Moral relativists who love Edahn

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Probably true... values and projections all *seem* to depend on the upbringing and social conditioning. There might be some labels and identities that are physically inherent. Some stuff we are born with whether we like it or not. A good example is probably aesthetics following the golden ratio. it seems universal in culture, and is based on a ratio massively present throughout nature. So, maybe, this is an example of an inherent value of "pleasing to behold". I know.. isn't a moral.. I'm just chucking it in the mix*

*damned spacey NPs

Nevermind the fact that it's not a moral value, even a quality like beauty is not inherent in the object itself; as you said, it's something we're born with. So, the judgment emanates from the subject, not the object.

 

[Geoff]

Nevermind the fact that it's not a moral value, even a quality like beauty is not inherent in the object itself; as you said, it's something we're born with. So, the judgment emanates from the subject, not the object.

Yes, that's true.. that is what it is, but the cause might not be relativism. I'm driving at us being borne with some inherent judgements, which makes the relativism not total, there might be some starting absolute values, that then vary according to social conditioning. No, I don't know if this is right, I raise it for consideration...

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Yes, that's true.. that is what it is, but the cause might not be relativism. I'm driving at us being borne with some inherent judgements, which makes the relativism not total, there might be some starting absolute values, that then vary according to social conditioning. No, I don't know if this is right, I raise it for consideration...

I see what you're saying (and get that you're just speculating, which is fun).

We could bring it back to morality pretty easily. Is incest right or wrong? Incest taboos are pretty universal for whatever reason. Does that make incest wrong? No, because incest is still just incest. It's just an event, like any other. It's our feelings about that event that color our perception of it and give it some valence (in this case, negative). Your point is well taken, Sir Geoff.

 

[substitute]

Question answered!
Events are just events. Those judgments we form are dependent on the norms we're surrounded with and the values we create, but they're not inherent to nature themselves; they're projected outward.

You'll get no argument from me there.

When I talk about the inviolable right to choice as to what is done to you directly, I'm talking socially, as in "if society is to function positively, this needs to be the case". It's a sorta progression from the given point that nature has equipped us with a desire to work in groups/communities, and a by-product of that is the need for a certain level of harmony, which in turn is best achieved, IMO, by affording to each individual, and respecting, this right to choice.

I wouldn't argue that any of the implications of that, as they vary from individual to individual, were in any objective sense applicable to every individual. That is, I wouldn't argue that the ability to become a slave for a person who chooses to be one is therefore morally applicable to someone who doesn't, or that the choice of someone who chooses not to be youthenized has any business being forced on someone who chooses to be, etc...

Don't get me wrong... I'm approximately 90% relativist - the other 10% is the caveat "...but some things are best considered absolute (albeit with variable implications that are only valid subjectively) for society to function harmoniously"

Oh and by the way Edahn, you argue and construct sentences here in a way that reminds me strongly of my brother, who is ENFP

 

[Mole]

Relativism and Magic

All environments are invisible, even those that contain values.

And a change in enviroments is also invisible because it only affects us unconsciously.

So at the unconscious level we know something is going on so we project it outwards so we can control it.

For instance, as our inner environment is changing, we project it onto the outer environment. And guess what! We discover it is changing too.

And we form a global religion to control it.

This is called, "magical thinking", and it is irresistible.

In the same way we all have an inner life which is largely unconscious. So in order to control it we project it outwards onto four magical letters. The four magical letters that have been assigned to me are INTJ.

It is irrelevant that all psychometricians and the encyclopedia describe MBTI as Unreliable and Invalid, because MBTI meets our deepest needs.

It doesn't matter that MBTI comes from a most unsavory source because it promises to control our inner life, our inner impulses.

In fact MBTI is truely magical.

And the price of magic is common sense.

But it is a price worth paying otherwise we are at the mercy of our inner life.

And of course Relativism is magical thinking - rather than seeing how our environments are changing around us, we decide our values are only relative.

Relativism is exquisite magic.

Victor.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Oh and by the way Edahn, you argue and construct sentences here in a way that reminds me strongly of my brother, who is ENFP

 

[CzeCze]

I second this inscrutable look (of disbelief.)

 

[SillySapienne]

thirded

 

[Owl]

None of these ideas [i.e., those concerning innate human rights] existed before the Enlightenment.

