back to the beginning: morality

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:14 pm

Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website

With Hume and many later philosophers in the Anglo-Empirical tradition, Wittgenstein rejects the is-to-ought presumptions of classical ethics (the idea that "good" can be "naturalized" by being thought to just be this or that natural phenomenon). But he goes further than Hume by focusing not merely on the is/ought dichotomy but on the idea that the sort of thing that underlies our moral sensibilities will be seen to be feelings of a very deep sort, feelings which reflect, in at least some of us, the kinds of thing we associate with spiritual awe in the face of a mysterious universe.


Of course for those like Mr. Fun here [in this festive holiday season] morality is a "natural phenomena". Not sure what that means? Ask him. Only be prepared for his answer to revolve solely around his at times completely unintelligible intellectual contraptions. Pedantic gibberish predicated on the assumptions that his theoretical constructs are by default the only possible manner in which to grasp, well, anything that we do. And these "serious philosophy" assumptions must be true because the meaning that he gives to the words in these ponderous didactic assessments are "true by definition".

Not sure what that means? Well, follow him long enough and you'll know the drill before too long.

In other words, the guy loves -- really, really loves -- to sound like what he imagines a serious philosopher should sound like. Deep, man, deep.

As for feelings of spiritual awe...? What, like Maia feels in the presence of the Goddess? Still, sooner or later those reverential feelings need to be translated into actual behaviors in actual sets of circumstances.

Since there can be no point in wondering about such things, however, and no content in speaking of such wonder -- although such wonder is not wrong and may, in fact, be a positive state in which to be -- he concludes, with Hume and those who follow him, that moral questions are fundamentally outside the realm of intelligibility.


Fundamentally perhaps but certainly not existentially. The questions are inevitable. Whether you want to call them moral questions or something else. And even the answers are intelligible to the extent that others understand your point. What they do not seem to be however is objectively intelligible. Your answer may be understood by another...but fiercely disputed.

Then what? Then that's where "I" come in.

Yet, to the extent they reflect something deeper, a religious or spiritual inclination, they are not simply to be ignored. There is a strong, albeit unexplicated, reason in fact to pay attention to and implement one's religious sensibilities. It's just, Wittgenstein suggests, that they lie outside philosophy's realm.


Yes, this makes sense. But only to the extent that we acknowledge that none of us seem able to know for certain what actually is inside or outside of the realm of philosophy. Those like Kant may well be ultimately correct. But how exactly to demonstrate this given a particular context.

Hence, his statement some six weeks later to Waismann and Shlick that it is

". . . very important that one makes an end to all the chatter about ethics – whether there can be knowledge in ethics, whether there are values, whether the Good can be defined, etc. In ethics one always makes the attempt to say something which cannot concern and never concerns the essence of the matter."


And what matter might that be?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46421
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Fri Dec 10, 2021 7:17 pm

Mr. Fun wrote:Planning a amoral smash & grab shopping spree in the US, before Christmas.

Any recommendations?
I want high end stuff.

Is it below $900 that you aren't arrested?
Don't want to get over that.


His posts are like a fly buzzing around your head. Annoying as hell but harmless.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46421
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Lorikeet » Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:08 pm

Just like iamretarded's post for the last ten years.

Finally, self-daignosis.
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods

-Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
Lorikeet
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Fri Dec 17, 2021 5:41 pm

Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website

Wittgenstein concludes his talk to the Heretics Society by proposing that religious language has a special significance but no content. It is, he say, a language of similes and that it serves to express our stance in relation to a universe that is finally mysterious to us:

"I am tempted to say that the right expression in language for the miracle of the existence of the world, though it is not any proposition in language, is the existence of language itself. But what then does it mean to be aware of this miracle at some times and not at other times? For all I have said by shifting the expression of the miraculous from an expression by means of language to the expression by the existence of language, all I have said is again that we cannot express what we want to express and that all we can say about the absolute miraculous remains nonsense."


Is this not Wittgenstein's own attempt to draw our attention to "the gap" and to Rummy's Rule? It's just that in regard to such things as moral and political and spiritual convictions, our value judgments are just all that much more ineffable. We have no choice but to come up with a language in which to discuss them because there is no getting around them when "for all practical purposes" actual flesh and blood human being choose to interact socially, politically and economically. We express what is of necessity relationships there is no getting around. But it seems entirely more reasonable to accept the limitations of philosophy here. That those such as ethicists, political scientists, sociologists, economists, psychologists, anthropologists etc., are no less impeded by the existential reality of "I" in the is/ought world.

Ethical just is the religious, he seems to be proposing, and the religious is beyond intelligible discourse. It's something else. But, of course, this is his ethics, is it not, his own sense of what has an "absolute," as in bottom line, importance to him. It doesn't follow, it cannot, that all men share in the same religious or spiritual feelings as he does, that all have the same religious inclinations. Does ethics then, as in being the basis for distinguishing our better or worse choices, always boil down to sharing the same deep seated-feelings about things (or the same things)? Hasn't Wittgenstein, at this stage, really made a mistake?


