'Can Science answer Moral questions

[Freeman Dyson]

Which one? Not that it matters.

As I said, Harris is just rehashing utilitarianism. He, and others, have been doing this for a while now. I've seen the arguments, and all they amount to is this: pain is bad, pleasure is good, therefore my morality is scientific, and if you disagree with me, you are ignorant and stupid.

You should watch the Harvard Justice series... Harris' understanding of philosophy is pablum by comparsion.

He got lit up on his own website comment section. Fact is, nobody would be talking about any of this if he didn't already write two best selling books. As someone posted on his site, submit this nonsense for double blind peer review and see how far you get, Sam.

Harris is simply an authoritarian. Nothing else. He want his politics and ideas not to be challenged.

 

[brainstorm]

It seems to me that the primary issue is people who have a problem with the idea that their preferences and values are not based on objective fact. They seem to need some reason to feel that their opinion carries weight and is more "right" than others. In this way "realism" or "utilitarianism" does not seem so different from "absolutism"; their adherents all want some reason to believe that their ethical choices are in fact superior.

People only claim relativism when they have come to the realization that their position is indefensible yet they continue to want to maintain it.

If you think that absolutism is "bad" and relativism is superior, how are you being relativistic?

The reality of power is that moral choices are defensible or indefensible based on reason and that people have the power to hold each other accountable to reasonability and other standards.

The problem for me comes when people decide to hold others accountable to standards without holding those standards accountable to reason. I.e. "that's just the way it is." If you can reasonably defend your morality and choices, others should be able to reasonably validate or invalidate your reasons. If they can't, they should not exercise power in your life.

 

[JoeDawg]

If you think that absolutism is "bad" and relativism is superior, how are you being relativistic?

You're playing word games.

Relativism is not about having a superior morality. Its about acknowledging that *I* have a morality, and that other people have different ones. The only people claiming superiority are those who advocate for absolute or objective morals.

Relativism is not absolutely or objectively anything. And no that is not an absolute statement, its an opinion... an opinion, I put value on... it is my opinion.

Relativism is about, and recognizes, context as the key element to value.

Claiming an absolute morality can be very useful... if you want to be a dictator or prophet.

 

[JoeDawg]

He got lit up on his own website comment section.

Harris got famous for taking a *common* sense view of religion... but having common sense... even a lot of it, doesn't make one an expert in every field that interests them.

This is a *common* mistake.
Listening to physicists talk philosophy for instance can be quite frustrating... but it can also be interesting. Harris has his good moments too.

 

[brainstorm]

You're playing word games.

It's not word games. You're so stuck in your faith in relativism that you've lost sight of your own absolute (non-relativist) beliefs.

Relativism is not absolutely or objectively anything. And no that is not an absolute statement, its an opinion... an opinion, I put value on... it is my opinion.

When you say "opinion," I assume you are distinguishing opinions from facts. If you believe in facts, do you also believe that those are relative to "context?" Do you believe that truth is impossible to prove?

Relativism is about, and recognizes, context as the key element to value.

If you accept the relativism of context, why can't you accept universalistic morality as valid in its own context? If part of my morality says that I should teach you the universal truth, how can you say that I'm wrong to do that if you validate my perspective in my own context? If you are truly relativistic, what even gives you the right to impose your boundaries between people and contexts on other people? You may say that everyone has the right to their own autonomous culture/territory, but isn't that just your own opinion in the context in which you understand it? Couldn't my opinion be that everyone I come in contact with is part of my cultural context and therefore it is my duty to police their morality? Aren't cultures of moral paternalism just as valid as cultures of moral relativism from a relativistic perspective?

Claiming an absolute morality can be very useful... if you want to be a dictator or prophet.

As a relativist, are you able to express moral evaluation of the use of absolute morality to achieve dictator or prophet status? If you are entitled to your opinion, what gives you the right to push it on me?

 

[Nusc]

Listening to physicists talk philosophy for instance can be quite frustrating... but it can also be interesting. Harris has his good moments too.

Can you give a reference for this?

And from Harris?

 

[Nusc]

If you are entitled to your opinion, what gives you the right to push it on me?

lol...