It is true that natural law was not very popular before the Enlightenment, but it was taught by Hobbes, Aquinas, and Aristotle. Indeed, Natural law theory appears in Genesis 1. It is a very old idea.

 

[Kiddo]

It is true that natural law was not very popular before the Enlightenment, but it was taught by Hobbes, Aquinas, and Aristotle. Indeed, Natural law theory appears in Genesis 1. It is a very old idea.

Natural law is not the same thing as "innate human rights". Innate human rights were not conceived until the formation of liberal natural law theory. Calling the natural law that Aristotle taught the same as the "innate human rights" that were conceived during the Enlightenment is about the same as saying the first wheel was an automobile. There has been quite a bit of modification and addition to the ideas, but nobody in ancient Greece would have suggested concepts like a "social contract".

 

[Owl]

Natural law is not the same thing as "innate human rights". Innate human rights were not conceived until the formation of liberal natural law theory. Calling the natural law that Aristotle taught the same as the "innate human rights" that were conceived during the Enlightenment is about the same as saying the first wheel was an automobile. There has been quite a bit of modification and addition to the ideas, but nobody in ancient Greece would have suggested concepts like a "social contract".

The wheel to the automobile?

Innate human rights needn't rest on a social contract. Locke taught that the only reason we ought to enter into a social contract was because fallen individuals couldn't be trusted to obey the dictates of natural law--i.e., people enter into social contract not to create innate human rights, but to ensure that those rights are protected by good government.

You might be right when you assert that the doctrine of 'innate human rights' was not expounded before the Enlightenment, but I'd argue that the resources were already there, just waiting to be discovered, and the challenges raised during the Enlightenment were just what was needed to push political theorizers to consider the implications of what had already been said.

So, I wouldn't say it's the wheel to the automobile, but closer to the discovery of the internal combustion engine and the automobile.

 

[Kiddo]

The wheel to the automobile?

Innate human rights needn't rest on a social contract. Locke taught that the only reason we ought to enter into a social contract was because fallen individuals couldn't be trusted to obey the dictates of natural law--i.e., people enter into social contract not to create innate human rights, but to ensure that those rights are protected by good government.

I was only using a "social contract" as an example. I wasn't implying that it was necessary for "innate human rights" only arguing that such concepts would have been beyond the thinking of ancient Greeks.

You might be right when you assert that the doctrine of 'innate human rights' was not expounded before the Enlightenment, but I'd argue that the resources were already there, just waiting to be discovered, and the challenges raised during the Enlightenment were just what was needed to push political theorizers to consider the implications of what had already been said.

Assuming that it was, "waiting to be discovered" it was not a part of the thinking of the times, and thus ideas like slavery were not inherently in conflict with the conception of Natural Law in the pre-Enlightenment years. And that was my original point.

So, I wouldn't say it's the wheel to the automobile, but closer to the discovery of the internal combustion engine and the automobile.

I am inclined to disagree since those inventions were made in the same century and share the same components, whereas these philosophies were made in separate millenniums and much of Aristotle's conception of natural law were abandoned during the Enlightenment. However,I think I can compromise. I would say it is comparable to a horse drawn carriage to an automobile. The fundamental idea (common laws outside the jurisdiction of man) is the same, but the components (laws vs. rights) are entirely different.

 

[substitute]

I second this inscrutable look (of disbelief.)

thirded

He's one of your jaded male F's who puts on a cynical, blunt front which fools most people until you upset him in some way without realizing it, and then you see how sensitive he is as he battles with himself to not show it... haha...

Anyway, seriously, just something about the way you sorta state things, bluntly and stubbornly but without apparent aggression, partly indifferent to how it's winding people up and yet partly keenly aware of it and using it as leverage or ammunition... hard to describe but anyway it does remind me of him and he is definitely ENFP. It's not your opinions so much as the way you express them and put them across...

 

[Geoff]

He's one of your jaded male F's who puts on a cynical, blunt front which fools most people until you upset him in some way without realizing it, and then you see how sensitive he is as he battles with himself to not show it... haha...

