19
   

Relativity of morality

 
 
InkRune
 
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 02:21 am
For this discussion I'm going to use the term Relativity of Morality to define the thought that each individual creates his/her/other morality.

Postulate 1
If morality is relative, then anyone can believe anything.

Postulate 2
If anyone can believe anything, then everything is believable

With me so far?
So now to add a little grittier bit.

Postulate 3
If everything is believable, then there are no lies, except when someone believes there are lies.

Well, that postulate should probably be redefined.

Postulate 3 revisited
If everything is believable, nothing is true.

Almost there! Do you kinda see how this works?
While this discussion is titled Relativity of Morality, a more fitting term might be Relativity of Ideals, but I don't think I should change it, because its not one of my ideals.

Postulate 3 finalized - Now titled Axiom 1
If everything is believable, anyone can believe anything.

By defining Postulate 3 as an Axiom we're able to define its definent quality.

So by defining Postulates 1
(If morality is relevative, then anyone can believe anything)
and 2
(If anyone can believe anything, then everything is believable)
and then condensing them into a more or less acceptable Axiom
(If everything is believable, anyone can believe anything)
we've come full circle, and barely missed the tragedy of circular reasoning.

Questions?
 
InkRune
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 02:32 am
Fyi I didn't post this as any kind of viable argument either way.
So don't take me too seriously.
0 Replies
 
InkRune
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 02:39 am
Ok so going on -

If I'm sitting on a rock, and it is a rock, I can test it, maybe even guess at its age, feel that it is solid, and a man walks up and says "Hello, my name is Joe, and I believe that you are sitting on a pillow made of feathers!", if I hit Joe with the rock/pillow, whether or not he believes that it is a pillow, a rock, or nothing at all, he will experience pain, because even if Joe does not believe in the rock, is it a rock?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 02:41 am
@InkRune,
Quote:
Postulate 1
If morality is relative, then anyone can believe anything.

No. Morality is relative but to groups not individuals because both individuals and "things" they might believe are defined and enmeshed in socially acquired mutual language.
By extrapolation "truth" is" what works" for consensual groups. And truths are transient because group memberships,self definitions and "what works" is transient. Such transience questions the very status of static set theoretical logic NOT its potential circularity.
InkRune
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 02:46 am
@fresco,
So if your group of people is bigger than my group of people, your 'truth' is superior to my 'truth'?

But what if I don't believe that?
And if I believe that my group is bigger?
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 02:51 am
@InkRune,
Consensus requires a minimum of two to affect belief.
Ref: Solomon Asch. Empirical findings override philosophical speculation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments
InkRune
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 02:56 am
@fresco,
But if I don't believe that morality is defined by groups, and my group is bigger than your group, where does that leave us? In your ideology, my group wins, but according to us we don't win because we don't think that morality is group constrained therefore your group is right even though your own teachings say you are wrong!

Conversely, if your group is bigger, and your group believes that groups define morality, therefore you are correct, and whether or not my group believes otherwise does not matter, because in your philosophy biggest group wins, therefore my group is only right in its sight, and only your group believes they won...

Who is right?
InkRune
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 02:57 am
@fresco,
What if my group doesn't believe that?
0 Replies
 
InkRune
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 03:03 am
So here comes Joe again, and he's ticked off. He wants to sue me! But I say that I believe that I didn't hit him with a pillow/rock, and I find a friend who agrees. But then Joe goes and gets 2 friends! and they come along and beat up me and my buddy.

From that scenario, doesnt power denote truth?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 03:36 am
@InkRune,
Read and digest. Then I will respond.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 06:29 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Quote:
Postulate 1
If morality is relative, then anyone can believe anything.

Such transience questions the very status of static set theoretical logic NOT its potential circularity.


...I find it amusing that your explanations are somewhat an attempt at logic in their very "justification"...
...you see from grammar construction to communicating ideas you can't avoid it. And yet you insist on directly criticizing it with more of your own personal "logic"...sheer nonsense. No one in their right mind would expect to communicate anything to anyone all the while making a direct argument against logic. (its like arguing against your own argument)

...also if you are replying to me which you seem to be (n this is why I am making the rare exception of addressing you) you ought to make it in the proper threads where the issue was raised instead of making a go around going en passant on the matter in threads that barely can relate with it.
This is, the way you brought it up, pathetic ! Be frontal !

