BETTER 'world' for EVERY one.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm
When we say that somebody is incorrect/wrong about something there is always the connotation that they OUGHT to have done otherwise.
But when it's an immoral act, that they intended to make the 'mistake.' There are gray areas, where someone drives too fast and kills someone.
Intention doesn't matter. Whether I am murdered or die in a car accident - dead is dead, so I put on my risk manager hat on and prioritize accordingly. Most of the things that are likely to harm me isn't other humans - it's nature itself and nature's lack of intent doesn't make its tricks any less of a moral concern.
BUT, "iwannoplato", was talking ABOUT and referring TO 'those' that DO the killing/murdering, and NOT about those who are killed/murdered.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm So there's systemic stuff like clean water, sanitation, hygiene, acces to medicine - I consider all of those those as great moral leaps.
Morality/ethics just comes down to what IS NEEDED, in Life, and NOT what IS WANTED, in Life.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm They are still considered to have acted immorally. Though they will be punished less than the person who runs over their exes new girlfriend. And part of the reason the negligent homicide person is punished as much as they are is they are considered to have knowingly put others at risk, even if they didn't have the intent to kill (that person).
Well yeah. Because the punishment isn't done for the sake of retribution or paying off the blood debt. The punishment is disincentive for the next guy.
Well considering that 'punishment' has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years, the 'disincentive' for the 'next guy', which IS 'you', adult human beings, has CERTAINLY NOT WORKED. As for that one example above, EVERY one of 'you' has driving 'too fast', or 'sped'.

Punishment, as disincentive for the 'next guy', has NEVER WORKED and WOULD NEVER WORK.

And, if absolutely ANY one would like to have a DISCUSSION ABOUT or OVER 'this', then PLEASE let us DO.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm If justtice was done in retribution - any life should cost a life. Good thing we don't do that.
BUT, in some countries they STILL, through written laws, 'take a life', 'for taking a life', correct?
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm
Now, you are welcome to sub-divide oughts into moral and non-moral, but the is-ought gap doesn't pertain to moral oughts. It pertains to all oughts.
Again, I see moral oughts as aimed at a different category of situations.
I am not concerned with what they are aimed at. I am concerned with their conceptual/semantic properties.

An ought is always about counter-factuals. And by deduction - so are moral oughts.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm
Morality isn't an intrinsic property to individuals. It's an emergent property of collectives. Don't take it personally.

If a doctor's capacity to heal people is diminished by a brain injury their morality is diminished. That doesn't make them immoral. Just less moral in practical terms - their capaity for goodness is diminished.
I think that's an equivocation. They are no longer a skilled doctor. And if you can show them this the moral ones will stop being doctors. And it shows nothing about their character, intentions or interpersonal relations in general.
I don't think any conception of morality pertaining to personal character is of any practical use. Medicine is a social good. Healing peopel is moral.
I am a strict consequentialist on this regard. Fuck intentions.
'Intentions', like ALL 'things', PLAY A PART in ALL-OF-THIS.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm If you kill somebody accidentally we are still going to take measures to prevent such accidents from recurring.
HOW? By PUNISHING, RIDICULING, and/or HUMILIATING the one who just had or made an 'accident', of ALL 'things'?
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm Not all moral action requires blaming someone
Does ANY so-called 'moral action' REQUIRE the BLAMING of ANY one?

Could BLAMING "another", in fact, be an 'IMMORAL behavior', itself?

Also, WHICH 'moral actions' do you CONSIDER to be worthy of REQUIRING the BLAMING of someone?
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm but all moral actions require that we attempt to do better next time.
But ANY 'moral action' or 'moral behavior' would be the DOING of the BEST. Whereas, it would be 'immoral actions' or 'immoral behavior' that would REQUIRE the DOING of BETTER next, and ALL, time, right?
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am Obviously. I said that. It wouldn't be nonsense to say she makes more mistakes. It would be nonsense to say she is now less moral.
I don't think morality works like that. It's not like body mass where you can gain some or lose some.

