moral relativism

[iambiguous]

There is the "wellbeing of humans" encompassed in an intellectual/philosophical assessment, and there is taking that assessment out into world of "conflicting goods".

I merely presume further that in a No God world, good and evil themselves are just subjective concoctions rooted existentially in dasein...both historically and culturally. And in terms of our own unique set of "personal experiences"

Capital punishment being but one of these issues that has plagued our species now for centuries.

Which is no different to describing this experience as as "red", "blue" or "green". Or even "good" or "bad".

Or describing the experience of capital punishment as "good" AND "bad"
Or describing the experience of murder as "good" AND "bad".

If you are a true relativist, rooting everything in dasein and historical trends then you should have absolutely no problem with my view-point.
There are NO preferential descriptions.
There are NO preferential arguments.
There are NO preferential philosophies.
There are NO preferential choices.


There are NO STANDARDS for disrcimination for or against anything.
There is no way to determine anything. Non-determination IS the epitome of relativism. You say X - I say not X.

It's so strange that you would disagree with me practicing your view-point to its logical maximum.

I'm not entirely sure what you think I am disagreeing with you about. My distinction is between those things that we can agree about regarding capital punishment because they can be demonstrated as in fact true for all of us. Particular laws in particular jurisdictions covering capital crimes. Statistics regarding who was executed, when and where. The facts involved in the execution of a particular inmate.

On the other hand, what can we all agree about as "in fact true" about the morality of capital punishment?

My own assumption is that there are no preferential arguments, philosophies or choices there. Only subjective/problematic moral and political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein.

Basically, from my frame of mind, you want to pin your hopes for morality on historical trends.

No, I don't. I am pointing out that the historical trends being observed are a product of morality. And the phenomenon we call "morality" is objective.

Well, if you mean that every human community must create "rules of behavior" in interacting socially, politically and economically because over time conflicting wants and needs begin to accumulate, okay.

If you want to call that "objective morality", sure. But that doesn't make my arguments above go away.

But what I focus on is how morality itself is the product ever evolving historical, cultural and interpersonal "sets of circumstances" in a world awash in contingency, chance and change.

If relativism was true then I can't possibly explain any of the historical trends being observed.

Sure you can. You simply can't demonstrate why your own assessment of those trends is anywhere near the vicinity of deontology. Unless you'd like to try in regard to the death penalty.

Then the part where there's what you believe most contributes to our "well-being" in regard to any particular set of conflicting goods and how you connect that "in your head" to humans living "longer, happier, healthier, wealthier, better educated, more fulfilled lives."

Yes. Lets take one very particular "conflicting good".

In a truly relativist world-view some people would argue that living longer lives is better; and some would argue that living shorter lives is better.
And if those view-points were in perfect, relative balance then one would expect to observe no measurable change in human longevity.

So how does a relativist account for the fact that human longevity has almost doubled in 200 years?

How does a relativist account for the all of the improvement in happiness, wealth, education and general human well-being etc.?

Again, we are in two different discussions here. You keep focusing on things like general happiness, wealth, education etc., as though, using the tools of philosophy, this can be directly connected to establishing an objective morality in regard to capital punishment, abortion, animal rights, gun ownership, gender roles, sexual issues, just war, social justice and on and on and on.

Come on, the subjectivists/relativists/nihilists are not arguing that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to think as they do. Quite the contrary. Some like me are "fractured and fragmented" to the point where over and again, they are drawn and quartered when confronting conflicting goods.

And I am a relativist in regard to "reasonableness of arguments" --- whether pertaining to capital punishment or to covid vaccinations. Both sides are able to raise legitimate points. To note reasonable concerns.

But you weren't drawn and quartered when you accepted the subjectivists/relativists/nihilists argument.
And you weren't drawn and quartered when you rejected the objective moral argument

Quite the contrary. I don't exclude my own point of view from my own point of view. Of course objective morality may exist. A God, the God may in fact exist to establish that. Or there may be a secular Humanist argument that establishes it. I have simply not come across it yet myself.

