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

Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Skepdick »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:55 am I don't think most moral relativists hold it as some sort of universal ought that we ought to respect all moralities equally.
If you can rank any two moralities as “better” or “worse”relative to each other, then you can rank any list of moralities from best to worst in totality.

There many sorting algorithms to this end.

So what makes you a “relativist”?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:55 am
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
First video is about factual relativism, not moral relativism. Second video looks like a strawman to me. I don't think most moral relativists hold it as some sort of universal ought that we ought to respect all moralities equally.
There are many who are confused about this, but they contradict themselves, generally, when they have people who do not accept all moralities. I think this is a significant hypocrisy, but not, as VA is implying or saying inherent in moral relativism. IOW I do think this happens in relation to Islam, for example, in many parts of the Left. Many parts of the left see having problems with Islam as the same as racism (Islamophobia). Not really getting that Islam is a belief system and the color of your skin is not a belief system. And they do in fact judge people who have a problem with Islam for not being cultural/moral relativists, without noticing that that is doing precisely what they are upset about. (yes, the fact that a significant number of people who dislike Islam are also racists makes this gnarly as poop). A way we can see the confusion is the differing way they react to Christians and Muslims. Or that Islam is decidedly not morally relativistic. Or that it goes against many of the morals the Left has.

I am agreeing with you. You do not have to hold that belief of respecting all moralities equally, but there is a real phenomenon out there where people sort of try to do this with attendant hypocrisies and confusions.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:19 am
Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:55 am
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
First video is about factual relativism, not moral relativism. Second video looks like a strawman to me. I don't think most moral relativists hold it as some sort of universal ought that we ought to respect all moralities equally.
There are many who are confused about this, but they contradict themselves, generally, when they have people who do not accept all moralities. I think this is a significant hypocrisy, but not, as VA is implying or saying inherent in moral relativism. IOW I do think this happens in relation to Islam, for example, in many parts of the Left. Many parts of the left see having problems with Islam as the same as racism (Islamophobia). Not really getting that Islam is a belief system and the color of your skin is not a belief system. And they do in fact judge people who have a problem with Islam for not being cultural/moral relativists, without noticing that that is doing precisely what they are upset about. (yes, the fact that a significant number of people who dislike Islam are also racists makes this gnarly as poop). A way we can see the confusion is the differing way they react to Christians and Muslims. Or that Islam is decidedly not morally relativistic. Or that it goes against many of the morals the Left has.

I am agreeing with you. You do not have to hold that belief of respecting all moralities equally, but there is a real phenomenon out there where people sort of try to do this with attendant hypocrisies and confusions.
Yeah, I think the Islam situation is very... funny.

But even people defending against "islamaphobia" in this way wouldn't treat ALL moralities equally, they usually tend to give Islam a pass in certain regards because they have a vision of Islam (that's not entirely unreasonable) where Islam can contort itself to be compatible with modern pluralistic values in the way Christianity has. Either that or they're just really, really ignorant of what sorts of morals most Muslims have...

But yeah, they wouldn't treat all moralities equally, like for example the majority of them wouldn't treat a model of morality that allowed for pedophilia equally to one that doesn't.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 7:55 am
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
First video is about factual relativism, not moral relativism. Second video looks like a strawman to me. I don't think most moral relativists hold it as some sort of universal ought that we ought to respect all moralities equally.
I think you missed the point.
This 'respect' is not in terms of high admiration.

A Moral relativist view that there are right and wrong moral views.
It is because the moral relativist insist there is no moral objectivity, that he has to 'respect' the respective different moral views.
It is respect in the sense, that he cannot insist they adopt some standard moral objective view.
This is 'cannot insist' is a sort of 'ought' in this case, an ought-not.

For example, a moral relativist could abhor and detest the morality of Nazism, Islam and other so-called evil ideologies, but in conforming to their relativist stance, they will 'respect' their existence and will not bother to change these evil ideologies at all.
This is how the evil laden Muslims are having an easy free-pass to a feast of evil to enhance their passage to heaven with 72 virgins.