In fact, I don't think there are intrinsicly moral or immoral people.
I have NEVER a 'good' NOR 'bad' person. So, this means that, to me, there are NO 'moral' NOR 'immoral' people. There are, however, people who do 'good' AND 'bad' 'things', OR, there are people who DO 'moral' AND 'immoral' behaviors.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm There are just people capable of anything.
I AGREE.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm If you do more good than bad - then you leave the world better than you found it.
And, to me, DO is the Right AND PERFECT word here.

'Good' and 'bad' IS what people DO and NOT what people ARE.

And, OBVIOUSLY, the MORE people that DO MORE 'good', then the BETTER 'the world' WILL BECOME, and COME-TO-BE.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm If you do more bad than good then you leave the world worse than you found it.
If just one person does more 'bad' than 'good', then this does NOT equate to that one person leaving 'the (whole) world' worse than they had 'found', or was born into, it. And this is just because a whole LOT MORE people could be DOING what is, REALLY, 'bad'.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm The world's generally getting better so most people must be doing more good than bad.
BUT, if 'the world' is REALLY 'getting better' as you say and propose here, then human beings are on the Right TRACK. And, if that was REALLY True, then 'you', human beings, REALLY 'should' KEEP on POPULATING, POLLUTING, and MISTREATING "each other", at the EXPONENTIAL RATE, as 'you' WERE, hitherto, and ARE, in the days when this is being written, correct?
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Age »

Agent Smith wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 6:45 am A simple diagram might help clear things up. I dunno! Just a suggestion.
A 'simple diagram' of 'what', EXACTLY?

Some film or book scenario you like to TELL us ABOUT?
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:07 am How Does Relativism Contradict Itself?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52goRAXCYH8

Inconsistent Moral Relativism (Gilbert Harman)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WqOFJgIFyxs

Btw, the OP is applicable to those who insist there is no moral objectivity, i.e. on the basis that facts are absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Since there are no objective moral facts, thus morality is relative.
"veritas aequitas", 'you' CONTRADICT "your" OWN 'self' here FAR TO OFTEN to even be ABLE to FOLLOW, Correctly, what 'you' are 'trying to' ARGUE or FIGHT FOR here.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:11 am
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 7:40 pm But you are still missing the forest for the trees.

The common property amongst any and all situations we deem "erroneous" or "wrong" is that we wish them to have been better/different.
We have a counter-factual idea of how the situation OUGHT to have been. You know that a better outcome is possible. You know that the current outcome is suboptimal.
It seems like you want to focus on one quality: wishing something was different and call this an ought to be that different way we wish something was.
To me, "skepdick" is NOT even suggesting 'this', let alone 'focusing' on 'this'.

What 'you' STILL appear to be MISSING here "iwannoplato" is that IF one SEES or KNOWS that there is 'error' or 'wrong' SOMEWHERE, then then IMPLIES, or MEANS, that that one KNOWS of what IS Right, or, at least, KNOWS what IS BETTER. To have AN IDEA of some 'thing' is to have some sort of PRIOR KNOWING. There MUST BE some sort of INSTINCTUAL or PRIOR KNOWING. Which, in NO WAY necessarily MEANS that that one just WISHES 'things' were DIFFERENT NOR BETTER on absolutely NOTHING AT ALL.

The 'wishing' or 'WANTING' 'things' to be DIFFERENT/BETTER IS based on the UNCONSCIOUS KNOWING, which is LAYING DORMANT in just about ALL of 'you', adult human beings, in the days when this is being written. This KNOWING is WITHIN ALL of 'you', human beings. 'It' is an INSTINCTUAL KNOWING 'buried' DEEP DOWN WITHIN the VERY FABRIC of dna, and of BEING.