[popeye1945]

Objective morality to exist as objective must exist in the absence of a conscious subject, which is quite impossible. Morality can be made objective, meaning existent in the physical world as object if it is created by consciousness. We only know of a physical world on a cognitively level, there is no other means. So, it can be said that when in the absence of a conscious subject the world ceases to be COGNITIVELY. Science today tells us that ultimate reality is a place of no things, thus, what is considered real, what is consider object, in fact does not exist. What is truly objective is wave frequencies, and these would be an unknown quantity, cognitively.

[Age]

Objective morality to exist as objective must exist in the absence of a conscious subject, which is quite impossible.

What does 'as objective' even mean or refer to, exactly, to you?

Morality can be made objective, meaning existent in the physical world as object if it is created by consciousness.

To me, you appear to have a very strange sense of things here.

In one sentence you say and claim that it is impossible for 'objective morality' to exist, however, in the next sentence you say and claim that 'objective morality' can exist, but only if 'objective morality' is created consciousness, itself.

Now, is this right or wrong?

If this is wrong, then what is right here?

We only know of a physical world on a cognitively level, there is no other means.

I KNOW of the so-called 'physical world' another way. But, no matter what I said you would, obviously, not accept it.

So, it can be said that when in the absence of a conscious subject the world ceases to be COGNITIVELY. Science today tells us that ultimate reality is a place of no things, thus, what is considered real, what is consider object, in fact does not exist.

In what scientific literature does it state that " 'ultimate reality' is a place of no things "?

What is truly objective is wave frequencies, and these would be an unknown quantity, cognitively.

But wave frequencies, obviously, according to your own attempt at "logic" here, could not have absolutely anything to do with 'ultimate reality', itself.

So, if you are 'trying to' imply they do, then you have just contradicted "yourself" here.

[Skepdick]

Objective morality to exist as objective must exist in the absence of a conscious subject, which is quite impossible.

It becomes trivial as soon as you get rid of the subject/object distinction.

Everything is subjective; or everything is objective. Pick one - it doesn't matter which. Just get rid of the duality.

What is truly objective is wave frequencies, and these would be an unknown quantity, cognitively.

You have fallen victim to the reification fallacy.

Functions, waves etc. - those are just abstract constructs. They are just cognitive instruments for navigating a complex universe.

You said it yourself....

We only know of a physical world on a cognitively level, there is no other means.

[Skepdick]

My own assumption is that there are no preferential arguments, philosophies or choices there. Only subjective/problematic moral and political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein.

Which is precisely why you need to remove yourself from the stupid games philosophers play. Abandon the 1st person perspective. Take a broader 3rd person view.

Look for the trends which remain despite any particular "dasein". The dasein of 18th century Germany is not the dasein of 5th century Rome, nor is it the dasein of 21st century France.

I am pointing out at trends which have persisted despite diverse dasein.

Well, if you mean that every human community must create "rules of behavior" in interacting socially, politically and economically because over time conflicting wants and needs begin to accumulate, okay.

Yeah. OK. Are human needs objective? Or are the needs for food, safety, shelter etc. just rooted in dasein?

If you want to call that "objective morality", sure. But that doesn't make my arguments above go away.

So what? I can ignore any argument I want to ignore.

But what I focus on is how morality itself is the product ever evolving historical, cultural and interpersonal "sets of circumstances" in a world awash in contingency, chance and change.

Yeah. Morality is also a product of human needs. And the basic set of human needs haven't changed all that much across cultures or circumstances.

The thirsty want to drink.
The hungry want to eat.
The sick want health.
The poor want to prosper.

Sure you can. You simply can't demonstrate why your own assessment of those trends is anywhere near the vicinity of deontology. Unless you'd like to try in regard to the death penalty.

Of course I can demonstrate it. If there's no deontological grounds for any of this - why is the death penalty practiced less in 2022 than it was in 222?