On the other hand a moral objectivist [FSK-based] will [pro-actively] find ways and means to steer those who adopt evil ideologies and engaged in evil acts from their evil ways towards the standard moral objective facts that will enable good.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 9:45 am
For example, a moral relativist could abhor and detest the morality of Nazism, Islam and other so-called evil ideologies, but in conforming to their relativist stance, they will 'respect' their existence and will not bother to change these evil ideologies at all.
While I sort of agree with some of the premises you used to get here, I actually don't think this is even necessarily true.

A moral relativist actually COULD present persuasive arguments to a captive Nazi that he ought to change his views, WITHOUT betraying relativism at all. All that's required is some common moral ground with the Nazi, and access to some compelling factual (non moral) arguments. I can totally imagine a conversation between a reasonable relativist and a reasonable (though indoctrinated) Nazi, where the Nazi leaves the conversation converted away from naziism and the relativist didn't have to make any concessions to objective morality.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 9:45 am
For example, a moral relativist could abhor and detest the morality of Nazism, Islam and other so-called evil ideologies, but in conforming to their relativist stance, they will 'respect' their existence and will not bother to change these evil ideologies at all.
While I sort of agree with some of the premises you used to get here, I actually don't think this is even necessarily true.

A moral relativist actually COULD present persuasive arguments to a captive Nazi that he ought to change his views, WITHOUT betraying relativism at all. All that's required is some common moral ground with the Nazi, and access to some compelling factual (non moral) arguments. I can totally imagine a conversation between a reasonable relativist and a reasonable (though indoctrinated) Nazi, where the Nazi leaves the conversation converted away from naziism and the relativist didn't have to make any concessions to objective morality.
In this case Nazism is merely an example of evil.
When a moral relativist persuades a person adopting an 'evil' ideology to change his views, surely the intent to change his views is not to another evil ideology but to that of 'good.'
In this case, it is implied there is an objective moral fact of what is deemed not-evil, i.e. good.

The point is a moral relativist in principle must remain relativist, i.e. be indifferent to the the relative morality of good or evil.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Fri Mar 17, 2023 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2574
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Flannel Jesus »

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.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Skepdick »

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. 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.
But that isn't "one quality" ?!? That is the totality of all qualities and quantities in existence.

Ceteris paribus that difference you are obsessing about ("the problem") is all that distinguishes the current timeline you find yourself in from the alternative timeline you wish you were in.

If there wasn't this counter-factual timeline (of how the present out to have been). If there's no desired difference - there would be no "problem". No alternative/counter-factual present you wished for.

Every time I hear somebody use the world "problem" I envision two parallel universe. One is the universe we are currently in. One is the universe we want to be in. "The problem" is how to get from the former universe to the latter.

No desire. No problems. No change required.

This is literally what I meant when I said you are missing the forest for the trees. You are reducing everything to properties while I am magnifying everything into alternate universes.

It doesn't matter whether the alternative universe you desire is one where you are sipping a cup of tea or one where cancer has been cured - it's the same principle.

What I am talking about is the process of reification. Making the abstract conrete.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:11 am If someone is ugly we might think, it is better if they were beautiful. 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.
To me it's one and the same thing. Whether you are being an ass to a fat girl; or being an ass to 6 million jews - you are still an ass.
It's just a question of magnitude.

If you are being an ass to a fat girl maybe her friends; maybe her big brother might get on your case - if you are being an ass to 6 million jews half the world will be on your case.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:11 am 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.
Yeah... I don't think in categories so I can't relate. Categories only produce tautologies. Nothing useful come sout of thinking that way.
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.
Yeah... no categoriies at play here. Unless you think "current reality", "alternative reality" and the process of reifying the latter are categories of any sort.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:11 am Aren't you trying to get me to see a more accurate version of reality here?
No - that's a stupid game. Reality is however reality is. I am only asking what it is you want to change about it?
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:11 am Do you treat all three categories the same in your interactions with people?
I don't think in categories when I interact with people. Everything is the way everything is.

