Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides

[God]

The statement that moral relativists are morally indifferent and accept or are implicit in genocides and other forms of evil acts is an oversimplification and can be misleading.

No I didn't.

[Iwannaplato]

The statement that moral relativists are morally indifferent and accept or are implicit in genocides and other forms of evil acts is an oversimplification and can be misleading.

No I didn't.

Sometimes it seems you are a moral relativist, God. I mean, like how things often work out, you know, in reality.
Are you?

[God]

The statement that moral relativists are morally indifferent and accept or are implicit in genocides and other forms of evil acts is an oversimplification and can be misleading.

No I didn't.

Sometimes it seems you are a moral relativist, God. I mean, like how things often work out, you know, in reality.
Are you?

No. I just move in mysterious ways.

[Gary Childress]

No I didn't.

Sometimes it seems you are a moral relativist, God. I mean, like how things often work out, you know, in reality.
Are you?

No. I just move in mysterious ways.

too cute for a philosophy forum.

[God]

too cute for a philosophy forum.

[Iwannaplato]

No. I just move in mysterious ways.

Oh, good. Even if I don't know what the objective morals are, it is soothing to know someone does (someone other than VA).

[Sculptor]

God does not just accept genocides.
God manfates genocides.
God instructs genocides to be performed.
God stands by and watches genocides as they occur.
Despite being all powerful God does not stop genocides.
Genocides are carryed out with the implicit and explicit intent of God.
Does this mean God is a moral relativist?

[God]

Even if I don't know what the objective morals are, it is soothing to know someone does (someone other than VA).

Just know that God loves you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You cannot expect that 100% of children show a behavior in an experiment! In fact, the result of the first experiment shows that only three-quarters of the children choose the good guy instead of the bad guy. The same applies to other experiments. Moreover, it is shown that children are selfish and racist!

Here's one general problem I see, perhaps in both of your positions in the thread. Some things the children do are considered moral behavior. So, we start the whole experiment with the assumption that some behavior is moral and some is not. Then we look for it. They children do a wide variety of things, some fitting our ideas of moral behavior, some not. So, there's an assuming the conclusion in the arguments.

I agree.

The other funny thing, to me, is that VA does not consider animals moral agents.

But when we talk about innate vs. learned senses of morality animals, having less plastic brains than us, have more morality built in. The social mammals that is. They have all sorts of behaviors and habits that fit under fairness, justice, altruistic behavior - generally in relation to their group or pack, but not restricted to this.

Humans, with their more neuroplastic brains get much more of their sense of morality from experience: culture, parenting, etc.

Yes, some comes innate in humans. Very proto-moral, category level stuff.

But it's less than in animals. One can Google inequity aversion or fairness in animals and find that scientists consider animals to be moral agents.

One advantage of neuroplasticity is that we can learn more. Disadvantages are that babies are more dependent on their parents in humans. Some animals are up and running on day 1, literally. We are also more vulnerable to PTSD, since we can 'learn' more from a trauma and it takes longer to unlearn it.

Thanks for the information. I was not aware of these.

No response to my post above?
viewtopic.php?p=694375#p694375

bahman: I was not aware of these.
Looks like you are not aware of many things or knowledge that are essential to the relevant topics we discussed.

IWP: VA does not consider animals moral agents.
I don't deny animals [higher] possess what we would termed as moral elements, e.g. incest avoidance, and others.

What IWP alluded to is my insistence that human morality should not be extended to non-humans animals.
I claim morality should only be confined to humans.

The point is one of the moral element or maxim is 'no human ought to kill humans' and this is not practical to extend it to other animals.
The reason is humans has evolved [since 6 million years ago] to eat animals [meat, etc.] for survival, thus has to kill animals for food.
This cannot be changed overnight or even in the next many-generations.
As such, morality [re the moral element above] cannot be extended to non-humans [animals].

In food production and other circumstances it is inevitable that humans will kill insects and other small animals.

Some will even extend from animals to all living things, including bacteria and viruses. Millions and billions of such are killed with antibiotics and in other circumstances by human actions.

So, at present, it is not practical to include living non-humans within morality practiced by humans.

Nevertheless, as a virtue* [not morality] humans should be compassionate and be considerate to animals to the best of their abilities.
* I consider virtue to be independent of morality.