 

[JoeDawg]

It's not word games. You're so stuck in your faith in relativism that you've lost sight of your own absolute (non-relativist) beliefs.

Funny, but empty.

When you say "opinion," I assume you are distinguishing opinions from facts.

No, I'm not. Every fact I know... I know. They are part of me. I have a history. I'm not an objective observer. Objectivity is a goal, its not a reality. Science strives to be as objective as possible, but its really just an ideal, we are limited by our perspectives.

Not every opinion I have has the same value, some have a more firm foundation in my experience, and I call those facts, others have a less firm foundation and I call those estimates or guesses...

Do you believe that truth is impossible to prove?

What is 'true' is a function of knowledge. Knowledge is descriptive and thus, always created. Knowledge is about existense, it is not existense. You kant know the 'thinginitself'

If you accept the relativism of context, why can't you accept universalistic morality as valid in its own context?

Its perfectly valid, if you want to be a dictator or a pope. Its not valid if you are interested in emprical investigation. That is context. Relativism doesn't mean we can't make judgements, its about assigning value based on context, as opposed to claiming a 'knowledge that is independent of perspective'. That is nonsense, if one takes into account a modern understanding of the world. If one is a religious nut, thou shalt not kill, is a perfectly fine absolute statement.

If it helps, think of relativism as describing knowledge as a recursive algorithm... and yes that is just an analogy. My impression so far is you have no interest in understanding relativism, only disputing it.

If part of my morality says that I should teach you the universal truth, how can you say that I'm wrong to do that if you validate my perspective in my own context?

Well if it is valid in your context, which you haven't shown yet, then it is valid in your context. That doesn't make it less relative. It just means, we don't share that context. For something to be universal it has to be valid in all times and places.

I have yet to see that... feel free to provide it... showing its true might be more problematic.

If you are truly relativistic, what even gives you the right to impose your boundaries between people and contexts on other people?

I give me the right. I value my judgement, in fact, my judgement is all I have. I get input from others... but in the end any value I assign... its up to me. Even if you believe in a holy book or a god, you have to first, take the step to assign value to it. So its all about me.

You may say that everyone has the right to their own autonomous culture/territory

I did? I'm pretty sure I didn't. Maybe someone else here did.

As a relativist, are you able to express moral evaluation of the use of absolute morality to achieve dictator or prophet status?

Well, currently I have no interest in being either, once you start giving orders, its just work work work...

If you are entitled to your opinion, what gives you the right to push it on me?

I do.

 

[JoeDawg]

Can you give a reference for this?

To my frustration with physicists?

And from Harris?

I found some of what he wrote in his 'Christian nation' book, interesting.
You want quotes?? Been a while since I read it.

 

[Nusc]

To my frustration with physicists?

I found some of what he wrote in his 'Christian nation' book, interesting.
You want quotes?? Been a while since I read it.

Yes.

Please I don't have the book.

 

[JoeDawg]

Yes.

Please I don't have the book.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307278778/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Nusc]

With your frustration with physicists as well.

What quote in the book?

Interesting he only dedicated this book to his wife.

 

[JoeDawg]

With your frustration with physicists as well.

That was a joke, I was referring to this forum.

 

[brainstorm]

o, I'm not. Every fact I know... I know. They are part of me. I have a history. I'm not an objective observer. Objectivity is a goal, its not a reality. Science strives to be as objective as possible, but its really just an ideal, we are limited by our perspectives.

Not every opinion I have has the same value, some have a more firm foundation in my experience, and I call those facts, others have a less firm foundation and I call those estimates or guesses...

But by distinguishing more from less "firm foundations," you are presuming that there is some truth or factuality that is not relative. Either that or you don't have enough faith in your own relativism to permit yourself to regard your own truth as absolute on the basis that every relativist context is a true as it regards itself.

What is 'true' is a function of knowledge. Knowledge is descriptive and thus, always created. Knowledge is about existense, it is not existense. You kant know the 'thinginitself'

If you can accept that truth is created, why can't you see that truth is created transcontextually as well? In other words, truth-knowledge is asserted beyond the relativism of context. When I say that, I presume it to be true without qualification. I am open to critical claims that refute mine, but my assumption (within my own relative context of knowledge of course) is that if you prove me wrong, I will recognize your truth as true for me and everyone else until I am convinced otherwise.