Most of my interaction with people is almost robotic. Pleasantries and niceness. Goofing around. Exchanging experiences. None of that stuff requires any thinking as such. It's all mostly autopilot.

In so far as I engage in any "thinking" I only do it for the purpose of changing something. If I don't want to change anything why do I have to think? Eerything's already the way I want it.

If I don't want to change any minds -(mine; or somebody else's) why bother engaging in deliberation? Everything's already the way I want it.
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:11 am Right but just because two categories share something in common, that doesn't mean they are not separate categories.
I don't even know what that means. Category-membership isn't some sort of fixed thing. Given one and the same bookshelf there's a bunch of different ways to categorize it - by genre, by alphabetic order, by year of publication, entirely at random; or maybe you are weird and you just categorize your books by color. And the thing is you don't even have to actually move the books. You can imagine how you want to sort them and picture which category each book would go into (If you were to go through with the exercise) without actually going through with the exercise.

But to insist that books belong to some inherent category is absurd. The same goes with reality.

So instead of talking about categories (the noun) I am talking about category construction. The selection/admission criteria for whether any given book belongs to category X. And you can evern arbitrarily decide whether therei is or isn't a problem with one book ending up in multiple categories or not.

It doesn't matter - categorisation is all conceptual. You aren't physically putting anything into distinct boxes. Obviously you can't have the same book on two different physical shelves. But you can have it on two conceptual shelves.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm Then why call them Nazis.
Because they are obsessively strict and uncompromising about enforcing norms - like the Nazis were. Like any regimented/miliatarized society is.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm 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.
Nazism is just a mindset. It has nothing to do with morality. Being called a Nazi doesn't imply that you are immoral, but if you do any of the usual shit Nazis do (hate on people) those actions are immoral.

If you stop doing all that harmful shit Nazis do - you are welcome to be a Nazi. Nobody would care.
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.'
[/quote]
I think you missed the point that no distinction is being made on a continuum of severity - a continuum is not a criterion.

On the continuum of numbers all numbers are numbers.
There's such thing as one number being lower or higher than another number, but there's no such thing as a high or low number.
7 isn't low and 54234 isn't high, but 7 is lower than 54234.

in order for you to say that any particular number is "high" or "low" you need to introduce some criterion. Some threshold where the low numbers end and the high numbers begin.

The same goes with severity - I am not introducing a criterion for where low severity ends and high severity starts. I am just saying that murder is higher severity than being an ass to a fat girl.

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm Right, here you are giving a particular situation to show equivalence. I do think there are situations where the actions are similar.
These kinds of judgments are not useful

Any two situations/events are different. Except for the similarities.
Any two situations/events are similar. Except for their differences.

This continuum enables infinite disagreement for those willing - such as Philosophers.

Ignore the differences - focus on the similarities and you have Philosophical position A.
Ignore the similarities - focus on the differences and you have Philosophical position B.

Open ended philosophical question: Are X and Y the same or different?

And you have yourself an undecidable philosophical question. Flip a coin - it's as good as any philosophical argument.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm But then there are situations where they are not.
Should I believe you and your criteria; or can I just ask the coin's totally unbiased opinion?

Because the question is really down to a heads or tails - same or different.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm 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.
How well has that explanation ever worked for you? "Oh! I am just a number to you!"
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm 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.
That's because there's this thing called regression to the mean. Any given 65 year old can perform exceptionally OR poorly on any given test, but test test the same pilot over and over they will regress to the mean.

That's how the law of large numbers works. Exceptionalism is largely a myth.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm 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.
It's peculiar to me that you keep making it about the person. Yes people take things personally and knowing this fact we should sugar-coat this shit so it's easier to swallow, but it's not a moral judgment on their character.

It's a pragmatic ethical decision in the interest of passengers.

Any pilot of good judgment might even recuse themselves from the flight deck if they begin to notice they are becoming forgetful.

It's about the quality of the decision. Irrespective of who makes it. The layers of control we have in place are only so that SOMEBODY bloody well makes it!
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm Sure, again, yes, they share this quality, but not others.
That's trivially true of any two situations - it goes without saying.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm It certainly does to most people.
No it doesn't. Are you really telling me that you have stronger aversion to being murdered than you do to dying from a heart attack?