Actually, I think he is basically concurring that, in the absence of God, all things are permitted. If by "intelligible discourse" one means a rational ethics that all reasonable men and women are obligated to espouse. Until a God, the God, your God is established to in fact actually exist, the "intelligible discourse" can only revolve around a font -- a demonstrable font -- created by mere mortals.

Though, sure, you might find any number of communities where right makes might prevails. These "shared feelings" about good and bad may be derived from, say, a Manifesto or a political party, or an ideological assessment, or from one or another dogma revolving around "biological imperatives".

Does that then make Wittgenstein wrong?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46421
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Thu Dec 23, 2021 4:40 pm

Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website

If ethical inquiry is to determine what we mean by "good" in certain cases...does it matter if he, himself, just feels that it all boils down to one's capacity to stand in awe of the universe, however expressed (in particular doctrinal terms or more generically)? How has that claim added anything to our understanding of ethics which, after all, does have a prominent and seemingly unavoidable place in our daily lives?


How could it add anything more than in acknowledging the gap between what we think Wittgenstein meant by one's "capacity to stand in awe of the universe" and how we might come to a conclusion about that ourselves?

Given a particular context on our own infinitesimally insignificant planet in the staggering vastness of all that the universe is? Given further that this comes from each of us as but one of billions of infinitesimally insignificant individuals who have lived and died on this Third rock from the Sun"?

We are constantly urged to behave in one way and not another in our daily lives, either by family and friends, or by various societal authorities and spokespersons, or by ourselves (when we search our consciences about the right things to do). And there are many, many reasons to sort through when we want to make a correct decision. How can holding a particular feeling or set of feelings of awe (or recognizing some other very personal sense of what is "absolute") help us decide what the right choice is for others and, because for others, for ourselves?


What it helps us do is to acquire and then sustain a font that allows us in turn to convince ourselves that the behaviors we choose are necessary because this absolute, awe-inspiring virtue does in fact exist. And since it only has to exist "in our head" there is no further demonstration needed to acquire and then sustain the comfort and consolation that allows us to embody the psychology of objectivism.

And here of course it really doesn't make any difference if others have brought this about or if you do it yourself. All that counts is that you have accomplished it and, if you are lucky enough not to be confronted with the arguments that I make, you may well take this peace of mind to the grave. And for some, even beyond it.

But here of course you have been confronted with the arguments that I make. And they either disturb you or they do not. And, if they don't, you will either pursue that with me or you won't.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46421
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Lorikeet » Sun Dec 26, 2021 11:50 pm

Ancient Roman, Tacitus, describes ancient Pagan/Heathen Germans and German culture:
Their marriage code is strict, and no feature of their morality deserves higher praise. They are almost unique amongst barbarians in being content with one wife apiece.

By such means is the virtue of their women protected, and they live uncorrupted by the temptations of public shows or the excitements of banquets. Clandestine love letters are unknown to men and women alike. Adultery is extremely rare, considering the size of the population.

They have no mercy on a wife who prostitutes her chastity. Neither beauty, youth, nor wealth can find her another husband. No one in Germany finds vice amusing, or calls it 'up to date' to seduce and be seduced. She takes one husband, just as she has one body and one life. Her thoughts must not stray beyond him or her desires survive him. And even that husband she must love not for himself, but as an embodiment of the married state.

To restrict the number of children, or to kill any of those born after the heir, is considered wicked.

The more relatives and connections by marriage a man has, the greater authority he commands in old age. There is nothing to be gained by childlessness in Germany.

Good morality in Germany is more effective than good laws are elsewhere.
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods

-Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
Lorikeet
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Thu Dec 30, 2021 4:49 pm

Was Wittgenstein Wrong on Ethics?
Author: STUART W. MIRSKY
at the Serious Philosophy website

If, as Wittgenstein seems to have proposed in this talk, ethics lies outside the sphere of legitimate philosophical inquiry, if it is only a matter of comporting ourselves in a way that we find consistent with our own highly personal sense of what is "absolutely" good or right for us, without any way of distinguishing between different notions and standards for what is to count as good or right in some bottom line sense, then ethics has gotten no farther than it did after Hume's devastating attack upon the is/ought connection -- a connection which Wittgenstein in this talk at least, appears to grant right out of the box.


Yo, Mr. Objectivist! Fulminating fanatically or otherwise. You're up.

Pick your font. We'll both pick a context. You to bring me up out of the hole, me to bring you down into it.

Hume and Wittgenstein. Both more or less backing me up and not you. And all I ask here is that I might at least feel challenged by you. :wink:

On the other hand, as we must surely know by now, you don't have to effectively challenge anyone. All you need do is to convince yourself that your own moral philosophy is the optimal narrative...and not the hundreds and hundreds of other objectivists out there who share your conviction that morality is objective. But that it's their comforting and consoling spiel and not yours.