Why is it practiced less and less?
Why are executions no longer public?
Why are beheadings no longer the norm?

YOU can't account for that change and reduction in prevalence. I can - objective morality.

Again, we are in two different discussions here. You keep focusing on things like general happiness, wealth, education etc., as though, using the tools of philosophy, this can be directly connected to establishing an objective morality in regard to capital punishment, abortion, animal rights, gun ownership, gender roles, sexual issues, just war, social justice and on and on and on.

Why are you having issue establishing the morality of those things? I am not having such problems. Is it possible that your moral compass is dysfunctional?

Can you tell which of these possible universes is better?
A universe with capital punishment (2022BC) vs universe without capital punishment (2022 AD). We have all the frigging evidence we need that capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent. It's costly, lengthy and we have had people erroneously executed. Capital punishment is short term bloodlust/revenge without any long-term social benefits.

A universe with abortion (2022 AD) vs universe without abortion (1800 AD). We have all the frigging evidence we need that backstreet aportions are a greater evil than legalising abortion.

A universe with gun ownership (2022 AD) vs universe without gun ownership (1500 AD). We have all the frigging evidence we need that there is no correlation between gun ownership and increase in violence/death. In fact - the opposite is true.

Why are you struggling to apply the no-harm principle in practice? Every choice under consideration - examine the full set of consequences for making it vs not-making it. Weigh the consequences ceteris paribus and decide which choice is better.

Quite the contrary. I don't exclude my own point of view from my own point of view.

You have A point of view - singular. You don't have points of view - multiple.

Ergo - you have discarded alternatives. You've chosen.

How does a relativist choose between alternatives which has them "drawn and quartered" ?!?

Of course objective morality may exist. A God, the God may in fact exist to establish that. Or there may be a secular Humanist argument that establishes it. I have simply not come across it yet myself.

So as a "drawn and quartered" relativist you have chosen to believe that arguments establish morality.

And then you wonder why you can't recognize objective morality for what it is. Irrespective of any argument about it.
You are indeed trapped in the dasein of philosophy and argumentation.

You truly fail to comprehend that no argument could ever establish whether this color is red, or this color is blue.

[popeye1945]

Hi Age,

What does 'as objective' even mean or refer to, exactly, to you? quote

Objective refers to the world of objects, these are made up of wave frequencies, and like vibrational frequencies are not manifest until they are interpreted through a conscious subject.

To me, you appear to have a very strange sense of things here. quote

Yes, well it is strange, not common sense at all. One needs to understand that just as vibrations are made by a falling tree, they are not sound until they affect the eardrum. So to with all the objects of the physical world, they are wave frequencies until they affect the body of the organism.

In one sentence you say and claim that it is impossible for 'objective morality' to exist, however, in the next sentence you say and claim that 'objective morality' can exist, but only if 'objective morality' is created consciousness, itself. Now, is this right or wrong? quote

I say that objective morality cannot exist in the absence of a conscious subject. Morality is a concept, and only conscious beings think in concepts. If morality remains a subjective concept then it is not out in the world, to make it manifest in the form of structures and systems it must be the conscious subject that makes it so physically.

I KNOW of the so-called 'physical world' another way. But, no matter what I said you would, obviously, not accept it. Quote

If you believe there is another way of knowing other than cognitive knowing of the physical world please enlighten me.


In what scientific literature does it state that " 'ultimate reality' is a place of no things "? quote
Physics.

But wave frequencies, obviously, according to your own attempt at "logic" here, could not have absolutely anything to do with 'ultimate reality', itself. quote

No, when physics says its all wave frequencies they mean that is all there is, for, in the absence of a conscious subject, there is to make a point, no ear drum to hear the sound, nor eye to see an object.

So, if you are 'trying to' imply they do, then you have just contradicted "yourself" here.
[/quote]

No, I don't contradict myself, apparent reality is that which we sense, ultimate reality contains this, and all the rest we do not sense.