I have strong aversion to dying in general - as far as I am concerned all death is due to natural causes. It's just some causes are more prevalent than others and murder isn't even in the top 20.

So in the statistical sense I am far more worried about medical conditions than I am about violence.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm It does within law.
The law is a posteriori - it has different objectives to the murder victim.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm I think it even matters in the way you react to people posting here - though I could be reaching.
Yes but that's only because my strategy in the discourse depends on the intentions of my interlocutor.

It's game theory 101 stuff. I always want to be in a non-zero-sum cooperative game, but that's not always up to me - sometimes I get dragged into a prisoners' dilemma with an uncharitable/intentional actor. In that context there's only one winning strategy for me - stealing their strategy and dishing it back out.

This sort of reasoning doesn't apply in court of law - there's never a cooperative game to be played there unless you plead guity.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm Well, I think we treat situations categorically differently when intent is involved.
In the moment we are attempting to prevent harm we don't - I am as equally concerned about a pile up on the highway as I am about a man with a gun.

It's immediate danger either way.

A posteriori- sure. But that's about seeking accountability not about preventing harm.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm 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.
You react different to murder threat than to other threats to your life?

So peculiar.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm Sure, though we'll treat the situations differently and perhaps radically differently.
I think we are talking about different things here.

There's treating the situation prospectively - as you are approaching it in person; and treating the situation retrospectively as it has already happened.

In the prospective treatment - there's no difference. Whether you are trying to murder me or drive into me your intentions don't matter - the consequences of your actions matter.

In the retrospective treatment - sure. There's no blame assigned your way so we treat you different to a murderer, but in so far as we still want to prevent accidental deaths we treat the situation exaxtly the same as any other accident. We examine learn see if any mechanism of control could've worked.

Blame is only ever useful when it turns out that the simplest and most effective measure of control would've been you simply making a better choice. If you had no control to make a better choice - you can't be blamed.

ItS All AboUt ConTRoL !!! (lame attempt at spooky text)
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm 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.
Yeah but we have this tendency to make relative assessments (jane is worse than joe at maths) into absolute statements "Jane is bad at maths".

These two judgments are not made using the same yardstick and we owe ourselves some honesty in admitting that.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm 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.
Yeah then don't say such things 🤷‍♂️ Hummans have spent millenia chasing ghosts. Seeking the "Evil gene" - the intrinsic thing that makes us bad people. They aren't gonna find it because there's no such thing.

But it's so much easier to use a thought-terminating cliche like "They are just evil" when we can't be bothered to understand how somebody could do something attrocious. They don't see themselves as the sort of people possible of such things if they had simply found themselves in different circumstances. I think in psychology they call this phenomenon splitting.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm 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.
Sure. Reputation/history/past behaviour is a thing.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm I see trends and countertrends and I have my fingers crossed, but am less optimistic than you are.
I mean if you want to be categorical... any amount of optimism is optimism.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 3:19 pm Exactly. It is an all encompassing category.
I want to buy some cheese.
Well, here's a car tire.
I want cheese to eat on crackers.
Well, they are both things.
Sure, they are both things, but I think there are useful distinctions between dairy products and car parts.

IOW this line of reasoning might make sense if I hadn't been responding to VA. But I was responding to someone with his different FSKs.
I don't think in categories when I interact with people. Everything is the way everything is.

Most of my interaction with people is almost robotic. Pleasantries and niceness. Goofing around. Exchanging experiences. None of that stuff requires any thinking as such. It's all mostly autopilot.

In so far as I engage in any "thinking" I only do it for the purpose of changing something. If I don't want to change anything why do I have to think? Eerything's already the way I want it.

