Moral relativity

[AWoodside]

[ 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 ]

It's a very difficult question, but this doesn't seem to be the case to me. Especially in the American system, with highly centralized power and a large number of lobbyist, it looks like the state leads to "morality being sold to the highest bidder".

My main problem with the state is it's a terribly inefficient system for searching social solution space. When you centralize power you entrench the status quo, which I suppose could be ok if you happened to somehow manage to generate a pretty decent status quo, but you aren't likely to improve much. Not to mention you make the society extremely vulnerable to variance, almost to the point of not being able to handle it at all. A brilliant, benevolent dictator would be great for awhile, except that it only takes one future less than-benevolent dictator that co-opts the systems already put in place to totally wreak havoc on everyone.

That, and also, empirically as I look at history (I'm not a historian mind you, so this is one of my weaker motivations) it seems like societies that most closely approximate AC societies quickly become more prosperous than the societies that don't resemble ACism.