moral relativism

[iambiguous]

Does it really matter and to whom how we categorize that commandment? Call it heuristic, de facto behavioral pattern, social group limit, whatever. Does it matter what we call it?

What particular commandment pertaining to what particular set of circumstances? And my point is that the moral objectivists among us insist that, yes, it really does matter what we call it. You either call it what they call it or you become "one of them". And that often precipitates one or another more or less draconian rendition of "or else".

As for this...

If it does, to whom does it matter? And isn't that person making an objectivist claim?

Well, that depends on how one construes moral objectivism. It can revolve around might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise. And then the part where one attributes their own morality to one or another God or one or another political ideology or one or another ethical philosophy or one or another assessment of "biological imperatives". Finally, the role that dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome play in our individual lives.

The part where those like iwannaplato, in regard to a moral philosophy pertaining to an issue like abortion, attempt to note how their own value judgments are not "fractured and fragmented" as mine are given the points I raised here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

[popeye1945]

Moral relativism is defined by differing contexts, for it is a context that defines the human constitution giving it it's identity. The world as a whole is one context to which we are linked in an adaptive relationship to its endless changing. The world is peppered with various societies which are our synthetic contexts to which we adapt, those societies/contexts are the essence of moral relativism. We call ourselves American, Canadian, and African because these contexts have given us an identity.

[Iwannaplato]

Does it really matter and to whom how we categorize that commandment? Call it heuristic, de facto behavioral pattern, social group limit, whatever. Does it matter what we call it?

What particular commandment pertaining to what particular set of circumstances?

Here's that quote in context.

But a defacto Thou shalt not kill all the babies, is pretty hard to argue with. You can categorize is however you want, but in the end that's a philosopher's game. The monkeys as a group with throw fruit at you, attack you physically, scream at you, even fight to the death if you try to break that commandment, be you monkey or human or tiger.

Does it really matter and to whom how we categorize that commandment? Call it heuristic, de facto behavioral pattern, social group limit, whatever. Does it matter what we call it?

That was the context. The commandment not to kill all babies in that monkey species.

And my point is that the moral objectivists among us insist that, yes, it really does matter what we call it. You either call it what they call it or you become "one of them". And that often precipitates one or another more or less draconian rendition of "or else".

Well the article was talking about monkeys. In the monkey realm we lack objectivism, but they will enforce their rules with violence if necessary. My responses were in the context of that article. Do you think the or else goes away if people are not philosophical objectivists? What evidence is there for this? Social mammals have or else messages with objectivism. Won't there still be conflicts over resources, values, preferences, lifestyle choices and so on? Won't disgust, control urges, selfishness, desire, rage, competitiveness, egoism and so on whether individual or group identified continue to cause violence, war, empathiless policies, theft, oppression and rejection of certain others even without objectivism? How do we know it's not merely part of the currect excuse and if it was off the table people would rationalize in other ways or merely carry out the same actions driven by the same deep motivations?

As for this...

If it does, to whom does it matter? And isn't that person making an objectivist claim?

and I added an interpretation of that claim:

No, we shouldn't call it an objective moral.

Is it an objective moral claim?

Are you arguing that you have a mere preference for us not to view things in objective moral terms? Or do you think it is objectively immoral to do so?
I assume, given what you say in many places that it is the former.

This is morality that revolves by and large around what you believe in your head.

That even the criticism of moral objectivism is a moral objection that revolves by and large around what you believe in your head.

But it doesn't quite seem like you view it as a mere preference, your subjective values, something that you merely believe in your head. So, I ask.

And I wasn't being facile (not that you said this) about the monkeys. My point was that even without moral objectivism, people will enforce what we call moral rules, and with violence, I think, regardless of the meta-ethical position. Which is not to say that I think the moral objectivists are right, but enforcement, I don't think, or what you call 'the or else' isn't going off the table. As an aside: Of course moral objectivists can be anti-violence, political anarchists and not have an or else, but pretty much everyone, relativist or objectivist has their or elses.

I don't know what happens if suddenly no one thinks in moral objectivist terms. It would obviously be very unsettling for many. I would guess that in the long run all the manifestations of desire (including for what others have or people they are close to), competition over resources and in general, fear of the other, hoarding, clash of values (even if no longer considered objective) and ways of life (including continued reactions of disgust, superiority, incomprehension and so on) would continue.

I don't know if there would be any reduction in violence, say. Perhaps there would. I don't rule it out. But, then once morals are viewed are preferences or subjective values, this might have other effects - people feeling not beholden to their own group's rules. They no longer avoid murdering people on both moral and practical grounds (not wanting to go to prison or social judgment), but now just, when they do avoid it, on practical grounds.

I don't know what happens. I don't know what those monkeys in that article, lacking objecitivism, would do if they had to run a whole society and had access to guns and prisons and....so on.

Well, that depends on how one construes moral objectivism.

Sure.

[iambiguous]

Does it really matter and to whom how we categorize that commandment? Call it heuristic, de facto behavioral pattern, social group limit, whatever. Does it matter what we call it?

What particular commandment pertaining to what particular set of circumstances?

Here's that quote in context.

But a defacto Thou shalt not kill all the babies, is pretty hard to argue with. You can categorize is however you want, but in the end that's a philosopher's game. The monkeys as a group with throw fruit at you, attack you physically, scream at you, even fight to the death if you try to break that commandment, be you monkey or human or tiger.

Does it really matter and to whom how we categorize that commandment? Call it heuristic, de facto behavioral pattern, social group limit, whatever. Does it matter what we call it?

That was the context. The commandment not to kill all babies in that monkey species.

The gap between the monkeys and the human species here is considerable. To what extent are their de facto behaviors not rooted far, far more in genes than memes? And they have no de jure equivalent because that sort of thing -- laws, government policies, court rulings etc -- is all about human [and only human] options.

And, sure, if you kill all the babies of any species that means extinction. But how then does that make infanticide necessarily, inherently immoral? In a No God universe what difference [ultimately] does it make if any species is wiped out? Where's the philosophical argument that establishes deontologically that the killing of children is unequivocally a behavior that all rational men and women are obligated to eschew?

Then those who express outrage towards anyone who harms babies, but rationalize the abortion of unborn babies as...different? Zygotes, embryos and many early stage fetuses are said to be just "clumps of cells". Not actually human beings yet at all. As though philosophically this could be demonstrated. As though any of us on this side of the womb did not start out as a zygote, an embryo and a fetus.

And my point is that the moral objectivists among us insist that, yes, it really does matter what we call it. You either call it what they call it or you become "one of them". And that often precipitates one or another more or less draconian rendition of "or else".

Well the article was talking about monkeys. In the monkey realm we lack objectivism, but they will enforce their rules with violence if necessary.

To the extent other animals are propelled -- compelled? -- to behave and interact as they do as an inherent manifestation of biological imperatives, how is that not the embodiment of Nature's own objectivism? And the violence they inflict on other monkeys or other animals is not construed by them...or by nature...to be a philosophical issue.

My responses were in the context of that article. Do you think the or else goes away if people are not philosophical objectivists? What evidence is there for this?

Whenever men and women interact in a community, "or else" can come to revolve around might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. There's really no equivalent of that in the monkey community. They don't go online in order to exchange conflicting views about good and evil like we do. Philosophically, scientifically, theologically or otherwise. It's "somehow" nature itself that programmed them to embrace interactions that sustain their community. To the extent this includes social, political and economic memes? You tell me.

Social mammals have or else messages with objectivism. Won't there still be conflicts over resources, values, preferences, lifestyle choices and so on? Won't disgust, control urges, selfishness, desire, rage, competitiveness, egoism and so on whether individual or group identified continue to cause violence, war, empathiless policies, theft, oppression and rejection of certain others even without objectivism?

Yes, but to the extent I construe human interactions here as the embodiment of dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome, where is the equivalent of that among monkeys? Do they examine their own interactions in terms of "the gap" or "Rummy's Rule"?

Again, given the evolution of biological life on planet Earth, there will, of course, be some overlap between higher primates and us. But the differences can hardly be overstated.

As for this...

If it does, to whom does it matter? And isn't that person making an objectivist claim?

and I added an interpretation of that claim:

No, we shouldn't call it an objective moral.

Is it an objective moral claim?

Are you arguing that you have a mere preference for us not to view things in objective moral terms? Or do you think it is objectively immoral to do so?
I assume, given what you say in many places that it is the former.

Not sure if I understand your point here.

Again, I don't exclude myself from my own point of view. I don't even know if human beings have autonomy here at all. And, given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule", how on Earth would I go about demonstrating anything definitive about the either/or world...let alone the world of conflicting goods. It just seems reasonable to me "here and now" that in a No God universe, there is no biological or philosophical or scientific or "spiritual" font around to base objective morality on.

On the other hand, given my "win/win" frame of mind, there is always the possibility someone here might succeed in convincing me otherwise...that there really is a path up out of the grim hole I've dug myself down into. Or I might convince them to come down into mine. Someone, in other words, able to empathize with my own bleak "fractured and fragmented" assessment: that we live an essentially meaningless and purpose existence that ends in oblivion. I'm still down in the hole, sure, but with others who are down there with me.

Empathy!

This is morality that revolves by and large around what you believe in your head.

That even the criticism of moral objectivism is a moral objection that revolves by and large around what you believe in your head.

But it doesn't quite seem like you view it as a mere preference, your subjective values, something that you merely believe in your head. So, I ask.

Over and again, I come back to the crucial distinction between what we believe is true about the world around us "in our heads" and what we can actually demonstrate that all other rational men and women are obligated to believe as well. With the either/or world, we seem to be awash with any number of things that are readily communicated to others. Countless "things" and "relationships" that are applicable to all of us. True objective knowledge it certainly seems.