If I don't want to change any minds -(mine; or somebody else's) why bother engaging in deliberation? Everything's already the way I want it.
So, you're not trying to change my mind, here?
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 8:11 am Right but just because two categories share something in common, that doesn't mean they are not separate categories.
I don't even know what that means. Category-membership isn't some sort of fixed thing. Given one and the same bookshelf there's a bunch of different ways to categorize it - by genre, by alphabetic order, by year of publication, entirely at random; or maybe you are weird and you just categorize your books by color. And the thing is you don't even have to actually move the books. You can imagine how you want to sort them and picture which category each book would go into (If you were to go through with the exercise) without actually going through with the exercise.

But to insist that books belong to some inherent category is absurd. The same goes with reality.

So instead of talking about categories (the noun) I am talking about category construction. The selection/admission criteria for whether any given book belongs to category X. And you can evern arbitrarily decide whether therei is or isn't a problem with one book ending up in multiple categories or not.

It doesn't matter - categorisation is all conceptual. You aren't physically putting anything into distinct boxes. Obviously you can't have the same book on two different physical shelves. But you can have it on two conceptual shelves.
If you stop doing all that harmful shit Nazis do - you are welcome to be a Nazi. Nobody would care.
VA does. That's central to his program. I was responding to VA in this thread.
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.'
[/quote]
I think you missed the point that no distinction is being made on a continuum of severity - a continuum is not a criterion.
OK, it seemed to me you were saying it was the criterion that one must use (if one had my position) and that I was using.
Yep. The difference is not in kind - only in magnitude of severity.
I see a difference in kind and chose that example specifically to show that the severity could be less. It is not my criterion as you suggested.
The same goes with severity - I am not introducing a criterion for where low severity ends and high severity starts. I am just saying that murder is higher severity than being an ass to a fat girl.
But that's not like the example I used, nor is it the example I used.
How well has that explanation ever worked for you? "Oh! I am just a number to you!"
It works vastly better than any situation where I see them able to test individuals, but won't test me, for example. And I've been on the other side of the counter.

No, I can't let you take that and you''ll pay me tomorrow. You may very well be a lovely person, but....

And often the irritation I feel is at the morons whose behavior leads to this, not to the organization that cannot invest, for example my tax dollars, in doing some kind of very complicated investigation of every person who wants an exception. Yes, there are grey areas. But I see it as a useful distinction.

You tell me you know I can't X or am Y and I can and am not, I may go to war. If it's clear to me why they are not making individual distinctions, I generally do not.

It's peculiar to me that you keep making it about the person. Yes people take things personally and knowing this fact we should sugar-coat this shit so it's easier to swallow, but it's not a moral judgment on their character.
I am not suggesting this. I am pointing out differences.
It's a pragmatic ethical decision in the interest of passengers.
Exactly. In other cases it is precisely aimed at an individual.

I am playing catch with my son and throw a baseball he misses and it goes through a fence and kills a toddle on the other side of a fence. I will probably not get charged with a crime. They find plans with my son to make it look like we planned the whole thing and weakened the boards or whatever, suddenly I'm up for the most severe crime category. Same act, difference in intentions. We make determinations like this all the time.
Any pilot of good judgment might even recuse themselves from the flight deck if they begin to notice they are becoming forgetful.
Precisely. And the one who didn't who talked to a friend pilot about all the errors he was making and then flew and killed people, he's going to be treated as a criminal. It's a different situation.

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm Sure, again, yes, they share this quality, but not others.
That's trivially true of any two situations - it goes without saying.
I don't see the situations I've given here or before as having trivial distinctions, even though they depend on intentions.
No it doesn't. Are you really telling me that you have stronger aversion to being murdered than you do to dying from a heart attack?
Someone throws my wife a surprise party at work and she dies of a heart attack. Someone shoots her I'd like to see put in prison.
I have strong aversion to dying in general - as far as I am concerned all death is due to natural causes. It's just some causes are more prevalent than others and murder isn't even in the top 20.
Sorry this line seems disingenous. It's about how we view people.
So in the statistical sense I am far more worried about medical conditions than I am about violence.
Me too.

But I'm in a thread responding to VA about morals.