For reference, there is no real divide between subject and object but in philosophy, it has been necessary to divide and put back together again for instruction's sake.

[Skepdick]

Objective refers to the world of objects, these are made up of wave frequencies, and like vibrational frequencies are not manifest until they are interpreted through a conscious subject.

But the observer itself is an object. Made up of wave frequencies.

What else could an "observer" be in a world of objects?!?

[Skepdick]

No, I don't contradict myself, apparent reality is that which we sense, ultimate reality contains this, and all the rest we do not sense.

"Ultimate reality" contains the entity trying to describe ultimate reality.

So if you are trying to account for "ultimate reality" you should also account for yourself trying to account for ultimate reality...

[popeye1945]

Objective refers to the world of objects, these are made up of wave frequencies, and like vibrational frequencies are not manifest until they are interpreted through a conscious subject.

But the observer itself is an object. Made up of wave frequencies.

What else could an "observer" be in a world of objects?!?

Hi Skepdick,
Yes, the body of the conscious subject is in the world as an object and it is through this object body that it knows the physical world. Apparent reality is the bodily reactions to the physical world.

[Skepdick]

Apparent reality is the bodily reactions to the physical world.

What is the purpose of saying this?

[popeye1945]

Apparent reality is the bodily reactions to the physical world.

What is the purpose of saying this?

Most people don't realize that life creates the world of objects, and without a conscious subject, there is nothing. For this to make sense it is necessary to remind people it seems, that all-knowing, all meaning is the property of a conscious subject and never, the property of the object. The only way to know the world is cognitively/read subjectively.

[Skepdick]

Most people don't realize that life creates the world of objects, and without a conscious subject, there is nothing.

You are trying to rescue the subject/object distinction. Having just abandoned it. Why?

There is whatever there is. Nothing. Or everything. Or subjects. Or objects. Or life. Or consciousness. Or matter. Or whatever.

Its all just different manners of speaking. None of which addresses my actual question: Why are you speaking? What is the purpose of saying such things?

[popeye1945]

Most people don't realize that life creates the world of objects, and without a conscious subject, there is nothing.

You are trying to rescue the subject/object distinction. Having just abandoned it. Why?

There is whatever there is. Nothing. Or everything. Or subjects. Or objects. Or life. Or consciousness. Or matter. Or whatever.

Its all just different manners of speaking. None of which addresses my actual question: Why are you speaking? What is the purpose of saying such things?

Why, obviously to understand the nature of reality, as far as we can. I have not abandoned subject and object this is the way philosophy has talked about it for centuries.

[Skepdick]

Why, obviously to understand the nature of reality, as far as we can.

And when you "understand the nature of reality, as far as you can" what will you do with that understanding?

Would you come to understand that you have fooled yourself with your very own question? Because "nature" and "reality" are synonymous terms so in asking "What is the nature of reality?" you are really asking "What is the nature of nature?"

A stupid question that can only produce stupid answers.

I have not abandoned subject and object this is the way philosophy has talked about it for centuries.

People used to think Earth is flat; and the center of the universe too. For centuries.

Philosophers in the pragmatists tradition have abandoned this distinction. In fact - towards your pursuit of objective knowledge you ought to abandon all distinctions. Even the subjective/objective distinction.

[popeye1945]

And when you "understand the nature of reality, as far as you can" what will you do with that understanding? quote

I will know, and quest from there.

People used to think Earth is flat; and the center of the universe too. For centuries. quote

Well, present-day science is what I am going by. I believe that is all we can do, use the knowledge of the present.

Philosophers in the pragmatist's tradition have abandoned this distinction. In fact - towards your pursuit of objective knowledge you ought to abandon all distinctions. Even the subjective/objective distinction.[/quote]

As I've previously stated there is no division between subject and object, it is simply treated that way to forward our understanding of the nature of the relation between subject and object. All things are relational.