In seeking to do away with an idea of ethics as a suitable field for inquiry, has Wittgenstein not done away with the very thing we need to do in order to better understand what lies beneath our ethical choices?


What neither Wittgenstein nor anyone else can accomplish is to make the need for one or another moral narrative and political agenda go away. We may not be able to demonstrate the most rational ethical philosophy but we can struggle to perhaps sustain the least dysfunctional ones?

Me, I'm sticking with "moderation, negotiation and compromise" as the least dysfunctional approach to prescribing and proscribing behaviors legally. What that comes down to "for all practical purposes" though is [obviously] beyond anything that a fractured and fragmented frame of mind can come up with.

"I hold it certainly to be very important that one makes an end to all the chatter about ethics – whether there can be knowledge in ethics, whether there are values, whether the Good can be defined, etc. In ethics one always makes the attempt to say something which cannot concern and never concerns the essence of the matter."


Ah, that crucial distinction between essential/objective truth in the either/or world and existential/subjective personal opinions in the is/ought world.

Let's just make that go away by -- presto! -- merely insisting "in our heads" that everyone is obligated embrace our own personal opinions or they become "retards".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46421
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Lorikeet » Thu Dec 30, 2021 4:55 pm

A homosexual Jew, undermining philosophy by attacking language, and a man who laid the groundwork for Marxism, by another Jew.
Congratulations moron...you picked the wasps nest of depravity to invest your deference upon.
You only offer words....texts....referring to more text....words referring to more words....and you then pretend to attack what?
Who?
Do you even, fuckin' know what I am saying? Nope....I'm a caricature, an effigy you burn to deal with your castrated feebleness.
You go from circumcised Hebrew to Hebrew.,...Christianity.....Marxism.....Postmodernism - see Frankfurt School - and Wittgenstein.....Ha!!!
A circumcised circle jerk - undermining, denouncing, seducing, bribing, coercing, negating, gossiping, slandering....insidiously destroying....leaving nothing in your wake.

Morality, imbecile is not a word...it is an act....a behaviour, you pathetic imbecilic hypocritical piece of human trash.
An ACT...not a word!!!!
An act given a word to symbolize it, to refer to it...
Moron!!
You belong here....not on KTS. There you will fill it, as you did, with crap and faeces...every thread a trash heap....like you.
I will not let you destroy it as you've done ILP.

Don't worry, faggot...I'll be gone soon....my present to you.
Then you can share this trash with your fellow rats.
Bon apetit...

Ta, Ta,
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods

-Thomas Babington Macaulay, Lays of Ancient Rome
Lorikeet
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2020 9:08 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Thu Dec 30, 2021 6:14 pm

What can I say?

Sure, if the "Mr. Fun" persona is what it is all about each and every festive holiday season, it's not to be taken seriously. Or if he is only being ironic and comes here to put on a "show" for us each and every festive holiday. Or, as with ecmandu, it's an honest to God "condition". Or, as with Meno/Alan, he is mocking the "up in the clouds intellectual contraption" "serious philosophers" by going up there himself...

But, suppose -- just suppose -- he really, really does take himself seriously [wants us to take him seriously] and the "if it's dreck, you must reject" drivel he posts here each and every festive holiday season is actually what he construes philosophy to be!!!

I mean, come on, how fucking dumb would you have to be not to grasp that Biggy is making a complete fool out of you. And has been now for weeks.

Yeah, maybe he actually is intent on leaving us soon. On the other hand, given what ILP has turned into over the past couple of years, what possible difference can that make? The pinheads, Kids, yak yak yakkers and fulminating fanatic objectivists now rule the roost here.

Hell, if I wasn't taking orders from a godot, the godot, my godot himself, I'd have been long gone.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46421
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 03, 2022 5:24 pm

Patheos
RELIGION LIBRARY
Paganism
ETHICS AND COMMUNITY
Principles of Moral Thought and Action

"And [if] it harm none, do what ye will." Although written in the style of 16th-century English, this maxim, known as the Wiccan Rede, probably dates back only to the mid-20th century. It was first recorded in print in 1964, having been spoken by Doreen Valiente, a priestess who had been initiated by Gerald Gardner. Some observers of modern witchcraft speculate that it may represent a revision of Aleister Crowley's occult maxim, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," which first appeared in 1904. Regardless of its origin, the Rede - as a succinct moral code - spread rapidly throughout the Wiccan and religious witchcraft community.


As with other renditions of the Golden Rule, there are criticisms:
https://effectiviology.com/golden-rule/ ... ily%20true.

From my frame of mind, however, the Golden Rule can only be construed realistically given an account of it out in a particular world, revolving around sets of circumstances understood from the subjective narratives rooted in dasein.

Then the part where those like Maia argue that each Pagan is on his or her own unique path to and from nature. And thus it is the case that each individual Pagan can come to embrace moral convictions that are entirely conflicting. For the life of me though I can't understand how, in a community of Pagans, that cannot lead to endless disputes, squabbles, discord, antagonisms...even antipathy.