PS - You better bring up a concrete clear argument instead of pseudo logical opinion when you challenge some point.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 01:48 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I rarely reply to you because you are hooked into a form of mathematical realism/mysticism for which you use the nebulous term "computing". Reference to developments in cognitive science at Berkeley (for example) will reveal why computational/informational models have failed and been largely abandoned.
Any "logic" you detect in my theses is dialectal (thesis/antithesis/synthesis) rather than formal. It mirrors Piaget's attempts to account for the psychological development of formal logic and thereby necessarily transcends it. My approach also encompasses Heideggar's Zeit ( the dynamics of Sein), Derrida's aporia (the inevitability of paradox/the rejection of the law of the excluded middle) and may even echo some aspects of spiritual holism.
So unless you are prepared to engage me at this level and cite references (as I do) in support of your criticisms, I have little to say to you.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 04:27 pm
@fresco,
How about you address the point ! Can you do that or can't you Fresco ? Since when citing references boils down to explanation or demonstration ? Have you lost it completely ? Those references are not consensual in the philosophical community they represents currents of thought. So why should I give them any credit unless you provide a de facto explanation to your own position...Regarding logic, formal logic is used everywhere, you don't just throw it out of the window n expect ppl to believe you !!!

By the way information theory is hot right now you better do some reading since the 90's pal...the nerve...presenting references...you r a laugh !
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 04:35 pm
@InkRune,
Quote:
we've come full circle, and barely missed the tragedy of circular reasoning.


Yes! your reasoning is circular. But you neither proven nor disproved anything.

Is there a point here?
Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 04:42 pm
@InkRune,
Quote:
But if I don't believe that morality is defined by groups, and my group is bigger than your group, where does that leave us?


There must be war! God wills it!
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 05:35 pm
@Cyracuz,
Quote:
There must be war! God wills it!


Is war between colonies of ants immoral? (The question is whether war is inherently immoral... since the God of ants is presumably the same god as the God of humans).

Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 06:44 pm
@maxdancona,
What about war between humans? Even today there are religious groups who believe their moral, and their right to enforce it, comes from God. They murder people for not sharing their beliefs.

They might not think that waging war on the infidels is inherently immoral. In fact, they most likely believe that it is inherently moral, as their God is presumably the God of all humans.

God is no measure for morality. And we have no other absolute to relate it to, which leads me to think that nothing is inherently moral or immoral.

In fact, I think that for any crime or offense against morality we can think of, we can also think of a scenario in which the same action would be neither criminal or immoral.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 06:59 pm
@Cyracuz,
Why is war (between ants or humans) immoral?

The only reason I can think of that war would be immoral is if you accept the premise that human life is sacred. However, there is nothing in the Universe (outside of humans themselves) that thinks that.

I don't believe in God. I don't believe that human life is sacred. There is no rational objective reason to accept either of these myths.

The universe doesn't any value on human life, or on ant life.
0 Replies
 
InkRune
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Oct, 2014 08:06 pm
@maxdancona,
My group does not believe there is a point.

Very Happy
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2014 12:10 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Rather than play the kids game of "yes it is/no it aint" I refer you to the impact of Dreyfus's book "What Computers Can't Do". If you have contradictory references by all means cite them.
BTW note that "the four humors of the body" was a "hot topic" in medieval medicine.

Quote:
When Dreyfus' ideas were first introduced in the mid-1960s, they were met with ridicule and outright hostility. By the 1980s, however, many of his perspectives were rediscovered by researchers working in robotics and the new field of connectionism—approaches now called "sub-symbolic" because they eschew early AI research's emphasis on high level symbols. Historian and AI researcher Daniel Crevier writes: "time has proven the accuracy and perceptiveness of some of Dreyfus's comments." Dreyfus said in 2007 "I figure I won and it's over—they've given up."
 

Related Topics

Define Morality - Question by neologist
Killing through a dungeon - Question by satyesu
Morality. - Discussion by Logicus
Creationism in schools - Question by MORALeducation
Morality (a discussion) - Discussion by Smileyrius
Morality Concerning Prostitution - Discussion by brainspew
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Relativity of morality
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/19/2019 at 07:39:27