Anyway, seriously, just something about the way you sorta state things, bluntly and stubbornly but without apparent aggression, partly indifferent to how it's winding people up and yet partly keenly aware of it and using it as leverage or ammunition... hard to describe but anyway it does remind me of him and he is definitely ENFP. It's not your opinions so much as the way you express them and put them across...

The way opinions are expressed will typically pick up the extraverted function (which in an E is also the dominant one). So hooray for that!

Oh... great avatar by the way... It doesn't mean much to many others on this forum, I suspect... because even if they know of the show, they probably don't know the slightly camp, brilliantly done, BBC team redubbing..

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

This is actually a pretty tricky one to answer.

Some people are born with natural gifts, some are gifted physicists, others, gifted logicians.

I know that I am "gifted" in morality, and I don't need anyone to validate this fact as it has been evident to, not only myself, but to other people as well, since I've been in preschool. So, er, well my thoughts on this subject, *especially* matter.


*damn, I'm ballsy today!!*

Do you see a distinction between the physicist and logician who's gift is validated by external, objective, measured systems and your gift in morality that is validated by yourself and those closely aligned in terms of culture and experience? To consider oneself superior in moral judgment is equivalent to considering other people as inferior in moral judgment. That suggests unequal treatment of the thinking/feeling of others. The morality of that could be called into question.That is a dangerous position to take. What is easy to forget is that it is natural for human beings to justify any ideas as "right". That right there is the foundation of relativism. It is thinking in the fashion you express here that is the very source of relativism - others who consider themselves gifted in moral judgment and come to different conclusions than you. Wouldn't it be more useful to attempt to find an external way to validate certain types of morality, rather than relying on a perceived gift? Find a way to measure the difference between moral and immoral acts that has a reference point in nature and is not derived from personal thinking and culture?

 

[SillySapienne]

Darling *empathy* exists.

My moral capacities are ultimately founded/guided by my ability to empathize.

For some reason or another, I have *I'm hypothesizing* more mirror neurons than most people, a lot more.

Teachers, and adults have commented on my *supreme* exhibition of empathy/morality since preschool.

So, my dear just because we have yet to map/understand the roots of empathy, *does not* mean that it does not exist.

Please, do some research on the topic.

 

[bluebell]

Darling *empathy* exists.

My moral capacities are ultimately founded/guided by my ability to empathize.

For some reason or another, I have *I'm hypothesizing* more mirror neurons than most people, a lot more.

Teachers, and adults have commented on my *supreme* exhibition of empathy/morality since preschool.

So, my dear just because we have yet to map/understand the roots of empathy, *does not* mean that it does not exist.

Please, do some research on the topic.

I think you're missing the point. Sure, you're probably naturally way more able to empathise with people than I am. But the point is that your morals are a product of the society you've grown up in - you're mirroring what's around you. If you grew up in a different society, you would be mirroring something quite different.

 

[SillySapienne]

No

I have an internal mode of finding/feeling morals.

I don't agree with a lot of my "society's" set of morals, that of my peers, my family members...

Fuck society, and what society thinks is moralistic, society at large is often immoral in their collective beliefs.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Darling *empathy* exists.

My moral capacities are ultimately founded/guided by my ability to empathize.

For some reason or another, I have *I'm hypothesizing* more mirror neurons than most people, a lot more.

Teachers, and adults have commented on my *supreme* exhibition of empathy/morality since preschool.

So, my dear just because we have yet to map/understand the roots of empathy, *does not* mean that it does not exist.

Please, do some research on the topic.

Are you empathizing with me?

Demonstrate your gift.

 

[Mole]

The Captain's Mirror Neurons

I think you're missing the point. Sure, you're probably naturally way more able to empathise with people than I am. But the point is that your morals are a product of the society you've grown up in - you're mirroring what's around you. If you grew up in a different society, you would be mirroring something quite different.

But think how important mirroring is.

Babies and children depend on being accurately mirrored by their parents just to know who they are.

And just as important, mirroring distinguishes us from other animals.

Most animal groups are many individuals, sometimes acting together, but on an individual basis.

But homo sapiens by mirroring can know what another is thinking.

We take this to extremes as today I even know what Socrates was thinking two and a half thousand years ago.

In fact homo sapiens is like one large animal - the largest animal on the planet - and so the most dominent.

All due to mirroring.

And the Captain's mirror neurons.

Victor.