Here is one attempt to explain it: http://www.bishopinthegrove.com/how-do- ... mmunities/

Unfortunately, to me, it is just another "general description spiritual assessment" that doesn't really get down to the sort of existential conflicts that would arise in any community. And it certainly steers clear of the arguments that I make.

But [for me] the biggest mystery remains: how exactly does nature and Maia, along with other Pagans, come to acquire this "spiritual"/"moral"...guidance? By, in my view, not really spending a whole lot of time thinking it through. They just take their own more or less blind leap of faith like all the other religious folks do.

I react much the same to No God spiritual paths like Buddhism. Or to spiritual paths rooted in pantheism. Those who believe, what, that their spirit is somehow "at one with the universe"?

Is it all the equivalent then of a moral or an immoral soul?

With religions predicated on a God, the God, my God, morality is so much easier to grasp. It is Scripted in The Book.

"Thou shalt not..."

But with Pagans "thou shalt do or not do...", well, whatever it is you happen to think yourself into believing your own "thing" with nature is.

And, as with all the many, many other "one true paths" there are to choose from, the bottom line [mine] is always the same. Not what you believe but that whatever it is you do believe comforts and consoles you all the way to the grave.

Balancing an emphasis on personal responsibility with an imperative for non-harm of others, it meshed beautifully with the zeitgeist of the 1960s, an era when status quo morality was being questioned in the light of student unrest, emerging feminist and gay/lesbian concerns with their attendant re-thinking of traditional sexual morality, and public disapproval of conflicts such as the war in Vietnam.


This is another aspect of human morality that is almost never not complex and convoluted. Whether the discussion revolves around war or gender roles or sexuality, who gets to decide which behaviors cause no harm [or the least harm] to others.

Aside from the military industry complex and the war economy, the Vietnam War revolved precisely around those who believed that Communism does result in enormous harm done to others. Just as the Communists believe that capitalism results in enormous harm done to others.

So, how do Pagans like Maia and others come to acquire a set of moral convictions in regard to conflicting goods of this sort?

Then that [to me] truly "mystical" component whereby a clearly amoral nature manages -- re ritual and and ceremony and custom etc. -- to "communicate" a moral path to each individual Pagan that is exclusively their own.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46421
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:35 pm

Patheos
RELIGION LIBRARY
Paganism
ETHICS AND COMMUNITY
Principles of Moral Thought and Action

Despite its popularity among Wiccans and some other modern Pagans, the Wiccan Rede is hardly universally observed in the Pagan community. Most non-Wiccans regard it as strictly a Wiccan text, and seek other principles for moral guidance.


Okay, but you can see its appeal. It basically becomes just another religious path.

Thus...

"The Wiccan Rede is a statement that provides the key moral system in the neopagan religion of Wicca and certain other related witchcraft-based faith." wiki

A statement not spread through a Bible perhaps but, really, how far removed from that can it be in "spreading the word"?

Though I can see why those like Maia might pull back from it. Too close to the sort of spiritual objectivism that can obligate someone to toe the line...or else. For Maia everything can revolve around her own personal experience with nature. It's all her own nature so it is largely moot if others question it...or challenge her regarding it.

In an ironic sense it is not all that far removed from moral nihilism itself. Only for "I" it's not a fractured and fragmented sense of reality but just the opposite. A "spiritual" whole that only has to be understood by you.

Many adherents of ethnic Pagan revivalist traditions look to the heritage of their chosen culture for guidance. For example, Celtic and Norse pagans advocate a life grounded in virtue as understood in the great myths and legends of northern Europe. Such values often reflect the importance of tribal kinship, valor among warriors, and personal pride.


Just what one would expect. The "great myths and legends", the "traditions" embedded in the culture that you were indoctrinated as a child to embody. The world you have always been a part of. A frame of mind that you are not likely to question in depth because it has always been a part of your reality.

Which is why the modern world begetting the postmodern world makes it all that much more problematic...trickier. Today you can be exposed to many, many other culture myths, legends and traditions. All around you [on the internet for example] you are exposed to others who re dasein think about morality in ways that would never even occur to you. Why? Because your own culture and personal experiences would never have predisposed you to think and feel that way.

So, communication often breaks down in places like this because, well, what would you expect?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46421
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ichthus77 » Mon Jan 10, 2022 6:32 pm

Whit Gan Stein understood ;)

Don’t you think it’s weird that the Golden Rule can be found (is found by) every one of those “myths”?

What if a myth turns out to be true? Does it break a law of nature? Do you believe in unbreakable laws?

That’s interesting. Do you have evidence for that assertion?
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6113
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 10, 2022 7:13 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:
Don’t you think it’s weird that the Golden Rule can be found (is found by) every one of those “myths”?


What particular myth pertaining to what particular set of circumstances?

And then given criticisms of the Golden Rule: https://effectiviology.com/golden-rule/

Clearly, those in different cultures will want to be treated in ways that those in other cultures might be appalled by.

