Moral relativity

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Whats the point of the "morality conversation" if its all relative? I would assume the discussion would be an effort to find out what system is best. But you cant figure that out if moral relativism is the standard. There is a reason that straight up moral relativism has largely died out in academia. Sure there are some who offer up some pretty sophisticated dodges, but ultimately they cant get away from this very simple fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moral relativism is a fact, not a standard. That's the point. There is nothing beyond what we agree (and by extension, what we disagree) on. Nothing.

How do we convince one another? Blood, sweat and tears. The stuff of life. This is why I don't really care if moral relativism is dead in academia (which it isn't).

[/ QUOTE ]

It isnt a fact just because you assert it is so. And I said largely dead, which is an admittedly fine distinction but valid I think.

As for the second part of your post, I completely agree. We have centuries of learning to live together and we have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't. In my mind that speaks to the existence of some sort of objective morality.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Whats the point of the "morality conversation" if its all relative? I would assume the discussion would be an effort to find out what system is best. But you cant figure that out if moral relativism is the standard. There is a reason that straight up moral relativism has largely died out in academia. Sure there are some who offer up some pretty sophisticated dodges, but ultimately they cant get away from this very simple fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moral relativism is a fact, not a standard. That's the point. There is nothing beyond what we agree (and by extension, what we disagree) on. Nothing.

How do we convince one another? Blood, sweat and tears. The stuff of life. This is why I don't really care if moral relativism is dead in academia (which it isn't).

[/ QUOTE ]

It isnt a fact just because you assert it is so. And I said largely dead, which is an admittedly fine distinction but valid I think.

As for the second part of your post, I completely agree. We have centuries of learning to live together and we have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't. In my mind that speaks to the existence of some sort of objective morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it speak to some sort of objective morality? That sounds like the arguments of the theists, "Things are too complex, there must be a creator".

It speaks more of a natural evolution (to continue the analogy) of utilitarian behavior that has proven to be beneficial to survival.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Whats the point of the "morality conversation" if its all relative? I would assume the discussion would be an effort to find out what system is best. But you cant figure that out if moral relativism is the standard. There is a reason that straight up moral relativism has largely died out in academia. Sure there are some who offer up some pretty sophisticated dodges, but ultimately they cant get away from this very simple fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moral relativism is a fact, not a standard. That's the point. There is nothing beyond what we agree (and by extension, what we disagree) on. Nothing.

How do we convince one another? Blood, sweat and tears. The stuff of life. This is why I don't really care if moral relativism is dead in academia (which it isn't).

[/ QUOTE ]

It isnt a fact just because you assert it is so. And I said largely dead, which is an admittedly fine distinction but valid I think.

As for the second part of your post, I completely agree. We have centuries of learning to live together and we have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't. In my mind that speaks to the existence of some sort of objective morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say objective, but it seems to me that you mean inter-subjective.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

I vote no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha ha, you voted. You lost the moral high ground!

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any moral system is going to be definable by some finite set of axioms (could be very large depending). In order to claim there is an objectively superior set of moral axioms I think you need to invoke some type of God-like entity that arbitrarily designates one set over the others. In this case you've just shifted the subjectivity though, as God's choice of moral axioms is subjective to him. I think this would make it objective to us though, as God presumably exists outside of the system we operate in and defines its rules.

That being said, as an atheist, of course I don't believe in an objective morality. You can get some manner of objectivity depending on the scope you're interested in though. For example, I think the moral axioms that most cultures around the globe tend to share are an evolutionary phenomenon, and you could argue that this set is in some sense objective.

An interesting observation I've made that has led me towards ACism, is that whatever subjective criteria I decide to maximize (that falls in the 'normal, non pathological' spectrum), whether it be happiness, freedom, individual autonomy, reduction of poverty, base level of health, etc. the best solution I can think of is a free-market solution (ESPECIALLY if we're talking about the long term). Although of course it's not objective, I think we could get pretty close to a morality that smells like it's objective if we could find one that maximized the majority of criteria the majority of humans would find desirable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This should lead you away from AC, where any more powerful actor or group of actors can restrict your freedom at their individual whim. At least under a state that shares most of your beliefs, "morality" isnt automatically determined by the highest bidder.

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, you have AC and statism backwards.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any moral system is going to be definable by some finite set of axioms (could be very large depending). In order to claim there is an objectively superior set of moral axioms I think you need to invoke some type of God-like entity that arbitrarily designates one set over the others. In this case you've just shifted the subjectivity though, as God's choice of moral axioms is subjective to him. I think this would make it objective to us though, as God presumably exists outside of the system we operate in and defines its rules.

That being said, as an atheist, of course I don't believe in an objective morality. You can get some manner of objectivity depending on the scope you're interested in though. For example, I think the moral axioms that most cultures around the globe tend to share are an evolutionary phenomenon, and you could argue that this set is in some sense objective.

An interesting observation I've made that has led me towards ACism, is that whatever subjective criteria I decide to maximize (that falls in the 'normal, non pathological' spectrum), whether it be happiness, freedom, individual autonomy, reduction of poverty, base level of health, etc. the best solution I can think of is a free-market solution (ESPECIALLY if we're talking about the long term). Although of course it's not objective, I think we could get pretty close to a morality that smells like it's objective if we could find one that maximized the majority of criteria the majority of humans would find desirable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This should lead you away from AC, where any more powerful actor or group of actors can restrict your freedom at their individual whim. At least under a state that shares most of your beliefs, "morality" isnt automatically determined by the highest bidder.