But this ALL COMES-TO-LIGHT, soon enough.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:11 am
Just because these differences share this quality - and I do have questions about the use of ought there - doesn't mean that we can't have two qualitatively different categories that have other differences.

If someone is ugly we might think, it is better if they were beautiful.
'Ugly' is just ANOTHER one of those VERY, VERY relative terms. Which ONLY occur WITHIN those who have BECOME VERY, VERY JUDGMENTAL.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:11 am But this doesn't mean that distinguishing between
she was incorrect about the capital of Hungary
she shouldn't talk shit about her friends behind their backs
her eyes are too close together to be considered pretty
(so going after the traditional, truth, goodness, beauty.

I think these are different categories. And while we could come up with a way to make a forest out of them, they are distinct.
Here we can SEE, VERY CLEARLY, DEFLECTION and DISTRACTION, in its BETTER form. But, which appears to NOT BE Truly INTENTIONAL anyway.

I MIGHT read the rest later.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:11 am
That delta between what has come to be and what could have been. That's the common golden thread I am talking about.
Or 'we wish it had been'. Could have been implies free will in the case of actions and some other kind of ontological flexibility in the other two categories that may not exist.
Without that counter-factual there can be no such thing as "problem" because a "problem" implies something could've been different/better in some imaginable aspect.

If that aspect is unimaginable then there's no problem - it's just the way the world is and it can't get any better.
Aren't you trying to get me to see a more accurate version of reality here?
Do you treat all three categories the same in your interactions with people?
So if you strip that scenario from any moral connotation you are still passing judgment on the situation from an imagined better counter-factual.

You are still in the domain of value-judgments and problem-solving. And in that sense you are still trying to improve the situation.
Right but just because two categories share something in common, that doesn't mean they are not separate categories.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm And they get called grammar Nazis precisely because they are conflating realms.
They aren't conflating realms - they are being perfectly consistent with the game of social norm enforcement.
Then why call them Nazis. To me that label implies that they have added qualites of the moral realm to the truth realm. In people's reactions to them. And they are clearly breaking social norms in dealing with issues of grammar rules. They treat it as a moral issue, which breaks certainly the norms of the people that label them so.


Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm Again that's why I chose that example. It's not severity, it's about the attitudes and interpersonal relations and character. Likewise with my wife. Likewise that we do not consider developmentally disabled people in need of punishment. We can think they are grand old people and consider them of good character, but we see to it they don't fly airplanes.
You are being too particular.
I think particulars help see the distinction. Here I was also specifically arguing against the criterion 'severity.'
The whole point is that we take the pragmatic factors and context into account while we seek for the most optimal ethical outcome.

But in the end the decision to stop old people from flying airplanes is made directly on the basis of ethics/morality. We stop them from flying commercial airplanes at 65. But they are still free to fly their own private airplanes.
Right, here you are giving a particular situation to show equivalence. I do think there are situations where the actions are similar. But then there are situations where they are not. In your example, perhaps some elderly see this as punishment. 'And while I anticipate a potato, potatoe response, I think it actually matters that it is not seen as punishment, but rather statistical batching. Yes, you may well be someone who can fly at your age, but we cannot invest the time and energy in determining for each individual case. But we do not see you as a less moral person. While we might if at 63 with early onset dementia beginning, knowing your diagnosis, you did continue to fly. Because you were still together enough to know that was a bad idea'. You intentionally put us at risk.

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm
So why do you call it a "mistake"? The word contains the connotation of something being "wrong".
Well the goal was for them to catch the pass. They wanted to, I wanted to.
OK.So they did what they did and it coincide with the goal. Why is that a "mistake"?
See there's always this alterne timeline involved in every judgment... The pre-supposition that things ought to have been otherwise.