And then when it percolates down to individual likes and dislikes...?

Ichthus77 wrote:What if a myth turns out to be true? Does it break a law of nature? Do you believe in unbreakable laws?


Again, what particular myth in what particular context did you have in mind? What particular law of nature? Unbreakable in what sense?

Ichthus77 wrote:That’s interesting. Do you have evidence for that assertion?


What assertion?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46421
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Ichthus77 » Tue Jan 11, 2022 4:36 am

Wow. Got that down to an art, have you?

This would be very entertaining in a live debate. This must happen.
Fall semester ends 12/16/22. Apologies if I do not reply immediately.

“In choosing myself, I choose the other.”
- A marriage of Sartre & Levinas

“ Gloria Dei est vivens homo. “
Trans.: The glory of God is man fully alive.
- Irenaeus
User avatar
Ichthus77
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6113
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: pale blue clump of star particles

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:52 pm

Patheos
RELIGION LIBRARY
Paganism
ETHICS AND COMMUNITY
Principles of Moral Thought and Action

Many Pagans consider environmental stewardship and care for the earth to be a central tenet of their religious ethics. Such an emphasis arises less out of traditional maxims or virtues and more out of the widespread contemporary recognition that humanity needs to redefine our relationship with the earth. Consequently, some Pagans feel inspired to engage in personal environmental activities (recycling, organic gardening, using green energy and reusable items like cloth grocery bags), participate in environmental advocacy groups (from national organizations like the Sierra Club to regional and local associations devoted to conservation work), and engage in political action on behalf of environmental causes.


This makes sense of course. Nature would seem to be the bottom line itself for Pagans. On the other hand, given Maia's account of it, communing to and from nature actually isn't an important factor embedded in the moral persuasions of individual Pagans. Also, nature itself in regard to the human species seems entirely amoral. It is bursting at the seams with those ominous "natural disasters" -- even extinction events -- that, for all practical purposes, over and over again, will squash us like so many bugs.

So, to say the least, "Pagan morality" remains pretty much a big mystery to me.

Even in regard to the politics of "climate change", Pagans/Neo-Pagans fit into it given your own political axe to grind: https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/11/08/ ... the-world/

So, as with non-Pagans, there are the facts that confirm your own point of view, and then your own subjective appraisal of those facts that form your value judgments. Again, we are all in the same boat here.

Others within the larger Pagan community may choose not to engage in such activity, either because they do not consider it spiritually necessary or because they do not see a necessary connection between Pagan spirituality and environmental activism. For example, they may prefer to engage in spiritual or magical efforts on behalf of nature, rather than emphasizing social or political action.


So, nature is linked to a "spiritual" sense of reality. But how does the spiritual Self come to embody one set of behaviors rather than another set?

Spiritually necessary or unnecessary. Okay, but how is that actually described to others such that it goes beyond merely whatever you happen to believe it is in your head? Or, again, as I noted on another thread, is that the beauty of embracing a Pagan narrative. You can simply shrug off or ignore those who question your faith by nestling in whatever it is that you do "just believe" to be true as an individual.

Some Pagans will go the political route, others the "magical".

Now, I root this in dasein of course. But that doesn't get me out of the boat either. None of us are actually able to either fully understand or control all of the factors in our life that result in our choosing one or another set of ethics. So, nothing ever gets resolved.

Perhaps never can be resolved. So, our own value judgments are always able to be rationalized in a No God world.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46421
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:57 pm

Ichthus77 wrote:Wow. Got that down to an art, have you?

This would be very entertaining in a live debate. This must happen.


Sadly enough, the New ILP is now all that's left of what used to be a thriving philosophy community.

Indeed, here we are in the philosophy forum itself.

And this is all she can "think up" in the way of contributing to a discussion of morality. [-o<
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46421
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Sculptor » Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:40 pm

iambiguous wrote:I believe what many would construe to be two seemingly conflicting [even contradictory] things:

1] that aborting a human fetus is the killing of an innocent human being
2] that women should be afforded full legal rights to choose abortion
.


In general terms what people believe is of no consequence.
And, indeed this is such a case.
When a person resorts to "belief" instead of uses logic it is often because of some fundemental confusion or error in judgement.
You have presented two statments, and both are wrong in their own way.

1) A foetus is no more a human being that an abortion and a wank rag.
2) A woman has a natural right to choose what they do with their own body. The state has not yet managed to set up a police station insider her womb as so has little right to interfere.

It is of some irony that the same clowns that want to possess legal rights over the contents of a woman's body also are the ones shouting loudest against vaccinations and mask wearing.

Now is you want to talk about legal rights, then the same lex americana that determines a woman's right to her own womb is the same lex americana that determines the definition of what is and is not a "Human Being" with legal rights.
This the contradiction is simply in your own conception of the problem.
Ichthus77 loves himself
Sculptor
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2597
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:56 pm

Sculptor wrote:
iambiguous wrote:I believe what many would construe to be two seemingly conflicting [even contradictory] things:

1] that aborting a human fetus is the killing of an innocent human being
2] that women should be afforded full legal rights to choose abortion
.


In general terms what people believe is of no consequence.
And, indeed this is such a case.
When a person resorts to "belief" instead of uses logic it is often because of some fundemental confusion or error in judgement.
You have presented two statments, and both are wrong in their own way.


In general terms what could possibly be more preposterous?

Here in America, the nine Supremes may well render Roe v. Wade null and void. And they will do so depending on what they believe about abortion. Oh, sure, it will all be linked to the Constitution, but who is kidding whom. They all believe what they do about the morality of abortion. And based on that belief they will reconfigure it into the law of the land. And here of course the majority rules.

As for the morality of abortion and logic? Okay what might that be? How is it either logical or not logical to argue that "aborting a human fetus is the killing of an innocent human being"? How is it either logical or not logical to argue that "women should be afforded full legal rights to choose abortion".

Oh, and here is an example of Sculptor's logic:


Sculptor wrote: 1) A foetus is no more a human being that an abortion and a wank rag.


And how does he go about demonstrating it? Well, he doesn't. He just asserts it to be true and that makes it so. Just as those on the other side assert that human life begins at conception. That too makes it true. Just ask them.

Sculptor wrote: 2) A woman has a natural right to choose what they do with their own body. The state has not yet managed to set up a police station insider her womb as so has little right to interfere.


Same here of course. No "political prejudices" for him. He just knows how rationally -- logically -- men and women are obligated to think: exactly as he does!!!

Then the ad homs of course:

Sculptor wrote: It is of some irony that the same clowns that want to possess legal rights over the contents of a woman's body also are the ones shouting loudest against vaccinations and mask wearing.


Are you a clown? Don't want to be? Then just agree to think exactly like he does about abortion. And [I suspect] about every other moral and political issue there is.

As for this...

Sculptor wrote: Now is you want to talk about legal rights, then the same lex americana that determines a woman's right to her own womb is the same lex americana that determines the definition of what is and is not a "Human Being" with legal rights.
This the contradiction is simply in your own conception of the problem.


...you tell me. It's basically just MenoSpeak to me.




Note to gloominary:

See, I can pin the liberal/left-wing fulminating fanatic objectivists to the mat too.

Well, if I do say so myself.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46421
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:35 pm

Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers… from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have… evolved.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species


Endless forms, indeed: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14616161

"The natural world contains about 8.7 million species, according to a new estimate described by scientists as the most accurate ever.

But the vast majority have not been identified - and cataloguing them all could take more than 1,000 years."


And that's not even counting all of countless species that have gone extinct.

But one thing we can be certain of is that not one of those species comes even remotely close to our own when we speak of concocting "moral theories".

And then [given my own assumptions] the great gaps that exist between moral theory and actual rules of behavior.

“Moral concepts are embodied in and partially constitutive of forms of social life.” Alasdair MacIntyre, Short History of Ethics


And moral practices? What are they embodied in if not hundreds and hundreds of years of actual/factual human history itself? Countless cultures around the globe evolving over the centuries given the parameters of what Karl Marx called "political economy"

Darwin had an evolutionary view of ethics ‘from the side of natural history’ which connects with MacIntyre’s insight into morality’s connections with social life.


Of course, the thing about focusing in on Darwin here is that we are immediately confronted with the enormous complexities embedded in human interactions in which we are never quite certain where nature ends and nurture begins. Where genes segue into memes.

This article will show how Darwin argued in The Descent of Man that the moral sense evolved from a combination of social instincts and well-developed mental powers. If this is so, moral philosophers will need to pay more attention to Darwin’s views, and in response, rethink morality along naturalistic lines. The result, I suggest, can be a rich concept of moral intelligence.


Social instincts and well-developed mental powers. On the other hand, when it comes down to "particular contexts" I suspect that will still revolve largely around whether a moral philosopher is "one of us" or "one of them".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46421
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jan 31, 2022 5:21 pm

Is Moral Relativism Really a Problem?
Psychological research suggests it is not
By Thomas Pölzler at Scientific American

Suppose you believe abortion is permissible. Would that belief alone make it so? No? Then how about if most Americans believed it? Would that suffice? If you think the answer to either question is yes, then chances are you are a moral relativist. You may hold that generally, as Hamlet put it, “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”


This is morality that revolves by and large around what you believe in your head. Or around what the majority of citizens in any particular community believe in their heads. But here that can still be predicated on the assumption that what you and others do believe about permissible or impermissible behavior makes it moral. And how then is that different from someone like me who concludes that morality itself is beyond the reach of, among other things, philosophy.

Not only is morality relative historically, culturally and individually, but, in the absence of God, it can never be more than the existential embodiment of "moderation, negotiation and compromise" among and between mere mortals.

That's the quandary that continues to impale me. Even in professing to be a moral relativist, some are able convince themselves that their own conclusions are still the optimal frame of mind...the "best of all possible worlds".

Moral relativism has as bad a reputation as any view about morality could. For example, in a 2011 interview for the conservative nonprofit American Enterprise Institute, then representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin said, “Moral relativism has done so much damage to the bottom end of this country, the bottom fifth has been damaged by the culture of moral relativism more than by anything else, I would argue. If you ask me what the biggest problem in America is, I’m not going to tell you debt, deficits, statistics, economics—I’ll tell you it’s moral relativism.”


On the other hand, moral relativism might be construed by some as downright constructive next to moral nihilism. The belief that morality itself is basically just a profoundly problematic [at times precarious] existential contraption rooted in the particular life that you lived and, given contingency, chance and change, always subject to reconfiguration given new experiences, new sets of circumstances.

Of course those like Paul Ryan then insist that what must replace moral relativism is moral objectivism. And that necessarily would revolve around what he and his own moral and political ilk deem to be The Right Thing To Do.

And here, as they say, the rest is history.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46421
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:44 pm

Is Moral Relativism Really a Problem?
Psychological research suggests it is not
By Thomas Pölzler at Scientific American

Moral Relativism Is Popular

For moral relativism to be a potential problem, there must be people who believe in it. Many people. In recent years, an increasing number of psychologists have wondered just how relativist Americans really are. At first, their studies seemed to suggest that moral matters are dominantly regarded as objective—that is, as not relative to either the individual or the culture. Looking more carefully at these studies, however, some of my philosophical colleagues and I came to believe that the researchers may not have fully succeeded in measuring what they thought they were.


On the other hand, for moral relativism to be a potential solution, there must be people who believe in it. Many people.

In other words, if more and more people conclude that moral objectivism is the problem, then more and more people might be willing switch over from "right makes might" to "moderation, negotiation and compromise".

Still, it can also be argued that neither moral relativism nor moral objectivism is actually the most potent problem we face. Instead, it's the manner in which, through "pop culture" and "mindless consumerism", we have created a population of millions who go about the business of living their lives from day to day more or less oblivious to what those who own and operate both the economy and the government sustain in the way of "policies" concocted "behind the curtains". Let's call it the Deep State Syndrome.

In light of this problem, I recently decided to team up with Jennifer Wright, a psychologist at the College of Charleston. Together we developed a novel experimental design for measuring views about the foundations of morality. In an online survey, we employed this design with more than 100 U.S. students and so-called crowd workers employed via the Web site Amazon Mechanical Turk.

For example, we asked them how they would interpret situations in which two people disagree about a moral statement (such as that abortion is impermissible). Did they think that one of those people was right and the other was wrong, that both were right, that both were wrong, or that neither was right or wrong?


But here is where I come in. What I would seek to measure is the extent to which, whatever answers and "interpreted situations" are given, the answers and interpretations themselves are rooted subjectively in dasein. Rooted in the arguments I make regarding "I" at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods and political economy. Out in a particular world, understood in a particular manner, given a particular set of circumstances. Same with respect to the answers/interpretations given regarding moral relativism.

It's not the answers/interpretations given that most intrigue me. It's how each of us as individuals come to acquire one frame of mind rather than another. And then the extent to which, using the tools of philosophy, the optimal -- deontological? -- truth can be established.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46421
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Feb 15, 2022 5:09 pm

Is Moral Relativism Really a Problem?
Psychological research suggests it is not
By Thomas Pölzler at Scientific American

When we first looked at our study’s results, Wright and I were stunned. In contrast to much previous research, the majority of participants seemed to deny moral objectivity. They rather dominantly tended toward individualist and culture-based forms of relativism (around 64 percent of all responses), as well as toward other forms of nonobjectivism.

In the disagreement task described above, for example, around half of the subjects answered that the people who affirmed and who denied the permissibility of abortion were both right. If the disagreeing parties were presented as members of different cultures, this answer attracted more than two thirds of responses.


And I suspect that is because, the deeper you go down in thinking about it, the more moral relativism just seems to make sense. All one has to assume further is that there is no God.

But then the gap here that most intrigues me. The one between those who agree that morality is relative historically, culturally and in terms of individual experiences, but don't take it so far as to think that they are "fractured and fragmented" like me.

It's as though they reject universal morality but are still unable to abandon a belief that given particular sets of circumstances morality is at least in the general vicinity of being objective.

Especially in regard to extreme behaviors. Surely, the sexual abuse of children must be objectively immoral. God or No God. Or genocide. Or things like this: https://abcnews.go.com/US/11-mass-deadl ... d=62494128

Yet in the absence of God how would philosophers come up with an argument able to establish that such things are necessarily immoral?

Together with initial subsequent studies, this research hence provides initial evidence for moral relativism being quite widespread. Today many Americans seem to regard the truth of moral judgments as relative to their own beliefs and/or the dominant beliefs of their culture. But this finding does not necessarily mean we should be concerned. Are widespread relativist attitudes indeed a problem, as Ryan and other commentators have suggested? Our findings so far do not yet indicate there is cause for concern.


"Relative to their own beliefs and/or the dominant beliefs of their culture."

So, are they supposing that while other individuals in other cultures may have conflicting moral value judgments, their own are at least superior to all others?

In regard to moral relativism, when then is there cause for concern? Perhaps it revolves around political power itself. Think the Second World War and the Cold War. In important respects, three very different assessments of what the world ought to be. Assessments deemed important enough to fight over.

But which assessment did in fact reflect the most rational and virtuous manner in which human beings should interact?

And what of those who abandon moral considerations altogether and make it all about "me, myself and I"? The "show me the money" global capitalists or the sociopaths.

What of their renditions of "moral relativism"?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46421
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:20 pm

Is Moral Relativism Really a Problem?
Psychological research suggests it is not
By Thomas Pölzler at Scientific American

Moral Relativism Is Not Much of a Problem

Warnings against moral relativism are most often based on theoretical speculation. Critics consider the view’s nature and add certain assumptions about human psychology. Then they infer how being a relativist might affect a person’s behavior. For example, for a relativist, even actions such as murder or rape can never be really or absolutely wrong; they are only wrong to the extent that the relativist or most members of his or her culture believe them to be so.


Let's be blunt...

To the extent that, in any given community, more and more people start to think like this, how can it not but become a very, very big problem.

Basically a community of sociopaths. Not only that but then it would all seem to come down to who has the actual power to make others do his or her own bidding.

That's always been my own quandary here. I recognize that moral nihilism has the potential to be catastrophic in any community, but I don't know how to think myself out of not accepting it as a reasonable frame of mind in a No God world.

One may therefore worry that relativists are less motivated to refrain from murdering and raping than people who regard these actions as objectively wrong. While this scenario may sound plausible, however, it is important to note that relativism’s effects can only ultimately be determined by relevant studies.


Relevant studies? Theoretical assessments?

How about common sense.

If an individual rejects objective morality and is convinced that "in the absence of God, all things are permitted", it then comes down to how far he or she takes that given a particular set of circumstances. And if those circumstances involve the possibility of them murdering or raping you in order to sustain what they perceive to be in their own best interest, "moral relativism" can be described in all the "studies" in the world and it doesn't make your own gruesome fate go away.

No, I recognize the ominous "for all practical purposes" implications of moral relativism spreading more and more across the globe. I just can't come up with an argument [philosophical or otherwise] that puts it in its place. That defeats it.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46421
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby Dan~ » Wed Feb 23, 2022 7:05 am

I just can't come up with an argument [philosophical or otherwise] that puts it in its place. That defeats it.

What if sometimes an idea doesn't require an argument?
What if things don't need proof before they can become true?
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting my free game projects.
ImageImage
Truth is based in sensing, in vision. And we can only see when we are alive.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11090
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Canada Alberta

Re: back to the beginning: morality

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 01, 2022 4:56 pm

Is Moral Relativism Really a Problem?
Psychological research suggests it is not
By Thomas Pölzler at Scientific American

So far, scientific investigations do not support the suspicion that moral relativism is problematic.


Okay, particular scientific investigations suggest this. Me, I'm sticking with my own rendition of common sense. How can the belief that morality is rooted subjectively in all of the many, many different lives lived out in all of the many, many different historical and cultural and individual contexts that have unfolded down through the ages not make morality profoundly problematic?!!

True, there are two studies that do suggest such a conclusion. In one of them, participants were led to think about morality in either relativist or objectivist terms. It turned out that subjects in the relativist condition were more likely to cheat in a lottery and to state that they would be willing to steal than those in the objectivist condition. In the other study, participants who had been exposed to relativist ideas were less likely to donate to charity than those who had been exposed to objectivist ones.


Cheating or stealing or assaulting or killing. Take away God or ideology or deontology or any other transcending font, and what else is there but how each of us, as individuals, given a specific trajectory of uniquely personal experiences, either choose to do these things or choose not to.

How is that not going to be a virtual certainty?

That said, there is also evidence that associates moral relativism with positive behaviors. In one of her earlier studies, Wright and her colleagues informed their participants that another person disagreed with one of their moral judgments. Then the researchers measured the subjects’ degree of tolerance for this person’s divergent moral view. For example, participants were asked how willing they would be to interact with the person, how willing they would be to help him or her and how comfortable they generally were with another individual denying one of their moral judgments. It turned out that subjects with relativist leanings were more tolerant toward the disagreeing person than those who had tended toward objectivism.


Here though the tolerance might revolve around someone being convinced that they can persuade the dissenting party to [eventually] see things their own way. Until [eventually] they come to realize that they can't persuade them. That happens all the time in places like this, right? With me though moral relativism doesn't revolve around "you're right from your side and I'm right from mine...but in the end I'm righter" but given the assumption that right and wrong themselves are but historical and cultural and personal constructs rooted in dasein.

Trust me: that changes everything.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46421
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users