But knowledge pertaining to human morality...assumptions explored up in the theoretical clouds...is not at all the same as integrating that into the world of actual human interactions. Not in my opinion. And all we can do here is to bring our own moral philosophies down to Earth and given sets of circumstances see how "for all practical purposes" they fare.

As for "or else", that too is rooted existentially out in ever evolving historical and cultural and interpersonal contexts.

As for the use of violence, that is often rationalized over and over again by the moral, political and spiritual objectivists. Once a particular "kingdom of ends" is said to be the one and the only path to true enlightenment here and now and actual immortality and salvation there and then, then "by any means necessary" is justified. Idealistic ends meet nihilistic means.

Though, of course, any number of moral nihilists not only rationalize "by any means necessary" themselves, but some become actual sociopaths. Their entire frame of mind revolves around "me, myself and I". Others often don't factor into it at all.

I don't know what happens if suddenly no one thinks in moral objectivist terms. It would obviously be very unsettling for many. I would guess that in the long run all the manifestations of desire (including for what others have or people they are close to), competition over resources and in general, fear of the other, hoarding, clash of values (even if no longer considered objective) and ways of life (including continued reactions of disgust, superiority, incomprehension and so on) would continue.

Just look at the world around us. The amoral "show me the money" global capitalists are focused in on sustaining access to cheap labor, accumulating natural resources and creating markets. Some given crony capitalist political economies, others given state capitalist political economies. But the bottom line here is no less embedded in one or another historical rendition of might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. And the world today seems increasingly headed in an autocratic direction. This time next year, Putin, Xi and Trump may well reflect the future of the human race.

Well, that depends on how one construes moral objectivism. It can revolve around might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise. And then the part where one attributes their own morality to one or another God or one or another political ideology or one or another ethical philosophy or one or another assessment of "biological imperatives". Finally, the role that dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome play in our individual lives.

The part where those like iwannaplato, in regard to a moral philosophy pertaining to an issue like abortion, attempt to note how their own value judgments are not "fractured and fragmented" as mine are given the points I raised here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

Sure.

Though not about everything, I suspect.

[Sculptor]

Does it really matter and to whom how we categorize that commandment? Call it heuristic, de facto behavioral pattern, social group limit, whatever. Does it matter what we call it?

What particular commandment pertaining to what particular set of circumstances?

Here's that quote in context.

But a defacto Thou shalt not kill all the babies, is pretty hard to argue with. You can categorize is however you want, but in the end that's a philosopher's game. The monkeys as a group with throw fruit at you, attack you physically, scream at you, even fight to the death if you try to break that commandment, be you monkey or human or tiger.

Does it really matter and to whom how we categorize that commandment? Call it heuristic, de facto behavioral pattern, social group limit, whatever. Does it matter what we call it?

That was the context. The commandment not to kill all babies in that monkey species.

The gap between the monkeys and the human species here is considerable. To what extent are their de facto behaviors not rooted far, far more in genes than memes? And they have no de jure equivalent because that sort of thing -- laws, government policies, court rulings etc -- is all about human [and only human] options.

It is simply a misunderstanding to reduce all human culture to "memes", because that wrongly implies that all aspects of culture are present for reasons of social selective advantage.
Incidentally you can't even claim that genes are present for positive reasons, but much less memes.
Fact is that many aspects of human culture are severly injurious to humanity and only time will tell is these so-called "memes" survive into and uncertain future.

It would be a shocking reductionism to go down that pathway.

Dawkins is really a mean minded autisctically oriented person with a shockingly narrow minded outlook and understanding of human culture and his notion of memes is at best a confusion of cause and effect but at worst a danger to how we view the world we build around us.

[Iwannaplato]

The gap between the monkeys and the human species here is considerable. To what extent are their de facto behaviors not rooted far, far more in genes than memes?

Sure, but we continue to be smart monkeys even if we become moral subjectivists. IOW all those motivations we have still get used by the incredible and also terrible tools we have invented. We continue to feel aggression and yes empathy, to want to fight for resources, be jealous of others, feel distaste and so on. All the stuff that gets reified into morals.

And they have no de jure equivalent because that sort of thing -- laws, government policies, court rulings etc -- is all about human [and only human] options.

Sure, but again, identifying with one's group will still come naturally. Randomly assigning people teams to be on can lead to fierce competition, and even lead to violence over games, let alone the experiments where some people were made prisoners and others prison guards. Arbitrary groups lead to group identification, even without a culture or history behind it.

And remember that memes cut both ways. Memes and genes us to treat others in positive ways, even when we don't know them. Memes lead to collaboration, group problem solving, charity, helping the old lady across the street, social justice action, democracy, whatever.

Take away value objectivity....seems like an experiment to me. Which doesn't mean I think it will fail, but how do we know this?

And, sure, if you kill all the babies of any species that means extinction. But how then does that make infanticide necessarily, inherently immoral?

I wasn't arguing it did.

In a No God universe what difference [ultimately] does it make if any species is wiped out? Where's the philosophical argument that establishes deontologically that the killing of children is unequivocally a behavior that all rational men and women are obligated to eschew?

In a no God universe where's the argument that establishes that objectivism is a problem?

I wasn't arguing that it was objectively morally wrong. I was pointing out that in the absence of objective morals the primates mentioned in the article you quoted, will end up with moral behaviors, and including much subtler ones than that one. None of them goes around thinking 'these morals are objective' but they'll still beat someone to death over them.

To the extent other animals are propelled -- compelled? -- to behave and interact as they do as an inherent manifestation of biological imperatives, how is that not the embodiment of Nature's own objectivism?

You think nature is morally objectivist?

And the violence they inflict on other monkeys or other animals is not construed by them...or by nature...to be a philosophical issue.

Well, then it's not Nature's objectivism. And yes, they don't view it that way, that was precisely the point. That without viewing it as objectivist, their rules, monkeys continue to enforce with an 'or else'.

My responses were in the context of that article. Do you think the or else goes away if people are not philosophical objectivists? What evidence is there for this?

Whenever men and women interact in a community, "or else" can come to revolve around might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. There's really no equivalent of that in the monkey community. They don't go online in order to exchange conflicting views about good and evil like we do. Philosophically, scientifically, theologically or otherwise. It's "somehow" nature itself that programmed them to embrace interactions that sustain their community. To the extent this includes social, political and economic memes? You tell me.

Again, where is the evidence that if humans did not view morals as objective, we would have reductions in violence, more agreement about values, less conflicts, etc?

Social mammals have or else messages with objectivism. Won't there still be conflicts over resources, values, preferences, lifestyle choices and so on? Won't disgust, control urges, selfishness, desire, rage, competitiveness, egoism and so on whether individual or group identified continue to cause violence, war, empathy-less policies, theft, oppression and rejection of certain others even without objectivism?

Yes, but to the extent I construe human interactions here as the embodiment of dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome, where is the equivalent of that among monkeys? Do they examine their own interactions in terms of "the gap" or "Rummy's Rule"?

Again, where is the evidence that moving from objectivism leads to less conflict? Yes, we humans are also compelled by memes. But we aren't some neutral creature if we no longer take some of these memes to be subjective. And what underlies the power of moral memes: emotions, desire, conflict over resources, distastes for things we don't like at an emotional level, habit. These don't go away.

What makes you think things get better when the moral objectivist memes go away?
Both given what our natures are like and then also that meme also, for example, make many people value strangers, value compromise, value negotiation, value kindness and a mass of other traits they consider objective but have tendencies to reduce conflict, increase at least cognitive empathy and so on.

Unless I am missing something it seems like you consider objectivism not just based on poor epistemology but also a problem. That you would prefer it if objectivism disappeared. Whenever you mention it it is only the negative to you ( and, yes, some others) aspects you mention. The 'or else' stuff, the my way or the highway. You don't mention, generally, that it does just the opposite of these things, that people have memes they consider objective aimed at reducing violence, increasing collaboration, compromise and negotioations, helping people, accepting differences and so on. So, I take this as indication your sense it is a net negative in relation to your, in your head, values. But how do you know that taking them away would lead to a society you would prefer? What is the evidence?

Again, given the evolution of biological life on planet Earth, there will, of course, be some overlap between higher primates and us. But the differences can hardly be overstated.

Again, I am focused on the implicit or perhaps explicit claim that that things would be better if we not longer considered morals objective. I looked at the primates since they were described there and see that even lacking the objective morals, there is an or else. You complained about objectivists and their 'or else'. What makes us think this goes away if subjectivist dominates - it's not the lives of animals that lead us to believe this. What makes us think that the 'good' of this change would not be outweighed by the baby of other moral memes going out the window also with the violent/conflict water?

Again, I don't exclude myself from my own point of view. I don't even know if human beings have autonomy here at all. And, given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule", how on Earth would I go about demonstrating anything definitive about the either/or world...let alone the world of conflicting goods. It just seems reasonable to me "here and now" that in a No God universe, there is no biological or philosophical or scientific or "spiritual" font around to base objective morality on.

Right, that's the epistemological issue. But it seems to me you are implying an ethical conclusion also. Objectivism leads to 'or else' threats. So, it is bad. It would be better if people didn't think that way. Presumably you see that as your personal preference, given it can't be objectively better if people stopped being objectivist, or that would be an objective moral stance. So, you have this preference. And I think this preference is based on the idea that certain kinds of behavior and attitudes would be less present in a world without objective morals as an accepted meme.

So my focus is on how we know that it would be better, even for someone with your values. That there would in fact be a reduction of those things you have distaste for and also that other changes, such as the end of values you might like doesn't lead to the same problems or worse problems in the way we relate to each other.

This is morality that revolves by and large around what you believe in your head.

That even the criticism of moral objectivism is a moral objection that revolves by and large around what you believe in your head.