[FlashDangerpants]

The point is one of the moral element or maxim is 'no human ought to kill humans' and this is not practical to extend it to other animals.
The reason is humans has evolved [since 6 million years ago] to eat animals [meat, etc.] for survival, thus has to kill animals for food.
This cannot be changed overnight or even in the next many-generations.
As such, morality [re the moral element above] cannot be extended to non-humans [animals].

It is no real surprise that such a Stalinist project as your "morality-proper" would make that horrifying and morally disgraceful excuse for one of its prominent failings.

[Iwannaplato]

Looks like you are not aware of many things or knowledge that are essential to the relevant topics we discussed.

IWP: VA does not consider animals moral agents.
I don't deny animals [higher] possess what we would termed as moral elements, e.g. incest avoidance, and others.

What IWP alluded to is my insistence that human morality should not be extended to non-humans animals.
I claim morality should only be confined to humans.

The point is one of the moral element or maxim is 'no human ought to kill humans' and this is not practical to extend it to other animals.
The reason is humans has evolved [since 6 million years ago] to eat animals [meat, etc.] for survival, thus has to kill animals for food.
This cannot be changed overnight or even in the next many-generations.
As such, morality [re the moral element above] cannot be extended to non-humans [animals].

In food production and other circumstances it is inevitable that humans will kill insects and other small animals.

Some will even extend from animals to all living things, including bacteria and viruses. Millions and billions of such are killed with antibiotics and in other circumstances by human actions.

So, at present, it is not practical to include living non-humans within morality practiced by humans.

Nevertheless, as a virtue* [not morality] humans should be compassionate and be considerate to animals to the best of their abilities.
* I consider virtue to be independent of morality.

1) Notice first that VA misses the point I was making completely. I did not argue THAT animals were moral agents or in favor of not killing and eating them. I certainly could make such an argument, but that was not my point.

My point was that a central point in VA's belief system is that morality is innate (and from there objective).

The irony is that with animals MORE morality is innate than in humans. This is because non-human animals generally have to mature much faster than humans. The nature/nurture ratio is much higher in animals. Certainly packs of wolves train their young to respect the alpha and such, but in general humans are trained in morality and have to be to a greater degree. We are more neuroplastic regarding behavior (and attitude).

So, the irony is that a foundational part of VA's schema is that morality is objective because it is innate while at the same time he denies animals being moral agents even though their morality - sense of fairness, for example, is much more built in.

2) Notice this:

This cannot be changed overnight or even in the next many-generations.
As such, morality [re the moral element above] cannot be extended to non-humans [animals].

Sentence one: it cannot happen soon.
Sentence two: it cannot happen.

The second problem with this framing of the issue is that it is binary. The possibility of reducing the killing of animals is not considered. If it was moral, then we could do what we could. If it isn't a moral obligation, well, then we don't need to. But basically his argument is we can't completely eliminate the killing of animals, so it's not a moral consideration. Which is a category confusion.

3) Let's remember also that VA presents contradictory messages about what objective morality is.
Above he talks about

The point is one of the moral element or maxim is 'no human ought to kill humans' and this is not practical to extend it to other animals.

That's deontology. A rule about behavior. But many other times he has talked about morality being related to shifting in attitudes: for example, towards compassion and empathy. In fact he has called deontological morality primitive and not the real morality, berating people for not remembering he has said this -when they point out, for example, all variations in deontological rules out there. But he seems to forget this himself when he presents human morality in a deontological form. Now he does put it in citation marks. So, perhaps it isn't to be taken as deontology...

BUTTTTTT! Here's the problem.

He talks about compassion, in relation to animals, as virtue, which isn't morality. And back when he talked a lot about mirror neurons and empathy he exactly described the enhancement of virtues, like compassion and empathy AS OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Not that crude deontological stuff, but changing people so that had more of certain traits like compassion which would in turn lead to fewer homicides. That was the real morality.

But here it is relegated to a mere virtue, these character traits.

Which is why I consider VA belief system to be an ad hoc flexible non-system which develops in reaction to criticism by simply changing to an appropriate defense or offensive in reaction to the latest critique. Rather than a coherent belief system.