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm I think it even matters in the way you react to people posting here - though I could be reaching.
Yes but that's only because my strategy in the discourse depends on the intentions of my interlocutor.
But intentions don't matter.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm Well, I think we treat situations categorically differently when intent is involved.
In the moment we are attempting to prevent harm we don't - I am as equally concerned about a pile up on the highway as I am about a man with a gun.
Sure. But moral judgments have to do with people, generally.
I think we are talking about different things here.
Yes, it seems like you are talking about something other than my issue with VA, especially in the context of VAs beliefs.
In the retrospective treatment - sure. There's no blame assigned your way so we treat you different to a murderer, but in so far as we still want to prevent accidental deaths we treat the situation exaxtly the same as any other accident. We examine learn see if any mechanism of control could've worked.

Blame is only ever useful when it turns out that the simplest and most effective measure of control would've been you simply making a better choice. If you had no control to make a better choice - you can't be blamed.
Sure.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm 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.
Yeah then don't say such things 🤷‍♂️ Hummans have spent millenia chasing ghosts. Seeking the "Evil gene" - the intrinsic thing that makes us bad people. They aren't gonna find it because there's no such thing.
Well, I can find the intrinsic thing that makes my wife forget names and pronouns. That's a difference. I can point to the specific event that did this. I could send her to Japan and their neurologists would find the same cause.

Which, again, is inherent in VAs position. Different FSKs.
But it's so much easier to use a thought-terminating cliche like "They are just evil" when we can't be bothered to understand how somebody could do something attrocious. They don't see themselves as the sort of people possible of such things if they had simply found themselves in different circumstances. I think in psychology they call this phenomenon splitting.
I don't think in that way. But I see a difference between lacking a skill that costs me money and stealing even less money. Yes, if a person knows they make mistakes with people's money, they might end up in the second category, the moral one.

But now you are accusing me of determining that people are evil or good, period. That's a strawman. I've been focused on acts.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 6:10 pm I see trends and countertrends and I have my fingers crossed, but am less optimistic than you are.
I mean if you want to be categorical... any amount of optimism is optimism.
I meant it colloquially. An opposite sentiment with similar colloquialness might be
How are you doin?
Not so bad [said in a chipper voice]

IOW it's actually good. (I got this from the British side of the family and hell, they are even more like this where I now live in Europe) It's like every judgment is camoflaged as it's near opposite.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

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].
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6657
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Iwannaplato »

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.
One thing that many moral relativists do. which they don't need to, is have a position. It's a bit like atheism. You can go ahead and have an argument in favor of atheism, try to demonstrate there is no God
or
you can simply not be convinced there is a God and explain why in relation to the convincing.

Well, it's the same as objective morals. You don't have to bring in facts and draw is/ought distinctions and present a case for antirealism.

You just point to the parts of the moral realist's position that don't work.

With VA it's cherry picking. Which doesn't mean you point this out. You don't have to mount a logical argument: hey you focused on the part of the brain that supports empathy and not the parts of the brain that support violence for your objective moral fact. No, you don't have to do that?

You can just tell VA that another guy told you it was another part of the brain that shows the moral fact and you don't know how to choose between that guy and VA.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:46 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:39 am
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:30 am
Yes it is.

All judgments about "correctness" or "incorrectness" are performed with respect to an assumed norm.
A moral norm?
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.[/quote]

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'.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Skepdick »

Age wrote: Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:55 am
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:46 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:39 am A moral norm?
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'.
[/quote]
Age, can we go back to normal where you just remain quiet?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:51 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:44 am
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:30 am Deviation from behavioural norms is what we call "morally wrong"
I wouldn't the set of deviations from behavioral norms that. I never considered cross-dressing morally wrong
You didn't. The people punishing you for it did. That's why they punish you for it.

I never considered using words differently to be "incorrect" or "wrong" either, but philosophers punish you for it too.
HOW, EXACTLY, do these so-called "philosophers", supposedly, PUNISH you for just USING words DIFFERENTLY?