Its perfectly valid, if you want to a dictator or a pope. Its not valid if you are interested in emprical investigation. That is context. Relativism doesn't mean we can't make judgements, its about assigning value based on context, as opposed to claiming a 'knowledge that is independent of perspective'. That is nonsense, if one takes into account a modern understanding of the world. If one is a religious nut, thou shalt not kill, is a perfectly fine absolute statement.

How can you even distinguish between someone you call a "religious nut" and a rigorous empiricist if you truly believe the knowledge of both is relative to their contexts? You are clearly a closet modernist who believes your own perspective has progressed beyond those of "backward" people like the "religious nut."

If you were really empirically disciplined, you could step away from your own perspective long enough to observe it as one just like any other. Then, if you wanted to compare it with others without privileging it on any basis, you would experiment with worldviews radically different from your own and compare how the world looks through multiple lenses. At that point, you could reflect on the cultural values that allow you to evaluate one perspective as being more valid that the other and experiment with changing it so that other perspectives are more valid. At that point, you will have either discovered truth-power or you'll be completely lost for lack of even the most basic compass of reason and logic, but luckily your total faith in relativism will assure you that your lost-ness is no worse or better than any other position.

If it helps, think of relativism as describing knowledge as a recursive algorithm... and yes that is just an analogy. My impression so far is you have no interest in understanding relativism, only disputing it.

I have no idea what this means. You have yet to convince me that there's anything superior enough about relativism that I should let go of my compass long enough to explore it. In truth, I have my own relativism, but I have no way of comparing its validity with yours because they are radically different contexts that are incapable of evaluating one another, even in terms of relative similarity or difference.

Well if it is valid in your context, which you haven't shown yet, then it is valid in your context. That doesn't make it less relative. It just means, we don't share that context. For something to be universal it has to be valid in all times and places.

Nope. Universalism is relative. That means that for something to be universal, it has to be successfully claimed as universal. If the claim is refuted, it is not universal. Are you claiming that validity in all times and places is sufficient to demonstrate universality? I dispute your claim by claiming that it is impossible to research validity in all times and places prior to making a claim of universality, therefore universality is only assertable as a tentative proposition.

I give me the right. I value my judgement, in fact, my judgement is all I have. I get input from others... but in the end any value I assign... its up to me. Even if you believe in a holy book or a god, you have to first, take the step to assign value to it. So its all about me.

Well, at least we agree on one thing. No authority can be recognized in the absence of applying one's own authority to the task of validating it.

 

[JoeDawg]

But by distinguishing more from less "firm foundations," you are presuming that there is some truth or factuality that is not relative.

No, I'm not. Truth is: an accurate description of the current context. In this case, I can talk accurately about my experience, experience is subjective. I'm not claiming its objective.

I do find it amusing how you keep telling me what my position is.

If you can accept that truth is created, why can't you see that truth is created transcontextually as well?

Agreement doesn't make something objective. We can agree on all kinds of things. And you can define 'truth' in all different kinds of ways.

How can you even distinguish between someone you call a "religious nut" and a rigorous empiricist if you truly believe the knowledge of both is relative to their contexts?

I'm sure the 'religious nut' doesn't think of himself as a religious nut. There is nothing objective about that description. It is my assesment based on my experience.

You are clearly a closet modernist

Postmodernism isn't that different from modernism. Its just a matter of perspective.

If you were really empirically disciplined...

Empiricism is the epistemological view that knowledge is derived from experience.
Relativism is all about experience.

You have yet to convince me that there's anything superior enough about relativism

LOL. That's because there is nothing objectively superior about relativism, that would be entirely self-contradictory. Its is merely useful in certain contexts.

Are you claiming that validity in all times and places is sufficient to demonstrate universality?

Something being universal, and demostrating it is universal, are different things.

I dispute your claim by claiming that it is impossible to research validity in all times and places prior to making a claim of universality, therefore universality is only assertable as a tentative proposition.

Huh?
I think you just deconstructed yourself.

 

[Nusc]

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink#Groupthink_and_de-individuation
Groupthink, resulting from the symptoms listed above, results in defective decision making. That is, consensus-driven decisions are the result of the following practices of groupthinking
Incomplete survey of alternatives
Incomplete survey of objectives
Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives
Poor information search
Selection bias in collecting information
Failure to work out contingency plans.

That's representative democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy


We need direct democracy.

 

[JoeDawg]

We need direct democracy.

We do?

 

[Nusc]

We do?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2687796&posted=1#post2687796

 

[JoeDawg]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2687796&posted=1#post2687796

Oh well, as long as some guy on the internet said it, it must be true :)

 

[Nusc]

The cheapest department is Philosophy; they don't need a trash bin.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

People only claim relativism when they have come to the realization that their position is indefensible yet they continue to want to maintain it.

If you think that absolutism is "bad" and relativism is superior, how are you being relativistic?

The reality of power is that moral choices are defensible or indefensible based on reason and that people have the power to hold each other accountable to reasonability and other standards.

The problem for me comes when people decide to hold others accountable to standards without holding those standards accountable to reason. I.e. "that's just the way it is." If you can reasonably defend your morality and choices, others should be able to reasonably validate or invalidate your reasons. If they can't, they should not exercise power in your life.

I pretty much agree with Joe. The only clarification I would make, and I think that Joe has more or less said the same thing, is that I see "Relativism" not as an ethical system but as a mode of analyzing ethical systems. "Absolutism", "Realism", ect are all similarly modes of analyzing ethical systems. The primary difference is that absolutism, realism, and utilitarianism all claim the ability to know or discover objective ethical/moral truths.

I do not say that relativism is ethically superior since I do not see relativism, or any of the others, as ethical systems. I am of the opinion that the logic of the relativist perspective on ethical systems is more sound. In the post you responded to I was not claiming that there is anything ethically "bad" about Absolutism, et al, only that the appeal of these perspectives all seem the same; they promise ethical superiority.

As for the defensibility issue I am quite capable of making logical arguments for my ethical positions based on my personal values. I may even attempt to persuade others that I see have similar personal values to consider my positions as preferable. I may also allow myself to be persuaded that my positions are not so preferable. At the end of the day though I realize that my ethical beliefs are based on subjective values and there is no reason that anyone else ought or must see them as being "True".

 

[brainstorm]

No, I'm not. Truth is: an accurate description of the current context. In this case, I can talk accurately about my experience, experience is subjective. I'm not claiming its objective.

I do find it amusing how you keep telling me what my position is.

I'm just analyzing what you give me to analyze. Now I'm seeing that you view context as somehow factual. In what sense can context be factual, iyo? Can you give an example. I used to study cultural-studies context-orientation and I found it heuristically valuable but empirically vague. At present I would guess that you view context as some kind of "social fact" in the Durkheimian sense, which to me means nothing more than there are patterns of social power exercised to attempt domination/coercion in favor of certain knowledge or thought patterns over others. It sort of implies that conformity is the basis of all knowledge and truth, which is troubling to me. I believe that humans are capable of negotiating knowledge, truth, and culture in ways and for reasons other than conformity, so I consider context-authoritarianism limited at best and ethically irresponsible at worst.

Agreement doesn't make something objective. We can agree on all kinds of things. And you can define 'truth' in all different kinds of ways.

No, I agree. We can both be wrong and agree with each other. Truth is produced through reason and other forms of power. I no longer believe that truth exists outside the exercise of power to establish it.

I'm sure the 'religious nut' doesn't think of himself as a religious nut. There is nothing objective about that description. It is my assesment based on my experience.

Your experience as a secular-nut?

Empiricism is the epistemological view that knowledge is derived from experience.
Relativism is all about experience.

I would say that empiricism is not so much about subjective experience as it is about sensory experience. I have come to an empirical approach to subjectivity by thinking of inner-experiences as events that can be perceived and witnessed. The easiest example is that you can witness yourself having a thought without evaluating the truth-value or anything else about the thought. It is simply observable in the form in which it emerged.

To claim the experiences are relative because they are experiences is problematic. You're moving from observing experience empirically to making a claim about it based on assumptions or inferences. What it comes down to is this: For you to claim that relativism is valid, you have to recognize some basis for validating it. Until you recognize that basis as itself relative, you're not really practicing relativism; only asserting it within a non-relativistic frame of mind.

LOL. That's because there is nothing objectively superior about relativism, that would be entirely self-contradictory. Its is merely useful in certain contexts.

"Useful" is a status. Utility is a virtue. If you were truly relativistic, why would you value relativism for being useful? Why wouldn't you prefer universalism because it's an empty and useless concept, for example?

Something being universal, and demostrating it is universal, are different things.

As I said, you could only ever demonstrate something as being universal if it was possible for you to have access to unlimited contexts. Since you don't, universalism is a "tentative proposition" that leaves itself open for falsification. If I claim that it is universal that people attempt to debunk truth-claims, my claim can only be sustained until I recognize a case in which someone sufficiently resists debunking any truth-claim for their entire lives or whatever criteria is operationalized to define "never debunks truth-claims." As soon as the experimental subject attempts to debunk a truth-claim, my universalist hypothesis stands and remains a tentative-proposition for yet another round of testing.

Huh?
I think you just deconstructed yourself.

How is that? I just explained it further in this post. Your operational definition of universalism invalidates any claim of universality on the basis that it is not possible to test universality in every possible context that would make up the "universal set." By your definition, it becomes impossible to even think universality as a constraint of material limitations of knowledge. That's nonsense, because it is empirically clear that IT IS possible to think universality despite the constraints of material limitations. Therefore, empirically, you have to recognize a basis for claiming universality other than absolute universality. I suggest tentative universality solves the problem by qualifying assertions of universality in the framework that they are always tentative propositions by virtue of not being able to be more.

 

[Nusc]

It seems to me that the primary issue is people who have a problem with the idea that their preferences and values are not based on objective fact. They seem to need some reason to feel that their opinion carries weight and is more "right" than others. In this way "realism" or "utilitarianism" does not seem so different from "absolutism"; their adherents all want some reason to believe that their ethical choices are in fact superior.

Isn't utilitarianism non-absolutist ?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Isn't utilitarianism non-absolutist ?

I am comparing them only in reference to a perceived (by me) goal, that being a form of ethical certainty or superiority.

 

[octelcogopod]

brainstorm why are you pushing some universal relativism on joe?
The fact that all moral and ethical values are created in the mind based on experience is undeniable.
There is a difference between an opinion and a fact.. You seem to claim we are pushing our moral values on you simply by saying no morals are better than any others, or better yet, you can decide on whatever moral values you want to.

The default non biased view is that all morals and values are created subjectively in the mind.. If you claim one shall not kill or similar, you are then breaking that default view and applying a moral principle unto others... And then the burden of proof is in your hand.
If you think it's absolutist to call this a default view, then tell me, how else are we supposed to do it?
I supposed we could blank out our minds and pretend we have no idea what anyone else is thinking, or how the world works.. We could drop all our knowledge and say "I have no idea"..

But that's not how the world works.. Saying that moral values are created subjectively is not an assumption, it's a fact.. Saying that killing is wrong however IS an assumption, at least in the absolutist sense.

 

[Nusc]

I am comparing them only in reference to a perceived (by me) goal, that being a form of ethical certainty or superiority.

Is there any literature on this?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If you think it's absolutist to call this a default view, then tell me, how else are we supposed to do it?

I noted earlier that I see relativism as not a mode of ethical judgment but rather of analyzing/perceiving ethical systems. One might conclude a possible meta-ethical judgment, that relativists suppose an ethical superiority in their perception and application of ethical systems, but I would counter that it is merely an objective evaluation of logical consistency from which one might then derive a personal ethical value judgment.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Is there any literature on this?

None that I am personally aware of. I am merely expressing it as an opinion based on my, perhaps limited, understanding of the philosophies. It would seem to me that the ultimate purpose of utilitarian ethics is to formulate ethical propositions that come as close to ethical certainty as practicably possible. Though it may shy from asserting any possibility of absolute certainty the goal would still seem to be a superior ethical system.

 

[Nusc]

None that I am personally aware of. I am merely expressing it as an opinion based on my, perhaps limited, understanding of the philosophies. It would seem to me that the ultimate purpose of utilitarian ethics is to formulate ethical propositions that come as close to ethical certainty as practicably possible. Though it may shy from asserting any possibility of absolute certainty the goal would still seem to be a superior ethical system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Moral absolutism and religion

Moral absolutism may be understood in a strictly secular context, as in many forms of deontological moral rationalism. However, many religions have morally absolutist positions as well, regarding their system of morality as deriving from the commands of a god. Therefore, they regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable. Many secular philosophies also take a morally absolutist stance, arguing that absolute laws of morality are inherent in the nature of human beings, the nature of life in general, or the universe itself. For example, someone who believes absolutely in nonviolence considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defense. For another example, under some religious moral absolutist beliefs, homosexual behavior is considered fundamentally wrong, even in a consensual relationship.

The historical character of religious belief is seen by some[2][Need quotation on talk to verify] as grounds for criticism of religious moral absolutism. On the other hand, the fact that some moral changes, such as from permitting slavery to prohibiting it,[3] apparently are "progress", is seen by others as evidence for absolutism, not necessarily religious. This can be a criticism of certain religions who abide by such rules.

Those posts above were actually irrelevant in this context. I should have put that in the OP - my bad.

 

[brainstorm]

brainstorm why are you pushing some universal relativism on joe?

To point out that he's not as relativist as he thinks. Claiming relativism while working from a certain ethnocentrism denies responsibility for your cultural standpoint. I happen to believe that different cultural standpoints can critique each other from the perspective of universalizing truth discourse. When people use relativism to defend a particular standpoint from accountability, they either have to prove their relativism or defend their claims/culture reasonably. What right does anyone have to defend their own culture against reason in the name of relativism if they are not themselves relativist?

The fact that all moral and ethical values are created in the mind based on experience is undeniable.
There is a difference between an opinion and a fact.. You seem to claim we are pushing our moral values on you simply by saying no morals are better than any others, or better yet, you can decide on whatever moral values you want to.

When you say that "no morals are better than any others," you're misrepresenting your own beliefs, because if you differentiate opinion from fact, you make a moral distinction between calling fact opinion and denying subjectivity in factuality. If my moral and ethical values are to regard facts and opinions as stylistic distinctions, you are incapable of respecting my values/culture, because you simply think I'm wrong. It would therefore be hypocritical of you to claim relative moral values and then judge mine as wrong. That's why you have to take responsibility for your ethnocentrism, instead of claiming to be relativist and stating objective "facts" as if universal truth was not claims-making from your own perspective.

The default non biased view is that all morals and values are created subjectively in the mind.. If you claim one shall not kill or similar, you are then breaking that default view and applying a moral principle unto others... And then the burden of proof is in your hand.
If you think it's absolutist to call this a default view, then tell me, how else are we supposed to do it?

You don't have to view morals and values as anything more than subjective to apply power to their defense. If someone, or multiple people, decide subjectively that killing is wrong, they can simply claim sovereignty over a given territory or certain people and enforce their morality by force. You can claim that this is wrong, but to do so you have to claim that your truth of right and wrong applies to them. It's not a question of proof but power.

I supposed we could blank out our minds and pretend we have no idea what anyone else is thinking, or how the world works.. We could drop all our knowledge and say "I have no idea"..

What does it matter what anyone else is thinking? If they are wrong, then they're wrong, right? Or is truth a majoritarian privilege?

But that's not how the world works.. Saying that moral values are created subjectively is not an assumption, it's a fact.. Saying that killing is wrong however IS an assumption, at least in the absolutist sense.

Moral values are created subjectively but contested through multiple discourses of power. Claiming that your morality prohibits killing won't stop someone else from killing you if their morality allows it, or if they simply disregard their moral prohibition. Therefore, if you're going to accept that someone is going to kill you or someone else on the basis of their own moral/ethical values, why wouldn't you accept that you or anyone else has the right to a morality/ethic in which they push their values on other people? At least moral paternalism can be discussed, unlike killing (and intimidation by violence) which is what people generally exercise in protection of their right to cultural freedom.

I'm basically for reduction of violence, and if arguing against cultural relativism in favor of cultural accountability to universal reason reduces violence, I will assert its cultural superiority to cultural relativism. If you are truly a cultural relativist, then you will support my right to do that.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Moral values are created subjectively but contested through multiple discourses of power. Claiming that your morality prohibits killing won't stop someone else from killing you if their morality allows it, or if they simply disregard their moral prohibition. Therefore, if you're going to accept that someone is going to kill you or someone else on the basis of their own moral/ethical values, why wouldn't you accept that you or anyone else has the right to a morality/ethic in which they push their values on other people? At least moral paternalism can be discussed, unlike killing (and intimidation by violence) which is what people generally exercise in protection of their right to cultural freedom.

This seems to invoke the old "murderer/self defense" argument which is a false dichotomy. The logic seems to run something like "If you except all ethical propositions as equally valid then you must allow the person who wishes to kill you to do so because defending yourself would necessitate invalidating the ethical proposition that this person has the right to kill you." This fails, though, to take the logic to its fullest conclusion, that being "If all ethical propositions are equally valid then the proposition that I have the right to defend myself is equal in validity to the proposition that the murderer has the right to kill me."

The argument disingenuously purports to deconstruct relativism based on relativist logic when in fact it cuts in and uses objectivist logic for its final conclusion. It bases the conclusion on the principle that two mutually exclusive propositions may not be simultaneously valid but this principle only holds true if we are considering objective validity. Relativist logic states that the objective validity of any ethical proposition is exactly zero. If we consider the validity of any ethical proposition as subjective only the mutual exclusion principle does not apply and the dichotomy disappears.

 

[JoeDawg]

Now I'm seeing that you view context as somehow factual.

Every fact, has a context. We can group similar facts together and create rules, or generalizations. We can also call these facts, but they are not 'universal'. They exist within a context.

An apple falls on Newton's head.
Apples fall.
Objects move according to a law of gravity.
Gravity describes how mass curves spacetime.

All follow from the context of Newton who is a conscious human being residing on earth. This is not to say that 'existence' is all in Newton's head, but knowledge of existense is.

These are observations of what is. Any discussion of morals, goes beyond that, and deals with counterfactuals and future events.

Truth is about the correspondence, between knowledge and observation. If you can't observe the universe as a whole, you can't have knowledge that corresponds to the universe as a whole. No universals.
There can certainly be facts about societies and one's place in society.

It sort of implies that conformity is the basis of all knowledge and truth, which is troubling to me.

We don't create knowledge as individuals, if that is what you mean.

Your experience as a secular-nut?

I like to think of myself more as a cashew.

I would say that empiricism is not so much about subjective experience as it is about sensory experience.

All sensory experience is subjective. But individuals can share similar subjective experiences.

It is simply observable in the form in which it emerged.

Modern neuroscience disagrees, the thoughts we have are heavily filtered and constructed, separating a thought from the process of thinking, would be highly problematic.

For you to claim that relativism is valid, you have to recognize some basis for validating it. Until you recognize that basis as itself relative

Of course it is, I'm the subject, it is an experience I have, therefore it is a subjective experience. In fact, I can't even conceive of an experience that is not subjective.

If you were truly relativistic, why would you value relativism for being useful?

Because I choose to. You seem to equate relativism with randomness, it is not about assigning random value to things, its about context. Within the context of my subjective experience certain things have value. I don't claim they have objective, or absolute value.

As I said, you could only ever demonstrate something as being universal if it was possible for you to have access to unlimited contexts. Since you don't, universalism is a "tentative proposition" that leaves itself open for falsification.

I have no problem with methodological naturalism, but that has nothing to do with universals. I have no access to unlimited contexts, so I think you are abusing falsification. Falsification is only useful if you can 'practically' falsify something.

my universalist hypothesis stands and remains a tentative-proposition for yet another round of testing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot"

That's nonsense, because it is empirically clear that IT IS possible to think universality despite the constraints of material limitations.

It is possible to generalize from observations. Universals are a different thing.

 

[brainstorm]

This seems to invoke the old "murderer/self defense" argument which is a false dichotomy. The logic seems to run something like "If you except all ethical propositions as equally valid then you must allow the person who wishes to kill you to do so because defending yourself would necessitate invalidating the ethical proposition that this person has the right to kill you." This fails, though, to take the logic to its fullest conclusion, that being "If all ethical propositions are equally valid then the proposition that I have the right to defend myself is equal in validity to the proposition that the murderer has the right to kill me."

The argument disingenuously purports to deconstruct relativism based on relativist logic when in fact it cuts in and uses objectivist logic for its final conclusion. It bases the conclusion on the principle that two mutually exclusive propositions may not be simultaneously valid but this principle only holds true if we are considering objective validity. Relativist logic states that the objective validity of any ethical proposition is exactly zero. If we consider the validity of any ethical proposition as subjective only the mutual exclusion principle does not apply and the dichotomy disappears.

You're correct that your relativism allows you to take an ethical position that allows you to commit violence (physical or cultural) toward others regardless of your recognition of cultural difference. So cultural relativism is to you not a moral basis for respect but merely a recognition on the way to colonization and ethnocentric domination?

Where I think you fall short of strong relativism is that you negate the possibility of objective validity. Absolute relativism allows you to construct objective validity from your subjective, culturally-specific position. This is possible because strong relativism should not recognize any such thing as a possibility of objective validity. So from the perspective of strong relativism, objective validity and objectivism generally were never anything more or less than another relative cultural expression.

Where relativism fails, imo, is when truth-power is exercised by making claims of one position's validity versus another's. At point, the invalidated position can simply claim cultural relativism and maintain its own truth according to its own culture - but what happens if the critic continues to assert invalidation? At that point there is conflict to deal with, which requires the cultural relativist either resort to some form of repressive violence to avoid responding to the criticism OR it has to engage in a reasonable defense through appeal to universal reason. When a cultural standpoint is willing to engage in repression or violence to silence critique, I favor the use of violence in favor of universal reason because at least with universal reason, cultures have a chance to defend their legitimacy verses others, while in total cultural relativism no culture can respond to critique EXCEPT through repressive violence toward difference.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You're correct that your relativism allows you to take an ethical position that allows you to commit violence (physical or cultural) toward others regardless of your recognition of cultural difference. So cultural relativism is to you not a moral basis for respect but merely a recognition on the way to colonization and ethnocentric domination?

Where I think you fall short of strong relativism is that you negate the possibility of objective validity. Absolute relativism allows you to construct objective validity from your subjective, culturally-specific position. This is possible because strong relativism should not recognize any such thing as a possibility of objective validity. So from the perspective of strong relativism, objective validity and objectivism generally were never anything more or less than another relative cultural expression.

I am not actually a cultural relativist. You might say that I subscribe to an ethically relativist individualism. I do not believe that intellectual abstractions such as "culture" can be held ethically accountable, only individuals, so it would seem meaningless to frame my perceptions around "culture".
Perhaps my arguments regarding historical interpretation of the constitution in another thread have led you to believe I am a cultural relativist?

 

[brainstorm]

I am not actually a cultural relativist. You might say that I subscribe to an ethically relativist individualism. I do not believe that intellectual abstractions such as "culture" can be held ethically accountable, only individuals, so it would seem meaningless to frame my perceptions around "culture".
Perhaps my arguments regarding historical interpretation of the constitution in another thread have led you to believe I am a cultural relativist?

Regardless of whether you focus on all culture or just ethical culture, your relativism seems to presume that you have the right to avoid other people holding you accountable to their ethics. The problem with that is how can you claim them pushing their ethics on you is unethical without having your own ethics to claim that?

If I consider it ethical to intervene in the unethical behavior of others, how are you going to assert that it is actually unethical to intervene, if you don't allow yourself to hold others accountable to your ethics?