Relativity of morality

@fresco,

How shall I address this little charade of yours appropriately ?
Lets just say I am amused that your (n some loonies like you) "excluded middle" pseudo logic puts you in the position of both agreeing and disagreeing with me at the same time in all regards. I guarantee you that in my case such wont happen, neither in this reality nor in any other possible alternate Universe. You see, even in many worlds theory (multiverse) there only happens what is possible to happen ! Very Happy

PS - As for comparing "The four humours of body" with latest information theory, well...its says all there is ever going to be needed to know about you, your intelligence n degree of knowledge. I am off the thread now for both yours n my sake, I am getting old for wasting time with nonsensical people, I have far better things to do instead. Have a nice day Freco n goodbye ! Wink

0 Replies

@fresco,

Dreyfus is still met with ridicule in the AI world (although apparently he still has a fanatical following).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

No doubt naive realists are uncomfortable with questioning the issue of the status of "the standard observer" which has been so useful to non-cognitive science. But in cognition, clinging to such a concept is somewhat equivalent to clinging to Newton's fixed reference frame, or "the luminiferous aether". And I doubt whether Dreyfus's followers are "fanatical". They are more likely to be expressing their understanding of what they consider to be "self-evident".

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

And I doubt whether Dreyfus's followers are "fanatical". They are more likely to be expressing their understanding of what they consider to be "self-evident".

I found this funny. That's what fanatics always do.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Clearly my use of the term "fanatic" was a bit of editorializing on my part.

But I work in AI. Dreyfus isn't very well respected. I think Minsky (who is well respected) said Dreyfus' ideas were too silly to even respond to.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I have no doubt that "AI" has ad hoc limited solutions to well defined "closed tasks" (like specific pattern recognition) involving heavy computing power and autocorrelation techniques. The point is that is highly unlikely that living organisms involved in open cognitive tasks operate in that manner. Dreyfus, the phenomenologists, and those such as Rosch working with "embodied cognition", go further and give reasons why computational approaches are futile, partly as a result of the abandonment of representationalism of language of an independent "reality". Those who dismiss such ideas as "silly" have probably not even read the extensive literature on non-representationalism. Indeed they may not be capable of developing a mindset receptive of such ideas given their vested interests in conforming to traditional paradigms.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

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).

Don't know about the god of the ants, but Jesus, that's another matter.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/s403x403/1392008_10151733160891275_869905602_n.jpg

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

...how about the God of dinosaurs, didn't you know ? ...they are not extinct yet...

http://www.jahtv.com/wp-content/uploads/yowza_dinosapien_03.jpg

0 Replies

@InkRune,

Quote:

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

Morality is not a belief.

0 Replies

@InkRune,

InkRune wrote:

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

I would argue that morality is indeed species-centric, in addition to requiring goal oriented individuals. Hence it is indeed relative to a species and also an individual. In other words, a morality that deals in absolutes, applicable to all rational beings, is doomed because it fails to account for the rest of said rational being (whether they're corporeal, incorporeal, finite, infinite, etc...). Since such moralities are, in many ways, without a proper context, they can be abandoned.

And I don't see the connection in morality being relative and someone believing in anything.

0 Replies

@InkRune,

InkRune wrote:

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.
...

Seems like a non sequitur already, unless you tighten up the language a bit. You're jumping from the relativity of morality all the way to anyone believing anything. You would be clearer to say something like, 'then anyone can hold any moral belief.'

However, you're still misrepresenting moral relativity, which is a descriptive, not proscriptive of cultures, not individuals. Moral relativity was never a statement that "anyone can believe anything." Instead, it means that various cultures can have conflicting norms and mores, ie morals, as a result of history.

It doesn't mean that whatever random idea one person pulls out of his bunghole today is just a good as any other idea. I think that if you clear up this misconception of what moral relativity means, then maybe you'll restructure the rest of your argument. Cheers.

0 Replies

It is obvious by now that moral systems derive from cultural systems. Does that not argue for the relativety of morality?

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

It is obvious by now that moral systems derive from cultural systems. Does that not argue for the relativety of morality?

Not if one culture is superior to all the others.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
It is obvious by now that moral systems derive from cultural systems. Does that not argue for the relativety of morality?

Not if one culture is superior to all the others.

Is there a non-relative means to establish the criteria for that superiority?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Maybe not - criteria of superiority as used in the past tend to have come from nationalist/culturally arrogant attitudes. Just look at how the British Empire attempted the anglicisation of 'savage' peoples because they assumed that what they saw as their enlightened, modern perspective not only made them culturally advanced and therefore superior in their eyes but also made them think that they were duty bound to advance 'savage' cultures for the savages' own good. I'm not denying that there is a non-relative means to establish such criteria - but I do think it's highly unlikely that there is if we consider the nature of all such means as have been used in the past.

0 Replies

The implication developing here is that "morality" is an established static concept, when clearly it is subject to situational transience. Unless we adopt something like Kant's concept of "categorial imperatives" as universal, (e.g. never telling a lie) "morality" remains essentially relative to culture, time and place.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

And, of course, it will most likely happen that culltures--when compared globally-- will be ranked according to culture-bound standards.
That was probably FBM's point.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Sometimes, weaker and smaller countries believe they have the right stuff to win wars, and the opposite is also true. Leaving the decision to the leadership of the country can lead to disaster. History repeats itself.

0 Replies

@InkRune,

My 'group' thinks the whole world is screwed up!

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

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.

No. Morality is relative both within and between otherwise arbitrary groups; morality is an negotiable quality applied to actions. And it is the terms of that negotiation between individuals that determine the inside and outside of the various groups' categorically imperative activities.

InkRune wrote:

Fyi I didn't post this as any kind of viable argument either way.
So don't take me too seriously.

No worries, i don't.

InkRune wrote:

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

After all, you haven't even managed to present an accurate description of what "relative morality" is in your initial account. The view-point that you represent in your argument is one of credulity or gullibility.

0 Replies

Relativity of morality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know