Oh, and by the way, a LOT of what 'you', posters here in this forum, are ARGUING FOR is the EXACT SAME 'thing', but BECAUSE 'you' ALL USE words DIFFERENTLY, including EVERY so-called "philosopher", this is WHY you were ALL STILL LOST and CONFUSED, in the days when this was being written.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:46 am Using different logic/methods of argumentation? You'll be punished.
HOW, EXACTLY?
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:46 am It's how social norms are enforced.
This is VERY True.

PUNISHMENT, RIDICULE, and HUMILIATION are STRONG 'motives' to MAKE "others" DO what is WANTED. And, the reason WHY PUNISHMENT, RIDICULE and/or HUMILIATION is USED to MAKE "others" FOLLOW a particular way is BECAUSE those WAYS that are WANTED TO BE FOLLOWED are AGAINST the 'normal' and 'Natural' state of BEING 'human' and of Life, Itself. As WILL BECOME OBVIOUSLY CLEAR FURTHER down the 'TRACK'.

That is; WHEN the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge IS REVEALED, or COMES-TO-LIGHT, to 'you', AS WELL.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:46 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:44 am , for example.
And I didn't consider the kids who were worse in math than me less moral than me.
Nor those better, more moral.
Yet we punish the kids who got an F with lower social status. You know exactly who the dumb kids in the class are
Yes, some times/most times the ones who are being RIDICULED and HUMILIATED the MOST.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:46 am And it's not like we celebrate their achievements. So much so we even call it failure.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:44 am I think there is a useful distinction here.
Useful to what end?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 10:44 am I can't see a good reason to conflate those two categories.
THe statements I am making are being made pre-categorization.

If you want to draw the distinction - draw it for whatever purposes suits you. But that doesn't diminish the facts.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Moral Relativism is SELF-REFUTING

Post by Age »

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,
Children ONLY EVER make mistakes.

Whereas,

Adults DO immoral behavior.

That IS the DISTINCTION.

Children can NEVER REALLY DO Wrong, but they are, seemingly, ALWAYS PUNISHED and/or HUMILIATED for DOING WRONG.
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. Or fouling me and repeatedly dropping a pass. 1) someone who is a dick on the court, I generally find is dick elsewhere.
Here we have ANOTHER example of how these people would say 'things' that were NOT even CLOSE to being the ACTUAL Truth.

Yet they PERSISTED with their CLAIMS, as though they were, laughably, ACTUALLY True.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am It says something about how they treat other people.
AND, what ABOUT those who JUDGE "others", and even PREJUDGE "others"? Does this say ANY 'thing' about how they treat "other people" as well?

Or, is 'this' DIFFERENT when it is 'you', being the so-called 'dick'?

JUDGING or PREJUDGING, especially when MISJUDGING could be SEEN as one of what you would call the 'BIGGEST DICK'.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am 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.
What end do you put the JUDGING of "others" on, EXACTLY?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am Which is different for me than skills, including skills around producing correct answers, especially if restricted to certain fields.

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.
How do we KNOW 'it' is 'nonsense'. Do you have ANY ACTUAL PROOF?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am It wouldn't be nonsense to say that she makes a lot more mistakes.
But what you call MISTAKES we might NOT.

But we could call you JUDGING and PREJUDGING "others" as being a VERY BIG and HUGE MISTAKE. WHICH, if you STOPPED MAKING, WOULD make 'the world' a MUCH BETTER PLACE to live and grow up in.
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.
And what do you THINK those reasons for this are, EXACTLY?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am Even in schools the interventions for breaches against moral norms are different from those made against mistakes.
So, WHO or WHICH ONE has the 'moral norms', WHEN it is a whole 'society' who has DIFFERENT values than you do?

Do 'you' HAVE or KNOW the 'moral norm', or, is it 'the society', which HAS and KNOWS the 'moral norm' here?
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Mar 16, 2023 11:14 am The categories are generally distinct and, at least in their minds, the negative consequences are suited to the category differences. I'm not arguing that making mistakes has no negative consequences. They're just different ones, generally.

Again, I can't see a good reason to give up the distinction. It works well for me.
And ANY one ELSE? Or, just FOR 'you'?
Post Reply