But it doesn't quite seem like you view it as a mere preference, your subjective values, something that you merely believe in your head. So, I ask.

Over and again, I come back to the crucial distinction between what we believe is true about the world around us "in our heads" and what we can actually demonstrate that all other rational men and women are obligated to believe as well. With the either/or world, we seem to be awash with any number of things that are readily communicated to others. Countless "things" and "relationships" that are applicable to all of us. True objective knowledge it certainly seems.

So, the preference for less moral objectivism is someting that is 'in the heads' of those who have that preference, it seems.

But knowledge pertaining to human morality...assumptions explored up in the theoretical clouds...is not at all the same as integrating that into the world of actual human interactions. Not in my opinion. And all we can do here is to bring our own moral philosophies down to Earth and given sets of circumstances see how "for all practical purposes" they fare.

As for "or else", that too is rooted existentially out in ever evolving historical and cultural and interpersonal contexts.

or is part and parcel of living organisms and will manifest regardless. Memes are used are tool to both enhance 'or else' and mitigatve it.

As for the use of violence, that is often rationalized over and over again by the moral, political and spiritual objectivists. Once a particular "kingdom of ends" is said to be the one and the only path to true enlightenment here and now and actual immortality and salvation there and then, then "by any means necessary" is justified. Idealistic ends meet nihilistic means.

and memes are used as tools to get people to join violence and also to avoid it and use less conflict focused means.

So, what is the result of removing objectivist morals?

Though, of course, any number of moral nihilists not only rationalize "by any means necessary" themselves, but some become actual sociopaths. Their entire frame of mind revolves around "me, myself and I". Others often don't factor into it at all.

For example.

I don't know what happens if suddenly no one thinks in moral objectivist terms. It would obviously be very unsettling for many. I would guess that in the long run all the manifestations of desire (including for what others have or people they are close to), competition over resources and in general, fear of the other, hoarding, clash of values (even if no longer considered objective) and ways of life (including continued reactions of disgust, superiority, incomprehension and so on) would continue.

Just look at the world around us. The amoral "show me the money" global capitalists are focused in on sustaining access to cheap labor, accumulating natural resources and creating markets. Some given crony capitalist political economies, others given state capitalist political economies. But the bottom line here is no less embedded in one or another historical rendition of might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. And the world today seems increasingly headed in an autocratic direction. This time next year, Putin, Xi and Trump may well reflect the future of the human race.

Yes, people don't need objective morals to be monstrous - a word representing my distaste. So again, what evidence do we have that without moral objectivism things get closer to what you prefer?

Well, that depends on how one construes moral objectivism. It can revolve around might makes right, right makes might or moderation, negotiation and compromise. And then the part where one attributes their own morality to one or another God or one or another political ideology or one or another ethical philosophy or one or another assessment of "biological imperatives". Finally, the role that dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome play in our individual lives.

The part where those like iwannaplato, in regard to a moral philosophy pertaining to an issue like abortion, attempt to note how their own value judgments are not "fractured and fragmented" as mine are given the points I raised here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

Sure.

Though not about everything, I suspect.

I'm not sure why you left out what I responded to with 'sure' which was....

Well, that depends on how one construes moral objectivism.

So, I'm still not seeing any evidence for why a world without moral objectivism would be better for you, given your values or in general.

We know that that preference and your distaste for 'or else' type attitudes is in your head. It's your subjectivist position.
But then if we think of that preference assume it as a goal for you or for some: how do those that 'or else' gets reduced when we take away objectivist morals - given that the underlying drives are still there and we can see this in our closest relatives
and given
that objectivist morals also often try to counter the 'or else mentality' and the other behaviors and attitudes that you feel distaste for?

Deontology cuts both ways for most cultural relativists. It leads to things they prefer and leads to things they don't.
And without deontology or objectivist consequentialism...is there any evidence that our monkey nature starts behavior better according to your own values?

[iambiguous]

Philip Pettit & The Birth of Ethics
Peter Stone thinks about a thought experiment about how ethics evolved

Pettit responds to these concerns in two ways, but both responses, I fear, dilute much of the force of his argument. On the one hand, he does not deny that nonlinguistic creatures behave in ways that appear moral; but he refuses to call such behaviour ‘moral’ if “considerations articulated in moral terms play no part in prompting or in regulating those responses”.

Okay, in the way the monkeys above understand their own reality, they exist and, biologically, they are programmed by nature to want to keep on existing. So they'll avoid behaviors that would endanger their existence. On the other hand, given that they are primates and not reptiles or insects or bacteria, their reaction to unfairness within the community comes closer to us.

Closer, yes, but the gap between us here and the monkeys there is still extraordinary.

Thus...

One must have language in order to articulate anything, and so Pettit appears to be defining morality in such a way as to make language an essential part of it, which would render his claim that language is essential to morality trivially true.

So, when do truths become trivial here? How much more sophisticated would the monkey language have to be in order for them to participate here? And the history of the species is such that very, very little has changed among them. The first capuchins "appeared 16.3 million years ago in South America and, like all monkeys they share about 97% of their DNA with humans."

Yet that 3% difference makes all the difference in the world in regard to morality, doesn't it? Unless, of course, both species are but more of nature's own automatons.

On the other hand, Pettit responds to Tomasello by agreeing that yes, a head nod may be enough for cooperation, but “a nod will be of no use whatsoever except among agents who have achieved a means and a medium of communication – some form of language, however rudimentary”. This also threatens to make Pettit’s connection between morality and language trivial: Is it possible to imagine any cooperative species without any means of communication?

Then the part where particular moral objectivists among our own species demand that it be nods from others all the way down. Or else. As for the "or else" component of the monkey community, no one is citing Plato or Aristotle or Descartes or Kant or Wittgenstein. Let alone propounding deontology or dasein.

[Iwannaplato]

Then the part where particular moral objectivists among our own species demand that it be nods from others all the way down. Or else. As for the "or else" component of the monkey community, no one is citing Plato or Aristotle or Descartes or Kant or Wittgenstein. Let alone propounding deontology or dasein.

Well, sure, but in case this was meant as some kind of response to my post, it doesn't address the issues. None of my arguments depend on monkeys citing Plato and all the rest. In fact, it was a necessary part of one of my arguments that they don't do such things. That they don't need memes for violence and or else.

[iambiguous]

Here's that quote in context.
That was the context. The commandment not to kill all babies in that monkey species.

The gap between the monkeys and the human species here is considerable. To what extent are their de facto behaviors not rooted far, far more in genes than memes? And they have no de jure equivalent because that sort of thing -- laws, government policies, court rulings etc -- is all about human [and only human] options.

It is simply a misunderstanding to reduce all human culture to "memes", because that wrongly implies that all aspects of culture are present for reasons of social selective advantage.
Incidentally you can't even claim that genes are present for positive reasons, but much less memes.
Fact is that many aspects of human culture are severly injurious to humanity and only time will tell is these so-called "memes" survive into and uncertain future.

It would be a shocking reductionism to go down that pathway.

Dawkins is really a mean minded autisctically oriented person with a shockingly narrow minded outlook and understanding of human culture and his notion of memes is at best a confusion of cause and effect but at worst a danger to how we view the world we build around us.

More to the point [mine] when and where exactly do genes give way to memes -- "an element of a culture or system of behavior passed from one individual to another by imitation or other nongenetic means" -- when one is confronted with someone who challenges their own value judgments?

My own moral nihilism revolves around the assumption that in a No God world, both genes and memes often become profoundly entangled. In particular, given the manner in which we come to acquire value judgments existentially as the embodiment of dasein. I explore this in depth here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

...in regard to abortion.

And all I can do is to suggest that others explore their own moral philosophies here by noting how my arguments are not applicable to them at all. Either because they have become moral objectivists or "somehow" are able to convince themselves that even in the absence of God, mere mortals can still make clear distinctions between Good and Evil.

[Sculptor]

The gap between the monkeys and the human species here is considerable. To what extent are their de facto behaviors not rooted far, far more in genes than memes? And they have no de jure equivalent because that sort of thing -- laws, government policies, court rulings etc -- is all about human [and only human] options.

It is simply a misunderstanding to reduce all human culture to "memes", because that wrongly implies that all aspects of culture are present for reasons of social selective advantage.
Incidentally you can't even claim that genes are present for positive reasons, but much less memes.
Fact is that many aspects of human culture are severly injurious to humanity and only time will tell is these so-called "memes" survive into and uncertain future.

It would be a shocking reductionism to go down that pathway.

Dawkins is really a mean minded autisctically oriented person with a shockingly narrow minded outlook and understanding of human culture and his notion of memes is at best a confusion of cause and effect but at worst a danger to how we view the world we build around us.

More to the point [mine] when and where exactly do genes give way to memes -- "an element of a culture or system of behavior passed from one individual to another by imitation or other nongenetic means" -- when one is confronted with someone who challenges their own value judgments?

Before his highnest RIchard Dawkins coined the term "meme" we used to call these things culture; ideas; beliefs; endemic assumptions; customs; laws, ad infinitem.
Like his forbears the Social Darwinists, he thinks that "culture" can be reduced to these atoms of survival. This is just a naive blint instrument and misses the nuances of cultural and historical studies.
It ismy view that biology is a great subject, but that biologists are not well equipped to understand the work of sociologists; archarologists; anthropologists; historians; and the many more disciplines that provide us with a rich and deep undertanding of the exrasomatic world which humans create.
Memetics is a poor way to look at what humans do and about as useful as trying to understand the Mona Lisa from its constituent paint pigments.

My own moral nihilism revolves around the assumption that in a No God world, both genes and memes often become profoundly entangled. In particular, given the manner in which we come to acquire value judgments existentially as the embodiment of dasein. I explore this in depth here...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

...in regard to abortion.

