Arguments against Moral Relativism
The descriptive needn't be distinct from the normative, nor would there be a need for the differentiation, if the question of "what morality should be used for" is meaningless in the sense that that IS what it's used for, because it can't be "used" for anything else.
The argument concerns itself with the notion that morality can't be "used" for anything other than its intended function, sort of like an organ can be used for anything other its intended function.
The argument concerns itself with the notion that morality can't be "used" for anything other than its intended function, sort of like an organ can be used for anything other its intended function.
I can see the position (though I dispute it) that it is nothing but description. I dont accept that there is inherently anything 'functional' about it - I think Vael probably made the most cogent criticism of this view.
If there's nothing inherently functional about morality, then it's either useless, or a construct we've created to use for whatever purpose.
I mean obviously the function of sexual organs is reproduction, but it hardly follows that we ought to use them for reproduction instead of pleasure. Likewise, it is not enough to say that the function of morality is to increase fitness to infer that all moral claims should be made with the end of increasing fitness in mind, or even that considerations of fitness have any moral relevance.
Therefore, the primary thing for determining whether a person's behaviour is moral or not is their choice of behaviour under specific environmental constraints - as I mentioned earlier. If their choice of behaviour is different to behaviour that's needed to overcome the specific environmental constraints/ensure high chances of collective survival - then that behaviour is immoral. So for example, if someone chooses to not reproduce - although a seemingly immoral behaviour - they're not in fact behaving immorally if the environmental constraints call for such behaviour (i.e. overpopulation and not enough resources to go around - reproduction would increase the use of those resources and thus lower the chances of the collective surviving in the long term). If however, their morality/behaviour is misaligned with the morality/behaviour necessary to overcome the specific environmental constraints, then their behaviour is immoral.
My main point point is thus that the most moral behaviour will always be the one that increases the chances of the collective surviving in the long term (behaviour that helps overcome environmental constraints), and the most immoral behaviour will be the one that significantly inhibits those chances (behaviour that does not help overcome environmental constraints). If you have no argument against this, and you wish to continue nit picking in the semantic holes that I have left behind, then carry on, but it will not do anything to refute my overall argument.
This is just demonstrably false. What do you make of people who undergo sterilization because they don't want to have children, or people who practice celibacy for religious reasons? What about pessimistic antinatalists who advocate for extinction? Are all these cases of mentally ill mutants?
Btw, I'm curious how you would respond to the Benatar argument that I linked to earlier, where he argues that life is so bad that we'd all be better off if it wasn't around. The obvious response is that life isn't as bad he thinks it is. But if you wish to remain consistent, you'd have to argue that it isn't relevant what the facts of life are - its survival is good a priori. This means that if evolution produced a form of life that did nothing but suffer horribly and reproduce effectively, the survival of this form of life would be a good thing. Do you seriously believe this?
Or it's something which exists independently from us which we use for a purpose.
The descriptive needn't be distinct from the normative, nor would there be a need for the differentiation, if the question of "what morality should be used for" is meaningless in the sense that that IS what it's used for, because it can't be "used" for anything else.
The argument concerns itself with the notion that morality can't be "used" for anything other than its intended function, sort of like an organ can be used for anything other its intended function.
The argument concerns itself with the notion that morality can't be "used" for anything other than its intended function, sort of like an organ can be used for anything other its intended function.
An individual's morality/behaviour may at times appear to not align with the function of collective survival (the same way someone's use of sexual organs may at times appear to not align with this function). However in reality (under current environmental constraints), even somebody's choice to not reproduce is perfectly aligned with the function of survival. The reason that an individual's morality/behaviour (in the case of sexual reproduction) may appear to not align with the function of survival is because we're forgetting to take the environmental constraints into account. The key is that morality stems from the function of survival, and is glued to this function, although there are varying degrees of moral freedom available in fulfilling this function of survival, due to the need to adapt to changing environmental constraints.
Therefore, the primary thing for determining whether a person's behaviour is moral or not is their choice of behaviour under specific environmental constraints - as I mentioned earlier. If their choice of behaviour is different to behaviour that's needed to overcome the specific environmental constraints/ensure high chances of collective survival - then that behaviour is immoral. So for example, if someone chooses to not reproduce - although a seemingly immoral behaviour - they're not in fact behaving immorally if the environmental constraints call for such behaviour (i.e. overpopulation and not enough resources to go around - reproduction would increase the use of those resources and thus lower the chances of the collective surviving in the long term). If however, their morality/behaviour is misaligned with the morality/behaviour necessary to overcome the specific environmental constraints, then their behaviour is immoral.
My main point point is thus that the most moral behaviour will always be the one that increases the chances of the collective surviving in the long term (behaviour that helps overcome environmental constraints), and the most immoral behaviour will be the one that significantly inhibits those chances (behaviour that does not help overcome environmental constraints). If you have no argument against this, and you wish to continue nit picking in the semantic holes that I have left behind, then carry on, but it will not do anything to refute my overall argument.