If it wasn't there you'd simply accept everything that happens to you.
Sure, again, yes, they share this quality, but not others.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm
When we say that somebody is incorrect/wrong about something there is always the connotation that they OUGHT to have done otherwise.
But when it's an immoral act, that they intended to make the 'mistake.' There are gray areas, where someone drives too fast and kills someone.
Intention doesn't matter.
It certainly does to most people. It does within law. I think it even matters in the way you react to people posting here - though I could be reaching.
Whether I am murdered or die in a car accident - dead is dead, so I put on my risk manager hat on and prioritize accordingly. Most of the things that are likely to harm me isn't other humans - it's nature itself and nature's lack of intent doesn't make its tricks any less of a moral concern.
Well, I think we treat situations categorically differently when intent is involved.
Well yeah. Because the punishment isn't done for the sake of retribution or paying off the blood debt. The punishment is disincentive for the next guy.
That's certainly some people's intention with punishment, some not, but they are not the same kinds of situations and we react differently to them.

Morality isn't an intrinsic property to individuals. It's an emergent property of collectives. Don't take it personally.

I don't think any conception of morality pertaining to personal character is of any practical use.
Good, I have been sensing that and I think that is where we are different.
Medicine is a social good. Healing peopel is moral.
I am a strict consequentialist on this regard. Fuck intentions.
I partly want to respond that there are good consequentialist arguments for dealing with intention differences and responding to them differently - but I am not going to say that because I think that helps your case and not mine. :D
If you kill somebody accidentally we are still going to take measures to prevent such accidents from recurring.
Sure, though we'll treat the situations differently and perhaps radically differently.

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am Obviously. I said that. It wouldn't be nonsense to say she makes more mistakes. It would be nonsense to say she is now less moral.
I don't think morality works like that. It's not like body mass where you can gain some or lose some.
I think in both categories we consider overall evaluations, not just individual cases. The kids who do less well at math. The kids who bully.

We look at overall patterns. To me there is a categorical difference between saying my wife makes more mistakes now and this entails she is less moral. I think the first is obviously true and I can demonstrate this to pretty much anyone. IOW that is closer to science. I don't think it makes sense to say she is less moral.
In fact, I don't think there are intrinsicly moral or immoral people.
I don't think it's binary, but I certainly do put people on different places on the spectrum and deal with them differently. I find this very useful.
There are just people capable of anything. If you do more good than bad - then you leave the world better than you found it. If you do more bad than good then you leave the world worse than you found it.
And this can be translated into good employee, friend, spouse, neighbor and bad......Obviously there will be grey areas and exceptional acts.
The world's generally getting better so most people must be doing more good than bad.
I see trends and countertrends and I have my fingers crossed, but am less optimistic than you are.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 21, 2023 5:17 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:13 am I don't see why you have to shoe horn the word "objective" in there.

I see why you, in particular, want to. I don't see that you have to.
I believe the term 'objective' is critical,
Two Senses of Objectivity,
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

I brought in the term 'objectivity' to remind myself that we are dealing with the realistic sense of objectivity rather than the illusory sense of objectivity [as used by PH's sense and theists' sense].
In the days when this was being written it was VERY COMMON for one's OWN views to be the 'true view' and "other's" views to be the 'illusory view'.

In fact whenever the "other" had an OPPOSING view then it was that OPPOSING view, which was ALWAYS the ILLUSORY view. Which was VERY HUMOROUS to unfold in what was called 'real time'.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:58 am
Age wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:55 am
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:46 am
Suppose it's not a moral norm - just a regular norm.

Why does he think using words differently is "wrong" or "incorrect"?

Whatever the reason - he is using "wrong" and "incorrect" synonymously with "deviation from norm".
But what IS 'norm'? Besides a name or label used for some male gendered human beings.

But murder is also deviation from norm. A behavioural norm.
But 'murdering', in some places, is government authorized ('normal') behavior.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:46 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:39 am All mistakes in information are moral mistakes?
Yep. The difference is not in kind - only in magnitude of severity.

Lying/misrepresenting this color as "blue" is not as wrong as murder,
But WHO is the ONE who STATES what color 'that' IS, EXACTLY?