Which isn't necessarily a problem if it is openly admitted to be such. I think a lot of people move through life changing priorities, criteria, rules without internal consistency.

[FlashDangerpants]

Which is why I consider VA belief system to be an ad hoc flexible non-system which develops in reaction to criticism by simply changing to an appropriate defense or offensive in reaction to the latest critique. Rather than a coherent belief system.

Which isn't necessarily a problem if it is openly admitted to be such. I think a lot of people move through life changing priorities, criteria, rules without internal consistency.

4 or 5 years ago he responded to the same criticism from me by saying that it wasn't worth the time he would expend to fix that problem on a mere forum, but that he was completely able to make it all fit together. That was the first time he ever told me about his 'purely selfish' reasons for doing this nonsense.

I would say that given he still has the same problem on the forums where he has spent countless hours on this shit and only made it worse with the extra work, his cost/benefit analysis was misinformed.

[Iwannaplato]

4 or 5 years ago he responded to the same criticism from me by saying that it wasn't worth the time he would expend to fix that problem on a mere forum, but that he was completely able to make it all fit together. That was the first time he ever told me about his 'purely selfish' reasons for doing this nonsense.

Yes, his purely selfish reasons has been used to justify both never admitting a mistake AND not making coherent arguments. If this were true, he wouldn't respond to so many posts as if he he making coherent arguments.

I would say that given he still has the same problem on the forums where he has spent countless hours on this shit and only made it worse with the extra work, his cost/benefit analysis was misinformed.

I still think he's a net positive participant. When he's in ad hoc retreat mode, he throws a lot of interesting links and other people's positions at what he sees as the advancing enemy.

Which will lead to more ad hoc needs soon enough.

Heck modeling this process might be a way to get AIs to brainstorm.

brainstorming, not system building or high percentage accurate conclusion-making.

Perhaps any good group discussion needs a kind of wild card. Though it's even better if the wild card knows its role.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Looks like you are not aware of many things or knowledge that are essential to the relevant topics we discussed.

IWP: VA does not consider animals moral agents.
I don't deny animals [higher] possess what we would termed as moral elements, e.g. incest avoidance, and others.

What IWP alluded to is my insistence that human morality should not be extended to non-humans animals.
I claim morality should only be confined to humans.

1) Notice first that VA misses the point I was making completely. I did not argue THAT animals were moral agents or in favor of not killing and eating them. I certainly could make such an argument, but that was not my point.

My point was that a central point in VA's belief system is that morality is innate (and from there objective).

The irony is that with animals MORE morality is innate than in humans. This is because non-human animals generally have to mature much faster than humans. The nature/nurture ratio is much higher in animals. Certainly packs of wolves train their young to respect the alpha and such, but in general humans are trained in morality and have to be to a greater degree. We are more neuroplastic regarding behavior (and attitude).

So, the irony is that a foundational part of VA's schema is that morality is objective because it is innate while at the same time he denies animals being moral agents even though their morality - sense of fairness, for example, is much more built in.

Humans and all other animals share many common features.
It does not mean that animals must be taken into account for every topic [science, economics, political, finance, legal, etc.] where there are common features.

The point is before we talk of morality we need to establish what is an effective human-based morality-proper FSRK, i.e. to establish its constitution, principles and all necessary conditions.

I define morality-proper* as the management of evil to facilitate the generation of the related good. [as evident from human nature].

Whatever there are in non-human animals nature, none cannot fit into the definition of my definition of morality-proper.

Therefore morality as defined [per its constitution] is to be excluded from the morality-proper FSRK.

[Age]

No. I just move in mysterious ways.

Oh, good. Even if I don't know what the objective morals are, it is soothing to know someone does (someone other than VA).

But "veritas aequitas" does not know what the actual 'objective morals' are. As has already been proved by its complete lack of ability to just say and write down what they are. All "veritas aequitas" is actually really doing here is just expressing its beliefs that 'objective morals' exist, which is all it is essentially saying and claiming here.

Also, what do you mean by, even you do not know what the 'objective morals' are?

you are coming across as though you would some consciously already know.

Also, and by the way, how to obtain and know, for sure, what the 'objective morals' are, exactly, then this is an extremely very simple, and very easy, process indeed.