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, you have AC and statism backwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your responses get more absurd daily. At least Borodog attempts to hide his behind a veil of academia, yours are just stupid.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any moral system is going to be definable by some finite set of axioms (could be very large depending). In order to claim there is an objectively superior set of moral axioms I think you need to invoke some type of God-like entity that arbitrarily designates one set over the others. In this case you've just shifted the subjectivity though, as God's choice of moral axioms is subjective to him. I think this would make it objective to us though, as God presumably exists outside of the system we operate in and defines its rules.

That being said, as an atheist, of course I don't believe in an objective morality. You can get some manner of objectivity depending on the scope you're interested in though. For example, I think the moral axioms that most cultures around the globe tend to share are an evolutionary phenomenon, and you could argue that this set is in some sense objective.

An interesting observation I've made that has led me towards ACism, is that whatever subjective criteria I decide to maximize (that falls in the 'normal, non pathological' spectrum), whether it be happiness, freedom, individual autonomy, reduction of poverty, base level of health, etc. the best solution I can think of is a free-market solution (ESPECIALLY if we're talking about the long term). Although of course it's not objective, I think we could get pretty close to a morality that smells like it's objective if we could find one that maximized the majority of criteria the majority of humans would find desirable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This should lead you away from AC, where any more powerful actor or group of actors can restrict your freedom at their individual whim. At least under a state that shares most of your beliefs, "morality" isnt automatically determined by the highest bidder.

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, you have AC and statism backwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your responses get more absurd daily. At least Borodog attempts to hide his behind a veil of academia, yours are just stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try to keep my responses to the level of the person I'm responding to.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any moral system is going to be definable by some finite set of axioms (could be very large depending). In order to claim there is an objectively superior set of moral axioms I think you need to invoke some type of God-like entity that arbitrarily designates one set over the others. In this case you've just shifted the subjectivity though, as God's choice of moral axioms is subjective to him. I think this would make it objective to us though, as God presumably exists outside of the system we operate in and defines its rules.

That being said, as an atheist, of course I don't believe in an objective morality. You can get some manner of objectivity depending on the scope you're interested in though. For example, I think the moral axioms that most cultures around the globe tend to share are an evolutionary phenomenon, and you could argue that this set is in some sense objective.

An interesting observation I've made that has led me towards ACism, is that whatever subjective criteria I decide to maximize (that falls in the 'normal, non pathological' spectrum), whether it be happiness, freedom, individual autonomy, reduction of poverty, base level of health, etc. the best solution I can think of is a free-market solution (ESPECIALLY if we're talking about the long term). Although of course it's not objective, I think we could get pretty close to a morality that smells like it's objective if we could find one that maximized the majority of criteria the majority of humans would find desirable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This should lead you away from AC, where any more powerful actor or group of actors can restrict your freedom at their individual whim. At least under a state that shares most of your beliefs, "morality" isnt automatically determined by the highest bidder.

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, you have AC and statism backwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your responses get more absurd daily. At least Borodog attempts to hide his behind a veil of academia, yours are just stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try to keep my responses to the level of the person I'm responding to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool, take a course in logic, a couple of course in economics, and read some world history for about 2 years, then you can come back on close to even footing.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any moral system is going to be definable by some finite set of axioms (could be very large depending). In order to claim there is an objectively superior set of moral axioms I think you need to invoke some type of God-like entity that arbitrarily designates one set over the others. In this case you've just shifted the subjectivity though, as God's choice of moral axioms is subjective to him. I think this would make it objective to us though, as God presumably exists outside of the system we operate in and defines its rules.

That being said, as an atheist, of course I don't believe in an objective morality. You can get some manner of objectivity depending on the scope you're interested in though. For example, I think the moral axioms that most cultures around the globe tend to share are an evolutionary phenomenon, and you could argue that this set is in some sense objective.

An interesting observation I've made that has led me towards ACism, is that whatever subjective criteria I decide to maximize (that falls in the 'normal, non pathological' spectrum), whether it be happiness, freedom, individual autonomy, reduction of poverty, base level of health, etc. the best solution I can think of is a free-market solution (ESPECIALLY if we're talking about the long term). Although of course it's not objective, I think we could get pretty close to a morality that smells like it's objective if we could find one that maximized the majority of criteria the majority of humans would find desirable.

[/ QUOTE ]

This should lead you away from AC, where any more powerful actor or group of actors can restrict your freedom at their individual whim. At least under a state that shares most of your beliefs, "morality" isnt automatically determined by the highest bidder.

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, you have AC and statism backwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your responses get more absurd daily. At least Borodog attempts to hide his behind a veil of academia, yours are just stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try to keep my responses to the level of the person I'm responding to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool, remove all semblance of logic, any concept o economics, and forget everything you know about history, then you can come back on close to even footing.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[DougShrapnel]

No, morality systems can be separated by how well they fit the nature of reality. If we can judge the nature of reality then we too can judge morality.