And all I can do is to suggest that others explore their own moral philosophies here by noting how my arguments are not applicable to them at all. Either because they have become moral objectivists or "somehow" are able to convince themselves that even in the absence of God, mere mortals can still make clear distinctions between Good and Evil.

Good and Evil are two variable descriptors. One man's Evil is another woman's Good. Good is that which pleases us; Evil that which pleaseth us not. They are relative to the conditions, the observer and the objects of interest.

[iambiguous]

The gap between the monkeys and the human species here is considerable. To what extent are their de facto behaviors not rooted far, far more in genes than memes?

Sure, but we continue to be smart monkeys even if we become moral subjectivists. IOW all those motivations we have still get used by the incredible and also terrible tools we have invented. We continue to feel aggression and yes empathy, to want to fight for resources, be jealous of others, feel distaste and so on. All the stuff that gets reified into morals.

Reified when and where, historically and culturally? And, again, some are motivated to feel aggression towards particular sets of behaviors that others actually revel in. Why one and not the other? And is that attributable more to deontology or to dasein?

Then run human morality by advocates of Adam Smith or Karl Marx. Or by advocates of one or another of these folks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

Or factor God and religion in and run it by one of these folks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

And they have no de jure equivalent because that sort of thing -- laws, government policies, court rulings etc -- is all about human [and only human] options.

Sure, but again, identifying with one's group will still come naturally. Randomly assigning people teams to be on can lead to fierce competition, and even lead to violence over games, let alone the experiments where some people were made prisoners and others prison guards. Arbitrary groups lead to group identification, even without a culture or history behind it.

Yet again: why do some communities go in one direction here while other communities go in an entirely different direction? Are there philosophers here who, using the tools at their disposal, can lead us all to the one true path? Sure, the moral and political and religious objectivists.

And remember that memes cut both ways. Memes and genes us to treat others in positive ways, even when we don't know them. Memes lead to collaboration, group problem solving, charity, helping the old lady across the street, social justice action, democracy, whatever.

Okay, but if ethicists had access to a truly deontological moral philosophy, they could grasp the optimal human behaviors...given, in turn, an optimal grasp of gene/meme interactions. Instead, historically and culturally, some communities revolve more around might makes right, others around right makes might and still others around democracy and the rule of law.

Take away value objectivity....seems like an experiment to me. Which doesn't mean I think it will fail, but how do we know this?

Well, what some of us argue is that for any number of objectivists, right is synonymous with "or else". It's just that the thugs and the sociopaths among us predicate it on raw political and economic and personal power, while others find God or His secular, ideological equivalent. It's just that for any number of the "right makes might" objectivists, being "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" can become particularly exhilarating. Especially when immortality and salvation are included along with the moral commandments. And this is often communicated here in the sheer contempt they have for those who refuse to become "one of us".

And, sure, if you kill all the babies of any species that means extinction. But how then does that make infanticide necessarily, inherently immoral?

I wasn't arguing it did.

Then you agree that there are historical and cultural and personal arguments that can be made to rationalize infanticide? Or genocide? How are you not yourself "fractured and fragmented" here...drawn and quartered because you do recognize that conflicting [though reasonable] arguments can made from both sides. From many conflicting sides.

In other words, in regard to an issue like abortion, how is your own moral philosophy at odds with the points I raise here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

In a No God universe what difference [ultimately] does it make if any species is wiped out? Where's the philosophical argument that establishes deontologically that the killing of children is unequivocally a behavior that all rational men and women are obligated to eschew?

In a no God universe where's the argument that establishes that objectivism is a problem?

Again, it becomes a problem when the most fanatic objectivists among us impose an "or else" condition on those who they deem to be "one of them". Then the part where those like Satyr and AJ simply exclude altogether others of the wrong race or ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation.

Or the part where those like IC introduce eternal damnation itself into the mix. Accept Jesus Christ as your own personal savior...or else to Hell.

I wasn't arguing that it was objectively morally wrong. I was pointing out that in the absence of objective morals the primates mentioned in the article you quoted, will end up with moral behaviors, and including much subtler ones than that one. None of them goes around thinking 'these morals are objective' but they'll still beat someone to death over them.

Yes, and precisely because they don't grapple with it in philosophy forums, but are far, far more in sync with nature itself is what distinguishes them from us. Unless, of course, the arguments of the hardcore determinists are true. That, in other words, we are entirely in sync with the laws of nature ourselves.

To the extent other animals are propelled -- compelled? -- to behave and interact as they do as an inherent manifestation of biological imperatives, how is that not the embodiment of Nature's own objectivism?

You think nature is morally objectivist?

Let's run that by the pantheists, perhaps? In other words, is nature itself equipped with a teleological perspective? How about an ontological foundation? And, if so, how would that be differentiated from determinism?

And the violence they inflict on other monkeys or other animals is not construed by them...or by nature...to be a philosophical issue.

Well, then it's not Nature's objectivism. And yes, they don't view it that way, that was precisely the point. That without viewing it as objectivist, their rules, monkeys continue to enforce with an 'or else'.

But to what extent -- philosophically or otherwise -- are they self-conscious of all this? Clearly nowhere near to the extent that we are. It's not like some of them champion one school of ethics and others another:
https://www.ponderingphilosopher.com/4- ... hilosophy/

Instead, the monkeys "or else" seems to revolve far more around a convoluted -- ineffable? -- intertwining of nature and nurture. "For all practical purposes" the community will become more or less dysfunctional given particular rules of behaviors. In other words, with monkeys, God and religion and ideology and philosophy don't factor in at all.

Then [for me] back to this:

Whenever men and women interact in a community, "or else" can come to revolve around might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. There's really no equivalent of that in the monkey community. They don't go online in order to exchange conflicting views about good and evil like we do. Philosophically, scientifically, theologically or otherwise. It's "somehow" nature itself that programmed them to embrace interactions that sustain their community. To the extent this includes social, political and economic memes? You tell me.

Again, where is the evidence that if humans did not view morals as objective, we would have reductions in violence, more agreement about values, less conflicts, etc?

Who is arguing that? On the contrary, my main point of contention here is that the world we live in today is far more embedded in the consequences of an amoral political economy that revolves around "wealth and power" sustained by those inhabiting either a crony capitalist nation or a state capitalist nation. Again, this time next year that world may well revolve increasingly around the likes of Trump, Putin, and Xi.

Social mammals have or else messages with objectivism. Won't there still be conflicts over resources, values, preferences, lifestyle choices and so on? Won't disgust, control urges, selfishness, desire, rage, competitiveness, egoism and so on whether individual or group identified continue to cause violence, war, empathy-less policies, theft, oppression and rejection of certain others even without objectivism?

Yes, but to the extent I construe human interactions here as the embodiment of dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome, where is the equivalent of that among monkeys? Do they examine their own interactions in terms of "the gap" or "Rummy's Rule"?

Again, where is the evidence that moving from objectivism leads to less conflict? Yes, we humans are also compelled by memes. But we aren't some neutral creature if we no longer take some of these memes to be subjective. And what underlies the power of moral memes: emotions, desire, conflict over resources, distastes for things we don't like at an emotional level, habit. These don't go away.

From my frame of mind, how we come to think and to feel about these things is deeply engrained in ever evolving historical and cultural and experiential interactions. Contingency, chance and change are everywhere here. Especially at historical junctures that precipitate explosive events that can impact millions in ways they had never even imagined.

What makes you think things get better when the moral objectivist memes go away?

I don't. It's just that for those who embrace democracy and the rule of law, the "or else" can pertain to election cycles. You're convinced that, say, the liberals or the conservatives have the most rational moral and political agenda, but you are willing to move on to the next election if you are voted out of power. And then the distinction between economic and foreign policy on the one hand and "value voter" issues on the other hand. The "deep state" is far more intent on sustaining their "show me the money" policies re the former than the latter. Thus in regard to issues like abortion or guns or sexuality, a truer democracy might prevail.

As for this...

Unless I am missing something it seems like you consider objectivism not just based on poor epistemology but also a problem. That you would prefer it if objectivism disappeared. Whenever you mention it it is only the negative to you ( and, yes, some others) aspects you mention. The 'or else' stuff, the my way or the highway. You don't mention, generally, that it does just the opposite of these things, that people have memes they consider objective aimed at reducing violence, increasing collaboration, compromise and negotioations, helping people, accepting differences and so on. So, I take this as indication your sense it is a net negative in relation to your, in your head, values. But how do you know that taking them away would lead to a society you would prefer? What is the evidence?

...we'll need a particular context to examine in regard to our respective moral philosophies "here and now". "Here and now" because given the manner in which I construe the "for all practical purposes" implications of dasein, I recognize that given a new experience, a new relationship and access to new information and knowledge, that philosophy might change.

To wit:

...there have been any number of situations in my past where my thinking and my emotions were shifting dramatically. When I first became a devout Christian. When I became a Marxist and an atheist. When I flirted with the Unitarian Church and with Objectivism. When I shifted from Lenin to Trotsky. When I abandoned Marxism and became a Democratic Socialist and then a Social Democrat. When I discovered existentialism and [through Supannika] deconstruction and semiotics and I abandoned objectivism altogether. When I became moral nihilist. When I began to crumble into an increasingly more fragmented "I" in the is/ought world.

I merely suggest this is applicable to all others as well. And that truly rubs the moral objectivists among us the wrong way. Them and those like MagsJ and Maia and Gib [from ILP] who are convinced that they are in possession of a "deep down inside" them "Intrinsic Self" or an "Intuitive Self" that "somehow" transcends any new experiences, relationships or information and knowledge.

What's crucial [to me] is that I don't argue moral objectivism itself is inherently, necessarily, philosophically less rational than moral nihilism. On the contrary, my contention is that given a No God world [which is merely an assumption] the best of all possible worlds is democracy and the rule of law. Or, rather, after taking political economy and, in my view, the very real "deep state" into account.

Again, I don't exclude myself from my own point of view. I don't even know if human beings have autonomy here at all. And, given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule", how on Earth would I go about demonstrating anything definitive about the either/or world...let alone the world of conflicting goods. It just seems reasonable to me "here and now" that in a No God universe, there is no biological or philosophical or scientific or "spiritual" font around to base objective morality on.

Right, that's the epistemological issue. But it seems to me you are implying an ethical conclusion also. Objectivism leads to 'or else' threats. So, it is bad. It would be better if people didn't think that way.

No, in my view, the epistemological issue goes back to "the gap"...to connecting the dots between what each of us as individuals thinks the "human condition" encompasses and all that we do not know regarding where the human condition itself fits into the existence of existence itself. And all of the other Big Questions still well beyond our grasping. Unless, of course, you are one of the...metaphysical objectivists?

Presumably you see that as your personal preference, given it can't be objectively better if people stopped being objectivist, or that would be an objective moral stance. So, you have this preference. And I think this preference is based on the idea that certain kinds of behavior and attitudes would be less present in a world without objective morals as an accepted meme.

That and the part where over and again I acknowledge I am no less included here. Really, given that I, like you, am just an "infinitesimal and utterly insignificant speck of existence" in the staggering vastness of "all there is", what are the odds that my "conclusions" here come closet to an actual ontological -- teleological? -- assessment of Reality itself?

In other words, this...

So my focus is on how we know that it would be better, even for someone with your values. That there would in fact be a reduction of those things you have distaste for and also that other changes, such as the end of values you might like doesn't lead to the same problems or worse problems in the way we relate to each other.

...is your rendition of my values, not mine. I am no less fractured and fragmented regarding my being fractured and fragmented. Again, however, my "win/win" frame of mind.

This is morality that revolves by and large around what you believe in your head.

That even the criticism of moral objectivism is a moral objection that revolves by and large around what you believe in your head.

But it doesn't quite seem like you view it as a mere preference, your subjective values, something that you merely believe in your head. So, I ask.

Over and again, I come back to the crucial distinction between what we believe is true about the world around us "in our heads" and what we can actually demonstrate that all other rational men and women are obligated to believe as well. With the either/or world, we seem to be awash with any number of things that are readily communicated to others. Countless "things" and "relationships" that are applicable to all of us. True objective knowledge it certainly seems.

So, the preference for less moral objectivism is someting that is 'in the heads' of those who have that preference, it seems.

Yes, rooted more in dasein existentially than in deontology essentially, in my view. But again: "here and now".

I don't know what happens if suddenly no one thinks in moral objectivist terms. It would obviously be very unsettling for many. I would guess that in the long run all the manifestations of desire (including for what others have or people they are close to), competition over resources and in general, fear of the other, hoarding, clash of values (even if no longer considered objective) and ways of life (including continued reactions of disgust, superiority, incomprehension and so on) would continue.

Just look at the world around us. The amoral "show me the money" global capitalists are focused in on sustaining access to cheap labor, accumulating natural resources and creating markets. Some given crony capitalist political economies, others given state capitalist political economies. But the bottom line here is no less embedded in one or another historical rendition of might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. And the world today seems increasingly headed in an autocratic direction. This time next year, Putin, Xi and Trump may well reflect the future of the human race.

Yes, people don't need objective morals to be monstrous - a word representing my distaste. So again, what evidence do we have that without moral objectivism things get closer to what you prefer?

Again, however, my point revolves less around what I and others prefer and more around how existentially the things that I and others came to prefer were simply one set of assumptions -- moral and political prejudices -- rather than another. Then the part where philosophers using the tools at their disposal still seem unable to pin down what all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women not only ought to prefer but philosophically are obligated to prefer. If only on this board...theoretically?

[Iwannaplato]

The gap between the monkeys and the human species here is considerable. To what extent are their de facto behaviors not rooted far, far more in genes than memes?

Sure, but we continue to be smart monkeys even if we become moral subjectivists. IOW all those motivations we have still get used by the incredible and also terrible tools we have invented. We continue to feel aggression and yes empathy, to want to fight for resources, be jealous of others, feel distaste and so on. All the stuff that gets reified into morals.[/quote]

Reified when and where, historically and culturally?

Wherever and whenever we come up with morals.

And, again, some are motivated to feel aggression towards particular sets of behaviors that others actually revel in

Yes, sure.

Why one and not the other?

We're pretty flexible creatures.

And is that attributable more to deontology or to dasein?

deontology comes up withing culture and psychology and so on. So, I'm not sure the point.

Sure, but again, identifying with one's group will still come naturally. Randomly assigning people teams to be on can lead to fierce competition, and even lead to violence over games, let alone the experiments where some people were made prisoners and others prison guards. Arbitrary groups lead to group identification, even without a culture or history behind it.

Yet again: why do some communities go in one direction here while other communities go in an entirely different direction? Are there philosophers here who, using the tools at their disposal, can lead us all to the one true path? Sure, the moral and political and religious objectivists.

This is missing the point. Will things be better if no one believes their preferences, needs, distastes, norms, values are objective? What's the evidence.

And remember that memes cut both ways. Memes and genes us to treat others in positive ways, even when we don't know them. Memes lead to collaboration, group problem solving, charity, helping the old lady across the street, social justice action, democracy, whatever.

Okay, but if ethicists had access to a truly deontological moral philosophy, they could grasp the optimal human behaviors...given, in turn, an optimal grasp of gene/meme interactions. Instead, historically and culturally, some communities revolve more around might makes right, others around right makes might and still others around democracy and the rule of law.

My point, again, was how do you know you would like the world better if everyone was a moral subjectivist. No more objectivists. The point with that specific portion is that many moral realists believe in and promote values against things I would guess you tend to dislike: violence, unwillingness to compromise, racism, sexism, nationalism. That's not the only point I am making to question that things would not or might not be better, that that's one. Getting rid of objectivism gets rid or all sorts of memes.

Take away value objectivity....seems like an experiment to me. Which doesn't mean I think it will fail, but how do we know this?

Well, what some of us argue is that for any number of objectivists, right is synonymous with "or else".

And then there are any number of objectivists who have values that cut against this. Suddenly no one has to listen to their values either. And then where is the evidence that using moral objectivism isn't just one tool and that people with power will simply use other tools? Where is the evidence that people stop having an or else if they don't promote objectivest morals. We don't find that evidence in the animal kingdom. I don't see how we can know it looking at humans. So, how do you know this?

It's just that the thugs and the sociopaths among us predicate it on raw political and economic and personal power, while others find God or His secular, ideological equivalent. It's just that for any number of the "right makes might" objectivists, being "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" can become particularly exhilarating.

I find it hard to believe that that exhilaration goes away when people stop thinking their morals are objective. The will to power and all that.

Especially when immortality and salvation are included along with the moral commandments. And this is often communicated here in the sheer contempt they have for those who refuse to become "one of us".

Sure, that happens. But where is the evidence that these patterns go away with objectivism going away. And those religions and those specific beliefs have also kept people in line in many ways - this is not me approving, but many people avoid doing things now because they've been taught they are evil or may lead to eternal torture. What happens when those lids get taken away?

I don't know, but it is seems like an not quite directly stated assumption is that you would find the world a better place if the objectivists no longer were that. I don't see anyway to even have a good guess on that issue.

We are chastizing the objectivtists for their poor epistemology. How can you demonstrate to all rational people that you version of morals is the right one?

Well, how can you demosntrate to all rational people that ending moral objectivism will lead to a better society/world, even according to your own preferences for society/world.?

Note: not prove that your values are correct/objective, but that things would be better, even for you, but also in general.

Then you agree that there are historical and cultural and personal arguments that can be made to rationalize infanticide?

Or genocide? How are you not yourself "fractured and fragmented" here...drawn and quartered because you do recognize that conflicting [though reasonable] arguments can made from both sides. From many conflicting sides.

I've answered this in a number of different ways before. Why am I not feeling what you are feeling? I can't know that. Someone like you who bases so much of his philosophy on how individual and group experiences affect beliefs and how one experiences life should know this. There could be any number of reasons why I am not fractured and fragmented, explaining absences is often impossible.

You have said you really hope someone can resolve this issue for you. I am not looking for someone to convince me X morals are objectively correct. I don't think that can happen. Period.

But more importantly, this has nothing to do with the issue I raised.

Where is the evidence that ending objectivism makes things better for you or us? How could we know that? You don't seem fractured and fragmented about that. It seems implicit that things would be better if we got rid of that. I don't see how you know this.

In a no God universe where's the argument that establishes that objectivism is a problem?

Again, it becomes a problem when the most fanatic objectivists among us impose an "or else" condition on those who they deem to be "one of them". Then the part where those like Satyr and AJ simply exclude altogether others of the wrong race or ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation.

Which you present here as if that's clear evidence of a problem. Personally I dislike their positions, but you can't give evidence that objectivism is wrong using examples that presume it is obvious those two are wrong. Further there are objectivisms that have made incredible strides in protecting such people, for example. And I would guess that both of those mean, whatever I think of them, have rules against simply beating the shit out of gays, for example. Certainly other homophobes do. Objectivism isn't just the things you don't like.

Or the part where those like IC introduce eternal damnation itself into the mix. Accept Jesus Christ as your own personal savior...or else to Hell.

Yeah, this doesn't answer the question.

If my question was: what possible problems could objectivism lead to? Ok, those are some answers, given that I sympathize with your concerns there. But that's not my question.

And the violence they inflict on other monkeys or other animals is not construed by them...or by nature...to be a philosophical issue.

Well, then it's not Nature's objectivism. And yes, they don't view it that way, that was precisely the point. That without viewing it as objectivist, their rules, monkeys continue to enforce with an 'or else'.

But to what extent -- philosophically or otherwise -- are they self-conscious of all this? Clearly nowhere near to the extent that we are.

Again that's the whole point. You assume that without objectivist memes, or else goes away. I don't know where you get the idea, certinaly not from monkeys.

Instead, the monkeys "or else" seems to revolve far more around a convoluted -- ineffable? -- intertwining of nature and nurture. "For all practical purposes" the community will become more or less dysfunctional given particular rules of behaviors. In other words, with monkeys, God and religion and ideology and philosophy don't factor in at all.

Exactly my point.

Whenever men and women interact in a community, "or else" can come to revolve around might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. There's really no equivalent of that in the monkey community. They don't go online in order to exchange conflicting views about good and evil like we do. Philosophically, scientifically, theologically or otherwise. It's "somehow" nature itself that programmed them to embrace interactions that sustain their community. To the extent this includes social, political and economic memes? You tell me.

Again, where is the evidence that if humans did not view morals as objective, we would have reductions in violence, more agreement about values, less conflicts, etc?

Who is arguing that?

OK, great. It seemed implicit. In fact it seemed quite open given your answers above.

On the contrary, my main point of contention here is that the world we live in today is far more embedded in the consequences of an amoral political economy that revolves around "wealth and power" sustained by those inhabiting either a crony capitalist nation or a state capitalist nation. Again, this time next year that world may well revolve increasingly around the likes of Trump, Putin, and Xi.

So, then let's make it clear: you don't think that it would necessarily at all be a better world, from your own values or for people in general if moral objectivism disappeared:

What makes you think things get better when the moral objectivist memes go away?

I don't.

Thanks. That's clear.

It's just that for those who embrace democracy and the rule of law, the "or else" can pertain to election cycles. You're convinced that, say, the liberals or the conservatives have the most rational moral and political agenda, but you are willing to move on to the next election if you are voted out of power. And then the distinction between economic and foreign policy on the one hand and "value voter" issues on the other hand. The "deep state" is far more intent on sustaining their "show me the money" policies re the former than the latter. Thus in regard to issues like abortion or guns or sexuality, a truer democracy might prevail.

Ok, so here it seems like you are saying that in regard to what you value it would get better or it is more likely to get better for people with your values. I don't know how you know this.

As for this...

Unless I am missing something it seems like you consider objectivism not just based on poor epistemology but also a problem. That you would prefer it if objectivism disappeared. Whenever you mention it it is only the negative to you ( and, yes, some others) aspects you mention. The 'or else' stuff, the my way or the highway. You don't mention, generally, that it does just the opposite of these things, that people have memes they consider objective aimed at reducing violence, increasing collaboration, compromise and negotioations, helping people, accepting differences and so on. So, I take this as indication your sense it is a net negative in relation to your, in your head, values. But how do you know that taking them away would lead to a society you would prefer? What is the evidence?

...we'll need a particular context to examine in regard to our respective moral philosophies "here and now".

No, we don't. Not to answer that question. What I believe is something else. I know you wnat to discuss that, but it has nothing to do with you thinking things will get better in the ways I asked about above.

What's crucial [to me] is that I don't argue moral objectivism itself is inherently, necessarily, philosophically less rational than moral nihilism. On the contrary, my contention is that given a No God world [which is merely an assumption] the best of all possible worlds is democracy and the rule of law. Or, rather, after taking political economy and, in my view, the very real "deep state" into account.

This sounds like some kind of objectivism.

Again, I don't exclude myself from my own point of view. I don't even know if human beings have autonomy here at all. And, given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule", how on Earth would I go about demonstrating anything definitive about the either/or world...let alone the world of conflicting goods. It just seems reasonable to me "here and now" that in a No God universe, there is no biological or philosophical or scientific or "spiritual" font around to base objective morality on.

Right, that's the epistemological issue. But it seems to me you are implying an ethical conclusion also. Objectivism leads to 'or else' threats. So, it is bad. It would be better if people didn't think that way.

No, in my view, the epistemological issue goes back to "the gap"...to connecting the dots between what each of us as individuals thinks the "human condition" encompasses and all that we do not know regarding where the human condition itself fits into the existence of existence itself. And all of the other Big Questions still well beyond our grasping. Unless, of course, you are one of the...metaphysical objectivists?

I was saying you had a position in addition to the epistemological one, which was that it would be better with moral objectivism. In some places in your response it seems clear you are saying, no, you do not believe that. In other places it seems like you are saying the opposite.

Presumably you see that as your personal preference, given it can't be objectively better if people stopped being objectivist, or that would be an objective moral stance. So, you have this preference. And I think this preference is based on the idea that certain kinds of behavior and attitudes would be less present in a world without objective morals as an accepted meme.

That and the part where over and again I acknowledge I am no less included here. Really, given that I, like you, am just an "infinitesimal and utterly insignificant speck of existence" in the staggering vastness of "all there is", what are the odds that my "conclusions" here come closet to an actual ontological -- teleological? -- assessment of Reality itself?

In other words, this...

So my focus is on how we know that it would be better, even for someone with your values. That there would in fact be a reduction of those things you have distaste for and also that other changes, such as the end of values you might like doesn't lead to the same problems or worse problems in the way we relate to each other.

...is your rendition of my values, not mine.

I didn't give a rendition of your values. My point was regardless of what your values are, how do you know there would be reduction in the things you dislike? Or what makes you think there would be?

This is morality that revolves by and large around what you believe in your head.

That even the criticism of moral objectivism is a moral objection that revolves by and large around what you believe in your head.

But it doesn't quite seem like you view it as a mere preference, your subjective values, something that you merely believe in your head. So, I ask.

I don't know what happens if suddenly no one thinks in moral objectivist terms. It would obviously be very unsettling for many. I would guess that in the long run all the manifestations of desire (including for what others have or people they are close to), competition over resources and in general, fear of the other, hoarding, clash of values (even if no longer considered objective) and ways of life (including continued reactions of disgust, superiority, incomprehension and so on) would continue.

Just look at the world around us. The amoral "show me the money" global capitalists are focused in on sustaining access to cheap labor, accumulating natural resources and creating markets. Some given crony capitalist political economies, others given state capitalist political economies. But the bottom line here is no less embedded in one or another historical rendition of might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. And the world today seems increasingly headed in an autocratic direction. This time next year, Putin, Xi and Trump may well reflect the future of the human race.

Yes, people don't need objective morals to be monstrous - a word representing my distaste. So again, what evidence do we have that without moral objectivism things get closer to what you prefer?

Again, however, my point revolves less around what I and others prefer and more around how existentially the things that I and others came to prefer were simply one set of assumptions -- moral and political prejudices -- rather than another. Then the part where philosophers using the tools at their disposal still seem unable to pin down what all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women not only ought to prefer but philosophically are obligated to prefer. If only on this board...theoretically?

So, when you, as you often do, point out the bad things that moral objectivism had led to, and do not mention the things you and many others here might think were preferable consequences of moral objectivism, you're not making a case that it would be better if moral objectivism was gone.

[iambiguous]

The gap between the monkeys and the human species here is considerable. To what extent are their de facto behaviors not rooted far, far more in genes than memes?

Sure, but we continue to be smart monkeys even if we become moral subjectivists. IOW all those motivations we have still get used by the incredible and also terrible tools we have invented. We continue to feel aggression and yes empathy, to want to fight for resources, be jealous of others, feel distaste and so on. All the stuff that gets reified into morals.

We're not just smart monkeys though. Our brains have evolved to the point where we have created historical narratives that, depending on the set of circumstances, can vary considerably from culture to culture. Social, political and economic memes evolve over time in a sea of contingency, chance and change.

Monkeys have no philosophies or ideologies or religions or arts.

Assuming, of course, that "somehow" over the course of that biological evolution, we did acquire free will. Otherwise, monkeys and human beings are both nature's "automatons":

"a machine that performs a function according to a predetermined set of coded instructions, especially one capable of a range of programmed responses to different circumstances."

Either derived from God or from Nature. Only nature is all the more mysterious because unlike with God, we don't know if there is a teleological component in Nature. Then "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule". In particular the part where in regard to the Big Questions [in both philosophy and science] "there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

We need to be more "flexible creatures" because, given human autonomy, there are far, far, far more existential components embedded in the lives that we live.

Sure, but again, identifying with one's group will still come naturally. Randomly assigning people teams to be on can lead to fierce competition, and even lead to violence over games, let alone the experiments where some people were made prisoners and others prison guards. Arbitrary groups lead to group identification, even without a culture or history behind it.

Yet again: why do some communities go in one direction here while other communities go in an entirely different direction? Are there philosophers here who, using the tools at their disposal, can lead us all to the one true path? Sure, the moral and political and religious objectivists.

This is missing the point. Will things be better if no one believes their preferences, needs, distastes, norms, values are objective? What's the evidence.

That's your point. My point is that there are those moral objectivists among us [God and No God] who insist that only their own preferences count at all. Then the varying degrees of "or else".

Look, there are groups of capuchin monkeys in any number of South American countries. And suppose you studied all of them. How different would they be given that the preponderance of their behaviors are derived from nature rather than nurture? Here, in my view, there is no comparison between them and us.

And remember that memes cut both ways. Memes and genes us to treat others in positive ways, even when we don't know them. Memes lead to collaboration, group problem solving, charity, helping the old lady across the street, social justice action, democracy, whatever.

Okay, but if ethicists had access to a truly deontological moral philosophy, they could grasp the optimal human behaviors...given, in turn, an optimal grasp of gene/meme interactions. Instead, historically and culturally, some communities revolve more around might makes right, others around right makes might and still others around democracy and the rule of law.

My point, again, was how do you know you would like the world better if everyone was a moral subjectivist.

But I already do assume that, given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein here, we are all moral subjectivists. It's just that many of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...insist that, on the contrary, morality is objective. Their own, in particular.

So, where is the equivalent of this among the various groups of monkeys?

No more objectivists. The point with that specific portion is that many moral realists believe in and promote values against things I would guess you tend to dislike: violence, unwillingness to compromise, racism, sexism, nationalism.

The part I root historically, culturally and in terms of our own uniquely personal experiences in dasein. Now, suppose those men and women who fiercely championed the things that I dislike here were able to gain control of the forum? How long would I still around?

As for moral realists, over and again I have challenged them to bring their assumptions -- their own assessments of "moral facts" -- down out of the theoretical clouds given an issue and a context of their own choosing.

Take away value objectivity....seems like an experiment to me. Which doesn't mean I think it will fail, but how do we know this?

Well, what some of us argue is that for any number of objectivists, right is synonymous with "or else".

And then there are any number of objectivists who have values that cut against this. Suddenly no one has to listen to their values either. And then where is the evidence that using moral objectivism isn't just one tool and that people with power will simply use other tools? Where is the evidence that people stop having an or else if they don't promote objectivest morals. We don't find that evidence in the animal kingdom. I don't see how we can know it looking at humans. So, how do you know this?

Let's just say that in regard to "or else", we think about it differently. From my frame of mind, you are either someone convinced that your own values reflect the optimal moral and political agenda, or you aren't. And, if you do believe this, you are either tolerant of others who believe something else or you are not.

As for what we can or cannot know here, I make a distinction between the either/or world and the is/ought world. For example, we know for a fact that Donald Trump now argues that abortion laws ought to be left up to the individual states. And we know for a fact that different states have different laws. On the other hand, what can philosophers and ethicists and political scientists tell us is in fact true about the morality of abortion itself? With Roe v. Wade those on both sides of the issue were taken into account. Now the anti-choice side [many of whom bring this back around to the Christian God] are intent on imposing their own political prejudices on, well, everyone in particular jurisdictions. And, of course, the same with those extremists on the other end of the spectrum: abortion on demand!

That's why I'm always suggesting that we bring these abstractions down out of the theoretical clouds and examine our respective assumptions about human morality given an issue like abortion or infanticide or genocide. Is there or is there not an objective morality "down here" that can actually be demonstrated to exist?

Thus...

It's just that the thugs and the sociopaths among us predicate it on raw political and economic and personal power, while others find God or His secular, ideological equivalent. It's just that for any number of the "right makes might" objectivists, being "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" is particularly exhilarating. Especially when immortality and salvation are included along with the moral commandments.

I find it hard to believe that that exhilaration goes away when people stop thinking their morals are objective. The will to power and all that.

On the other hand, in regard to human morality, how exactly do we pin down the meaning of "the will to power". After all, how the amoral sociopaths and global capitalists construe it is often very different from how the moral objectivists attach it to God or ideology or deontology or biological imperatives.

Especially when immortality and salvation are included along with the moral commandments. And this is often communicated here in the sheer contempt they have for those who refuse to become "one of us".

Sure, that happens. But where is the evidence that these patterns go away with objectivism going away. And those religions and those specific beliefs have also kept people in line in many ways - this is not me approving, but many people avoid doing things now because they've been taught they are evil or may lead to eternal torture. What happens when those lids get taken away?

My point however is that if, in any given community, moral objectivism -- religion, ideology, deontology etc. -- is rejected, it is much more likely that democracy and the rule of law [moderation, negotiation and compromise] will prevail as "the best of all possible world". Whereas in the might makes right world political power prevails, while in the right makes might world one or another dogmatic God or No God agenda prevails.

I don't know, but it is seems like an not quite directly stated assumption is that you would find the world a better place if the objectivists no longer were that. I don't see anyway to even have a good guess on that issue.

Sure, given any particular set circumstances we might find ourselves in, moral objectivism can be either a good thing or a bad thing. My objection revolves instead around those who do seek to impose their own value judgments on the community itself. The "arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian" "or else" zealots.

We are chastizing the objectivtists for their poor epistemology. How can you demonstrate to all rational people that you version of morals is the right one?

What do we really know about knowing things like this? And over and again, I make it rather clear that I cannot demonstrate my version of this. Any more than I can demonstrate determinism or dasein. Also, over and again, I make it clear that neither moral subjectivism nor moral nihilism necessarily make this a better world. And there is no "in general" here given my own fractured and fragmented frame of mind. Unless, of course, someone here is able to convince me that there is. Either God or No God. It's just that with God the "good news" continues on after the grave.

Then you agree that there are historical and cultural and personal arguments that can be made to rationalize infanticide? Or genocide? How are you not yourself "fractured and fragmented" here...torn because you do reognize that conflicting [though reasonable] arguments can made from both sides.

I've answered this in a number of different ways before. Why am I not feeling what you are feeling? I can't know that. Someone like you who bases so much of his philosophy on how individual and group experiences affect beliefs and how one experiences life should know this. There could be any number of reasons why I am not fractured and fragmented, explaining absences is often impossible.

Okay, then in regard to an issue like abortion [or one of your own choosing] what moral facts can you cite that keep you from being drawn and quartered as "I" am in the is/ought world?

I'm most curious about your own rendition of the points I raise in the OPs here:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/moral ... live/45989
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/back- ... lity/30639

How is your own frame of mind at odds with this?

Same with the moral realists. How do they account for both sides of the abortion conflagration being able to accumulate what they construe to be facts about it. Is it a fact that an unborn zygote, embryo or fetus is a human being? Is it a fact that their God does exist and that His moral commandments must prevail? Is it a fact that if women are forced to give birth they can never hope to achieve full political and economic equality with men?

You have said you really hope someone can resolve this issue for you. I am not looking for someone to convince me X morals are objectively correct. I don't think that can happen. Period.

Well, we differ here then. On the other hand, my take on all of this fractures and fragments me in regard to conflicting goods while you are still able to think yourself into believing that you are not fractured and fragmented.

And given how many times in the past I have dramatically changed my mind about human morality, I would never really rule out the possibility that given a new experience, a new relationship and access to new information and knowledge, I might change my mind again.

In a no God universe where's the argument that establishes that objectivism is a problem?

Again, it becomes a problem when the most fanatic objectivists among us impose an "or else" condition on those who they deem to be "one of them". Then the part where those like Satyr and AJ simply exclude altogether others of the wrong race or ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation.

Which you present here as if that's clear evidence of a problem.

It's not a problem for them though, is it? On the contrary, I am the problem because the more they come to see things as "I" do the more they themselves risk deconstructing their own "Real Me In Sync With The Right Thing To Do" convictions. Their own "psychology of objectivism". As I once embraced them myself as a Christian and then as a Marxist and then as a Democratic Socialist and on and on. And I certainly do not believe that moral nihilism reflects some sort of Hegelian synthesis. Let alone a new rendition of philosophical realism or political idealism.

Personally I dislike their positions, but you can't give evidence that objectivism is wrong using examples that presume it is obvious those two are wrong. Further there are objectivisms that have made incredible strides in protecting such people, for example. And I would guess that both of those mean, whatever I think of them, have rules against simply beating the shit out of gays, for example. Certainly other homophobes do. Objectivism isn't just the things you don't like.

Again, my understanding of objectivism revolves less around what people like or dislike and more around how their likes and dislikes are rooted existentially in dasein...and how any number of objectivists do pursue an "or else" agenda regarding those who don't think and feel exactly as they do.

Or the part where those like IC introduce eternal damnation itself into the mix. Accept Jesus Christ as your own persoinal savior...or else.

Yeah, this doesn't answer the question.

If my question was: what possible problems could objectivism lead to? Ok, those are some answers, given that I sympathize with your concerns there. But that's not my question.

You pose your questions here to IC and I pose mine. He is here arguing that those who do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal saviors cannot be saved. But beyond a leap of faith or it says so in the Bible he argues in turn that there is actual historical and scientific proof that the Christian God does exist. Those YouTube videos. And, had I watched them and been convinced that he was right, I'd return to Christianity and been able to be convinced again that there are objective moral Commandments. And that immortality and salvation are the real deal.

At least with IC, however, he is still committed to arguing his point of view. He's not here demanding that atheists and those who believe in the wrong God should be banned. He's not the equivalent of those theocrats [and their secular ilk] in power who can enforce particularly draconian versions of "or else".

And the violence they inflict on other monkeys or other animals is not construed by them...or by nature...to be a philosophical issue.

Well, then it's not Nature's objectivism. And yes, they don't view it that way, that was precisely the point. That without viewing it as objectivist, their rules, monkeys continue to enforce with an 'or else'.

But to what extent -- philosophically or otherwise -- are they self-conscious of all this? Clearly nowhere near to the extent that we are.

Again that's the whole point. You assume that without objectivist memes, or else goes away. I don't know where you get the idea, certinaly not from monkeys.

No, I do not assume that. Whenever human beings interact rules of behavior are clearly necessary. As with the monkeys. But, unlike with the monkeys, our rules of behavior can revolve either more or less around might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. We can attach the rules to philosophical assessments, the scientific method, political ideology and the like. Or we can become sociopaths and simply assume that any and all rules either further our own rooted existentially in dasein self-interests or they don't. And if they don't, we shift gears from "doing the right thing" to "don't get caught" doing what society insists is the wrong thing.

Thus...

Instead, the monkeys "or else" seems to revolve far more around a convoluted -- ineffable? -- intertwining of nature and nurture. "For all practical purposes" the community will become more or less dysfunctional given particular rules of behaviors. In other words, with monkeys, God and religion and ideology and philosophy don't factor in at all.

Exactly my point.