To be ABLE to 'lie/misrepresent' one MUST KNOW the truth.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:46 am but I am still misleading your mind if I keep using the term "blue" when I have this color in mind.
The Mind can NEVER be 'misled'.

But 'you', human beings, can be VERY 'misled'. As SHOWN and PROVED throughout this forum, and throughout human history.

In fact EVERY one of 'you', living adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, is living PROOF of this Fact.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:46 am Even if it's not intentional on my part; and a mere product of miscommunication - you are still misinformed. And you ought not be misinformed.
But WHO, EXACTLY, CHOSE the three letters of 'r', 'e', and 'd' to REPRESENT that AGREED UPON and ACCEPTED color?
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:46 am There's a threshold of severity where some people will "correct" you about it and some won't. It's that's a matter of strictness.

Philosophy (as it's practiced) espouses maximum strictness about the use language.
'Philosophy', itself, does NOT do this. But, some people who 'do' what is Wrongly, or Incorrectly, called 'philosophy' DO do this.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:46 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:39 am The true is the good?
The good is the true?
One set?
That's the Monotheistic view - yes.
BUT, 'the true' is NOT necessarily 'the good'. Just like, 'the good' is NOT necessarily 'the true'.
Age, can we go back to normal where you just remain quiet?
[/quote]

WHEN was 'that'?
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Skepdick »

Age wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:43 am WHEN was 'that'?
It can be any time. Starting now if you want.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:25 pm
Age wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 11:43 am WHEN was 'that'?
It can be any time. Starting now if you want.
But you said, 'go back', which, OBVIOUSLY, we all KNOW what that refers to.

So, WHEN was 'that'?
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Skepdick »

Age wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:42 am But you said, 'go back', which, OBVIOUSLY, we all KNOW what that refers to.
People who know what it refers to also know know when it refers to.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:42 am So, WHEN was 'that'?
...so why are you asking?
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:45 am
Age wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:42 am we all KNOW what that refers to.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:42 am So, WHEN was 'that'?
People who know don't ask questions.
OBVIOUSLY.

And, people who DO KNOW DO answer questions.

OBVIOUSLY there was NO period WHEN you CLAIM there was, and what you are doing here is just 'trying to' DEFLECT AWAY from ALL the QUESTION and CHALLENGES I POINTED OUT above here.

If you HAD NOTICE I was AGREEING WITH you on SOME of what you were SAYING and POINTING OUT, to the "other". I was also just CLEARING UP some of the MISTAKES that you were, CLEARLY, MAKING.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:45 am
Age wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:42 am But you said, 'go back', which, OBVIOUSLY, we all KNOW what that refers to.
People who know what it refers to also know know when it refers to.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:42 am So, WHEN was 'that'?
...so why are you asking?
Now that you have CHANGED your CLAIMS, and QUESTION.

1. NO one that I KNOW OF, but you, SUPPOSEDLY, KNOWS when 'it' refers to. AND, you will NOT inform us of WHEN 'it' WAS. But, if ANY one else DOES KNOW, then WILL you INFORM us?

2. I am ASKING, FOR CLARIFICATION.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Skepdick »

Age wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:51 am
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:45 am
Age wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:42 am we all KNOW what that refers to.
Age wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:42 am So, WHEN was 'that'?
People who know don't ask questions.
OBVIOUSLY.

And, people who DO KNOW DO answer questions.
So you lied when you said "we all know"?
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:54 am
Age wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:51 am
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:45 am

People who know don't ask questions.
OBVIOUSLY.

And, people who DO KNOW DO answer questions.
So you lied when you said "we all know"?
WHEN did I, supposedly, say, 'we all know'?

And,

WHAT are you referring to here, EXACTLY?

What WILL BE FOUND, if you are Honest, is that you will be Wrong more than 99.99%.
Last edited by Age on Thu Mar 23, 2023 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply