Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

@popeye1945,

I don't think for a minute Religions were a cultural fluke that lead people through a bad path and mind you I am as close to an atheist as one can possibly be without closing any doors just because.
Religions were the social glue that ensured the rule of law back in early days when no police or CCTV cameras were around to see what you were up to at night. There was a God that would see it no matter what and you would pay the price if not in this life on the next one. It worked perfectly. And to an extent it still does for the common Joe.

Proto Religion shiiz like Magic and Shamans and what not all contributed to settle the idea that you would be found in your wronging if you dared to do it.

0 Replies

@popeye1945,

popeye1945 wrote:

Max, We are speculating on what is the logical reference/relational connection to the morality we wish to see as a model. Religions in general are irrational, and this is what most people relate their morality back to, it is a very shaky foundation, as when most of these religions were create human ignorance was all most total.

You seem to be starting with a Western (White European) view of morality, and then searching for dubious links to suggest why this is superior to the morality from other cultures.

The question raised by Moral Relativity is this...

When a Western person (or colonizer) meets an indigenous culture and finds moral values that are drastically different to his own, does he accept the other culture as equally valid?

This is about one culture being superior to another, right?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

It certainly is the case just like in Biology that there are better and worse cultural adaptations...the really bad ones end up extinct.

Americana culture is very much on that dead end road nowadays.

As for Morality from tribalist POV's Max you are one of the worst offenders.
You make arguments ad tribe authority all the time to skip the hard work of explaining or even trying to understand.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

A whole lot of cultures became extinct because they were wiped out by European colonialism.

The Conquest of indigenous cultures by Europeans was based in a belief that Europeans had an absolute morality. You can read the letters of European holy men criticizing the polygamous "barbaric" cultures they found in California. This sense of moral superiority justified and informed a genocide. These indigenous cultures no longer exist.

I am not willing to accept the narrative that these cultures disappeared because they were morally inferior. They were very deliberately wiped out by people who believed they were acting within a system of moral absolutes.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

No one was claiming Indigenous cultures were morally inferior. You are conflating topics. What was explained to you was that morally cultural dead ends go extinct not the people. This happens the same way words fall from use when language evolves. Cultural inapt behaviours with moral wrong guidance end up in uprisings and revolutions that reform the law system to the minimal viable product by which society as a whole can continue functioning. How hard is that to grasp and why are you always making a strawman of what others say to you? Obviously cultures and people can go extinct by a bunch tone of other reasons namely technology supremacy. No news there.

PS - By the way what killed many Indigenous cultures was European flu!

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

I want you explain how you can have moral absolutism without cultural superiority.

Moral relativity only matters when one thriving culture meets another thriving culture and finds they have dramatically different ideas about what is moral behavior.

What should happen in this case? The options you have offered so far are game theory (a European invention with some troubling results) and biology (to which any thriving culture can appeal).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Max, It is speculative, what is best to found a morality on? I say the only sane thing morality should be based upon is the biology that it is to serve. Around the world there are political systems of differing kinds, not everyone believes in democracy, but leading by example many many cultures have adopted that said democracy , the same thing can happen here with a reasonable foundation for morality, biological well being, Biological extension as a system of morality for the people, by the people, makes sense now?

1 Reply

@popeye1945,

Isn't every moral belief system ever held by human beings based on biology?

I don't see how biology helps at all at deciding which human belief about morality is correct.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Cultural adaptation to dynamic background systems happens everywhere, and Moral is included in the menu among many other things. The name of the game in cultural dominance is who has to play catch up. As I've said wrong moral guidance goes extinct because it fails to ensure the minimal viable product when it comes to fairness and common good. Revolutions and uprisings are a natural form of self regulation of the Cultural and Moral ecosystem and oversee that. Now, again, what is that you are not computing? I am doing my best English here!

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Max, Indeed even religions as a foundation of morality, is biologically determined. The morality, the compassion found in these religions was bestowed upon them, not the other way around. But the holy text are really screwed up, as soon as you get into the supernatural and talking snakes all rationality is lost. A biologically based morality is reasonable is logical. Your not seeing, or seeing is biologically determined, in this world the only meaning in the world is possessed by biological consciousness, until, it is bestowed upon the physical world as object. Biology defines the earth, there is no other source of knowledge but, biological consciousness . Life and well being are the natural interests of morality.

2 Replies

@popeye1945,

While I disagree with the biological strictness or uniqueness or exclusivity. I agree with the fundamentals, on which Nature through natural selection a mindless mechanism "bestows" the necessary Morality on complex cultural ecosystems so to ensure their flourishing.

Anomalies in the system are tests to the fitness of the culture in question.
America just got one with Trump and barely made it. The immune system of America culture needs a moral shock to purge the dead weight of ignorance that half of its population endures under Neo-liberalism corporate negligence on education for everyone. Have you taken a good look at Trump voters? We in Europe can stop jaw dropping or laughing our arses off.

0 Replies

@popeye1945,

Quote:

Does a person in a militarily or economically dominant culture have the right to enforce moral standards on indigenous cultures?

This is the important difference between a moral relativist and a moral absolutist. Historically, people in dominant cultures (i.e. White Europeans) have appealed to "natural law" to explain why they have the right to force their ideas on indigenous peoples. Of course, if the roles were reversed the "natural laws" applied would be quite different.

I don't think the biology argument has any relevance, since both European colonizers and indigenous peoples have the same biology.

There is an argument that the success of White European cultures proves that White European cultures are morally superior. I don't know if Albuquerque is making this argument or not when he talks about "cultural evolution".

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

No!
Conflating topics and strawman as usual you should win a Nobel at Strawman!

Moral Realism has nothing to oppose on cultural diversity and moral specific adaptations to the different environments.

The only thing Moral Realists conclude can be understood by a 10 year old children. Namely that there are convergent patterns on all cultures and Moral adaptations to the background. They are the fundamentals for ANY society to work. This is Darwin and there is no debating how it works it is easy to grasp.
Moral dead ends, anomalies in the system, fail the social contract, and thus proportionally lead to riots, uprisings, and revolutions to restore the normal functioning of the social ecosystem!

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

As far as ideas about morality, the United States and Europe are practical identical. Ideas about gender equality, human rights, equality, democracy, rule of law, property ownership.

These are the same in the United States and Europe and quite different from any Asian, African or indigenous culture. The politics are somewhat different, but don't confuse politics with moral understanding.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You wish...America is an Hyperbole of Europe. Yes there are similarities, many in theory but in practice oh boy...I can assure you I would never ever live in America. Not for a million dollars! Believe it if you want to or not, I don't care.

PS - For all the merits that you guys have, and there are a few, it is not nearly enough. No thank you and I wish you honestly all the best!

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Quote:

The only thing Moral Realists conclude can be understood by a 10 year old children. Namely that there are convergent patterns on all cultures and Moral adaptations to the background. They are the fundamentals for ANY society to work. This is Darwin and there is no debating how it works it is easy to grasp.

So what? This is completely acceptable to a Moral Relativist.

The convergent patterns seen in cultures worldwide include war. Nearly every successful culture writes songs to glorify war and builds monuments to celebrate great battles. Nearly every culture has an idea of caste (in modern cultures this is wealth and education) and nearly every culture has well defined gender roles.

There are lots of patterns human nature. The question is how to deal with the dramatic differences between cultures.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

You wish...America is an Hyperbole of Europe. Yes there are similarities, many in theory but in practice oh boy...I can assure you I would never ever live in America. Not for a million dollars! Believe it if you want to or not, I don't care.

and I was just about to write you a check. Darn.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Who told war is not necessary just like a natural fire is needed in forestal recycling?
I am not here to win arguments ad populum so I can say what it needs to be said, and I will do so, no matter how counter mainstream it might be.

Do you think that the 3% of Sociopaths and Psychopaths are not needed in the social ecosystem? Why are they not extinct? You see a few of them serve the purpose of getting the greasers fit and awaken and on its toes...

Who told you Moral Realism is black and white and linear?
Moral Realism just asserts that all cultures that thrive have a social contract of effective cooperation with an healthy degree of competition for innovation.

The specifics of this or that law in different cultures will stand the trial of time and be gone if they are unproductive. And this is where the convergence comes in. Just like in Biology what works stands the trial of time and what doesn't is recycled.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

I don't see any contradiction between what you are calling "Moral Realism" and what I am calling "Moral Relativism".

It is reasonable to judge a moral system based on the stability and economic success of the culture that holds it. Of course, there were successful cultures that had moral practices that would be completely unacceptable to people in modern Western cultures.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying about "Moral Realism". Of course there are other variables. Many of the cultures that were wiped off the face of the earth faced militarily superior enemies who did the wiping.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Finally we can agree that our supposed disagreement steams from a misinterpretation on what Moral Realism can claim and what it cannot claim.

Moral Realism has very simple main foundational rules but does not oppose cultural diversity. Just like many distinct Biological ecosystems on Earth that differ from each other they all are equal in the structural Maths by which they operate without collapsing. This is to simply mean in all ecosystems there needs to be balance. In my view Morality is a by product of evolution on which you can observe a system being more energy efficient/productive at complex tasking by cooperating not just competing. The second rule of Darwinism, cooperation, doesn't take away any of the need to compete when competing is fair game and establishes a better equilibrium in game theory.

In 2 sentences:

1 - You compete when you can.
2 - You cooperate when competing doesn't solve the problem.

1 Reply

Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know