Okay, and my point is that because, in regard to morality, "God and religion and ideology and philosophy" are components of the human race, comparisons with monkeys here is of limited value.

Thus...

Whenever men and women interact in a community, "or else" can come to revolve around might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. There's really no equivalent of that in the monkey community. They don't go online in order to exchange conflicting views about good and evil like we do. Philosophically, scientifically, theologically or otherwise. It's "somehow" nature itself that programmed them to embrace interactions that sustain their community. To the extent this includes social, political and economic memes? You tell me.

Again, where is the evidence that if humans did not view morals as objective, we would have reductions in violence, more agreement about values, less conflicts, etc?

Who is arguing that?

OK, great. It seemed implicit. In fact it seemed quite open given your answers above.

Of course, that's predicated largely on the extent to which you understand the points that I am making. And, sure, the other way around...me understanding your points as you intend them to be understood.

On the contrary, my main point of contention here is that the world we live in today is far more embedded in the consequences of an amoral political economy that revolves around "wealth and power" sustained by those inhabiting either a crony capitalist nation or a state capitalist nation. Again, this time next year that world may well revolve increasingly around the likes of Trump, Putin, and Xi.

So, then let's make it clear: you don't think that it would necessarily at all be a better world, from your own values or for people in general if moral objectivism disappeared...

What I think is this: that if somehow someone who does embrace one or another One True Path to Enlightenment was able to convince me that this is actually demonstrable, why would I not become "one of us" in accepting it. That wouldn't necessarily make it true, perhaps, but if I believed it was true than I could jettison my belief that my own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless. And that there is an objective morality. And if that convincing, demonstrable assessment came from someone like IC, that immortality and salvation awaited me.

It's just that for those who embrace democracy and the rule of law, the "or else" can pertain to election cycles. You're convinced that, say, the liberals or the conservatives have the most rational moral and political agenda, but you are willing to move on to the next election if you are voted out of power. And then the distinction between economic and foreign policy on the one hand and "value voter" issues on the other hand. The "deep state" is far more intent on sustaining their "show me the money" policies re the former than the latter. Thus in regard to issues like abortion or guns or sexuality, a truer democracy might prevail.

Ok, so here it seems like you are saying that in regard to what you value it would get better or it is more likely to get better for people with your values. I don't know how you know this.

Better? Being "fractured and fragmented"? Believing that death = oblivion? Believing that human existence itself is without either an ontological or teleological foundation? No, instead, it seems "better" for me only given the fact that if you are a moral nihilist, you are not anchored to one or another rendition of "what would Jesus do?" You simply have access "for all practical purposes" to more options. Only that frame of mind is also applicable to the amoral sociopaths and the amoral autocrats who own and operate the global economy.

Social mammals have or else messages with objectivism. Won't there still be conflicts over resources, values, preferences, lifestyle choices and so on? Won't disgust, control urges, selfishness, desire, rage, competitiveness, egoism and so on whether individual or group identified continue to cause violence, war, empathy-less policies, theft, oppression and rejection of certain others even without objectivism?

Yes, but to the extent I construe human interactions here as the embodiment of dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome, where is the equivalent of that among monkeys? Do they examine their own interactions in terms of "the gap" or "Rummy's Rule"?

Unless I am missing something it seems like you consider objectivism not just based on poor epistemology but also a problem. That you would prefer it if objectivism disappeared. Whenever you mention it it is only the negative to you ( and, yes, some others) aspects you mention. The 'or else' stuff, the my way or the highway. You don't mention, generally, that it does just the opposite of these things, that people have memes they consider objective aimed at reducing violence, increasing collaboration, compromise and negotioations, helping people, accepting differences and so on. So, I take this as indication your sense it is a net negative in relation to your, in your head, values. But how do you know that taking them away would lead to a society you would prefer? What is the evidence?

...we'll need a particular context to examine in regard to our respective moral philosophies "here and now".

No, we don't. Not to answer that question. What I believe is something else. I know you wnat to discuss that, but it has nothing to do with you thinking things will get better in the ways I asked about above.

Well, here we clearly have to agree to disagree. Discussing human morality theoretically, philosophically, didactically etc. in terms of better or worse is one thing, bringing those assumptions down to Earth and making them applicable to issues like abortion, another thing altogether. At least for me.

What's crucial [to me] is that I don't argue moral objectivism itself is inherently, necessarily, philosophically less rational than moral nihilism. On the contrary, my contention is that given a No God world [which is merely an assumption] the best of all possible worlds is democracy and the rule of law. Or, rather, after taking political economy and, in my view, the very real "deep state" into account.

This sounds like some kind of objectivism.

Again, my own understanding of objectivism revolves around the assumptions that there exists a Real Me, and that is "core Self" can be in sync with the Right Thing To Do. I don't believe either is applicable to me. Then the part where I root so much of what I do believe "here and now" about these things in my assessment of dasein.

I don't exclude myself from my own point of view. I don't even know if human beings have autonomy here at all. And, given "the gap" and "Rummy's Rule", how on Earth would I go about demonstrating anything definitive about the either/or world...let alone the world of conflicting goods. It just seems reasonable to me "here and now" that in a No God universe, there is no biological or philosophical or scientific or "spiritual" font around to base objective morality on.

Right, that's the epistemological issue. But it seems to me you are implying an ethical conclusion also. Objectivism leads to 'or else' threats. So, it is bad. It would be better if people didn't think that way.

No, in my view, the epistemological issue goes back to "the gap"...to connecting the dots between what each of us as individuals thinks the "human condition" encompasses and all that we do not know regarding where the human condition itself fits into the existence of existence itself. And all of the other Big Questions still well beyond our grasping. Unless, of course, you are one of the...metaphysical objectivists?

I was saying you had a position in addition to the epistemological one, which was that it would be better with moral objectivism. In some places in your response it seems clear you are saying, no, you do not believe that. In other places it seems like you are saying the opposite.

Well, that's often what being fractured and fragmented in regard to conflicting value judgments comes around to. But that still doesn't make either epistemology or logic any less embedded in "the gap".

Better and worse pertaining to morality seems inherently problematic to me in a No God world. Whereas better and worse in regard to the either/or world is often more clearly measurable.

Presumably you see that as your personal preference, given it can't be objectively better if people stopped being objectivist, or that would be an objective moral stance. So, you have this preference. And I think this preference is based on the idea that certain kinds of behavior and attitudes would be less present in a world without objective morals as an accepted meme.

That and the part where over and again I acknowledge I am no less included here. Really, given that I, like you, am just an "infinitesimal and utterly insignificant speck of existence" in the staggering vastness of "all there is", what are the odds that my "conclusions" here come closet to an actual ontological -- teleological? -- assessment of Reality itself?

I don't know what happens if suddenly no one thinks in moral objectivist terms. It would obviously be very unsettling for many. I would guess that in the long run all the manifestations of desire (including for what others have or people they are close to), competition over resources and in general, fear of the other, hoarding, clash of values (even if no longer considered objective) and ways of life (including continued reactions of disgust, superiority, incomprehension and so on) would continue.

Just look at the world around us. The amoral "show me the money" global capitalists are focused in on sustaining access to cheap labor, accumulating natural resources and creating markets. Some given crony capitalist political economies, others given state capitalist political economies. But the bottom line here is no less embedded in one or another historical rendition of might makes right, right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. And the world today seems increasingly headed in an autocratic direction. This time next year, Putin, Xi and Trump may well reflect the future of the human race.

Yes, people don't need objective morals to be monstrous - a word representing my distaste. So again, what evidence do we have that without moral objectivism things get closer to what you prefer?

Again, however, my point revolves less around what I and others prefer and more around how existentially the things that I and others came to prefer were simply one set of assumptions -- moral and political prejudices -- rather than another. Then the part where philosophers using the tools at their disposal still seem unable to pin down what all rational -- virtuous? -- men and women not only ought to prefer but philosophically are obligated to prefer. If only on this board...theoretically?

So, when you, as you often do, point out the bad things that moral objectivism had led to, and do not mention the things you and many others here might think were preferable consequences of moral objectivism, you're not making a case that it would be better if moral objectivism was gone.

Again, "here and now", better or worse is deemed by me to reflect moral and political prejudices derived existentially from ever evolving historical and cultural contexts. Instead, it's the "fractured and fragmented" aspect of "I" in the is/ought world that is my main focus.

Is there a demonstrable argument here that prompts me to yank myself up out of the hole I've dug myself down into given my signature threads? Great, I win. And, after all, when it comes to these things, it really makes no difference if you can't demonstrate what you believe about them, only that you do believe them.

On the other hand, if others do come around to my own philosophical prejudices regarding "I" at the existential intersection of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy, I win there too. In the sense that I have someone who empathizes with me.

[Iwannaplato]

What do we really know about knowing things like this? And over and again, I make it rather clear that I cannot demonstrate my version of this. Any more than I can demonstrate determinism or dasein. Also, over and again, I make it clear that neither moral subjectivism nor moral nihilism necessarily make this a better world.

Great, that's the question I wanted a clear answer to. I think the complicated ways objectivism affects behavior and attitudes means any of a extremely wide range of outcomes is possible.

and so

..... when you, as you often do, point out the bad things that moral objectivism had led to, and do not mention the things you and many others here might think were preferable consequences of moral objectivism, you're not making a case that it would be better if moral objectivism was gone.

This is, of course, a different issue from the epistemological challenge to individual objectivists: can they demonstrate that their morality is the correct one.

[Skepdick]

This is, of course, a different issue from the epistemological challenge to individual objectivists: can they demonstrate that their morality is the correct one.

Everybody can demonstrate that their morality is the correct one. Sanctimony is the status quo.

If morality is not objective - you can't demonstrate that any of them are wrong either. About anything.

If you so much as think that there's any kind of problem with that; and that the situation ought to be different your predicament shall be commended.