Moral relativity

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like where you're going with this please can you expand.

[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.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No. My morality is subjectively better; i.e., it is preferred by me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then morality doesnt exist. If morality is just subjective preference and your subjective preference is no more valid than anyone elses, then there can be no theories of how humans should interact with one another since you are saying everyone's moral action should be what ever they prefer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying everyone's moral action will be whatever they prefer, not "should" be. That may be where your confusion arises. I'm not saying that you should just do whatever you want (which would in fact be a moral system, if a limited one). I'm saying that you will ultimately do what you prefer, and here's why I think you should prefer my moral rules.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely not. My subjective standard is "whatever creates the most overall utility."


[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying this is what people should do, but if your standard is subjective there is no reason for them to do it. So either stop claiming morality is subjective or stop making moral claims. To state morality is subjective and then say people should do what you say is pretty irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no. Almost everyone values good outcomes, misery-prevention, and the promotion of human happiness. When someone proposes something that I think is contrary to those ideals, I'm as free to pipe up and be censorious as the moral absolutist standing next to me. That's because those ideals, although ultimately arbitrary, are nonetheless agreed upon.

OTOH, if someone ever shoots back with, "I don't care about preventing misery," then that would be the end of the logical portion of the debate. I could still make an emotive argument about why he should care, but logically there'd be no basis for our disagreement. And there's nothing wrong with that; trying to shoe-horn logic into places it doesn't belong serves no useful purpose.

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

YA RLY. Under statism, no "powerful actor" could ever restrict your freedom.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consistency.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm saying everyone's moral action will be whatever they prefer, not "should" be. That may be where your confusion arises. I'm not saying that you should just do whatever you want (which would in fact be a moral system, if a limited one). I'm saying that you will ultimately do what you prefer, and here's why I think you should prefer my moral rules.


[/ QUOTE ]

But when people discuss morality they are discussing how people should act. Thats the definition of morality. I dont think a moral system is there to prevent bad people from doing bad things. Bad people are going to do bad things regardless. Morality is a tool that is used to get good people to do good things. Often times inconsistant and empiracally false moral theories are used to get good people to do bad things. This is why we need to figure out a consistant and empirically true moral theory, so that people cannot be controlled by false moral theories.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consistency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moral theories can be objectively falsified through logical and empirical tests. The scientific method can be applied to morality. In much the same way that scientific theories are never proved in an absolute sense, moral theories can never be absolutely proved. We dont however go around wringing our hands saying that empirical theories are all relative.

The method to determine objective morality is to falsify as many incorrect theories as possible and then only concern ourselves with those that are left. Luckily the most destructive moral theories barely pass the test of internal consistancy so I have very little doubt that there would be much debate over the theories that are left over.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

But obviously you cant judge the nature of reality objectively. You cannot be objective about reality without stepping outside of it and comparing it to the alternatives.

While their are some of a political bent that would choose to ignore reality, that isnt the same as judging its nature.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why we need to figure out a consistant and empirically true moral theory, so that people cannot be controlled by false moral theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's impossible. First of all, unless you're a theist, I'm not sure where the idea comes from that there is one set of moral principles that are objectively right and every other set is objectively wrong where they disagree.

And even if we make a leap of faith and say that such a set does exist, how can you approach knowledge of it with even the smallest degree of confidence? Is this how:

[ QUOTE ]
Moral theories can be objectively falsified through logical and empirical tests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Falsifying them with regards to what? People want different things, and we don't know whose axioms are best. We can try to test them for consistency and logical validity, but it's not like testing whether f=mv[2]. There are completely unquantifiable nuances in every situation, while psychology and intent are often totally hidden. Again, confidence in whatever conclusions you draw should go right out the window if you're to be consistent with your faith in the scientific method.

And what happens if you run into a moral system whose axioms deny the importance of logic and consistency. From your point of view, such a system is logically valid by default, and the method of analysis you propose is simply inapplicable.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you chose no could you please post the objective external standard you use to tell if a system of morality is valid or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consistency.

[/ QUOTE ]

This only applies if all parties to which that system applies are equal.

Are they?

Cody