Therefore, the primary thing for determining whether a person's behaviour is moral or not is their choice of behaviour under specific environmental constraints - as I mentioned earlier. If their choice of behaviour is different to behaviour that's needed to overcome the specific environmental constraints/ensure high chances of collective survival - then that behaviour is immoral. So for example, if someone chooses to not reproduce - although a seemingly immoral behaviour - they're not in fact behaving immorally if the environmental constraints call for such behaviour (i.e. overpopulation and not enough resources to go around - reproduction would increase the use of those resources and thus lower the chances of the collective surviving in the long term). If however, their morality/behaviour is misaligned with the morality/behaviour necessary to overcome the specific environmental constraints, then their behaviour is immoral.
My main point point is thus that the most moral behaviour will always be the one that increases the chances of the collective surviving in the long term (behaviour that helps overcome environmental constraints), and the most immoral behaviour will be the one that significantly inhibits those chances (behaviour that does not help overcome environmental constraints). If you have no argument against this, and you wish to continue nit picking in the semantic holes that I have left behind, then carry on, but it will not do anything to refute my overall argument.
False. Evolution most certainly could produce such a life form. How could you say it's impossible?
For any sadness to exist, there must be some happiness.
I choose life not on faith that - survival is good - but on empirical evidence around me - e.g. sex is enjoyable, eating food is enjoyable etc.
It's not the same as having faith in God, if you're making some poor attempt to equate the two. We have plenty of evidence/reasons as to why existence is preferable to non-existence. None to warrant belief in a God however.
So your evidence that survival is GOOD is that sex and eating are ENJOYABLE? Is this a correct characterization of what you are saying?
This is evidence that food exists.
When I taste food, it feels good, and I want more.
This is evidence that food is enjoyable.
I therefore want to eat more food in my life, and hence must live longer in order to do so.
I thus attribute more value to surviving (than dying) due to the value that comes with life - food, sex, alcohol etc.
However. When you put your faith into a God, with no consistent sensory evidence - like smell, touch, feel, hear or see - it's strictly faith, with no evidence to warrant the belief.
The Work of the Holy Spirit
5 “But now I go away to Him who sent Me, and none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you. John 16 (NKJV)
2) So you want to do X as much as you can.
3) So you conclude that you living longer will allow you to do X more.
4) So you living longer leads to more X and more pleasure from X.
5) Therefore, the survival of the human species for a long time is morally good.
I spot 2 mistakes already, and it's not all because of my bias in writing that out (hint: 3 is not a given, and 5 does not follow at all).
1) It feels good for you to do X.
2) So you want to do X as much as you can.
3) So you conclude that you living longer will allow you to do X more.
4) So you living longer leads to more X and more pleasure from X.
5) Therefore, the survival of the human species for a long time is morally good.
I spot 2 mistakes already, and it's not all because of my bias in writing that out (hint: 3 is not a given, and 5 does not follow at all).
2) So you want to do X as much as you can.
3) So you conclude that you living longer will allow you to do X more.
4) So you living longer leads to more X and more pleasure from X.
5) Therefore, the survival of the human species for a long time is morally good.
I spot 2 mistakes already, and it's not all because of my bias in writing that out (hint: 3 is not a given, and 5 does not follow at all).
My arguments as to why behaviour that contributes to our chances of survival is moral - are all throughout this thread - and they have less to do with 1 single variable like: people's enjoyment of food; and more to do with the function of survival. Additionally I am not saying that the enjoyment of food is the only or primary reason for me, or anyone else wanting to survive - as you seem to be implying in 5).
Finally, why is 3) not a given? Are you saying that I have a higher chance of enjoying food for longer if I die? than if I attempt to survive? I'm quite positive that my chances of enjoying food for longer will be higher if I survive....unless you have some evidence of life after death to present to me?
Finally, why is 3) not a given? Are you saying that I have a higher chance of enjoying food for longer if I die? than if I attempt to survive? I'm quite positive that my chances of enjoying food for longer will be higher if I survive....unless you have some evidence of life after death to present to me?
I can see, taste, smell and feel food using four of my senses. Not sometimes, but always.
This is evidence that food exists.
When I taste food, it feels good, and I want more.
This is evidence that food is enjoyable.
I therefore want to eat more food in my life, and hence must live longer in order to do so.
I thus attribute more value to surviving (than dying) due to the value that comes with life - food, sex, alcohol etc.
This is evidence that food exists.
When I taste food, it feels good, and I want more.
This is evidence that food is enjoyable.
I therefore want to eat more food in my life, and hence must live longer in order to do so.
I thus attribute more value to surviving (than dying) due to the value that comes with life - food, sex, alcohol etc.
If you just trace the argument backwards, don't you see that you are in fact claiming the 5 steps I posted?
You make a lot of mistakes because you assume things without double checking the bible.
The Work of the Holy Spirit
5 “But now I go away to Him who sent Me, and none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you. John 16 (NKJV)
The Work of the Holy Spirit
5 “But now I go away to Him who sent Me, and none of you asks Me, ‘Where are You going?’ 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you. John 16 (NKJV)
"This reveals to us that every human being who has ever lived (except Jesus) has been enslaved to a way of thinking generated by the prince of the power of the air, Satan. Because of this, we fulfilled the desires of our flesh and mind. Indeed, because our minds had little else with which to work, we could not produce anything else! We produced the fruits of a spirit but not the Spirit of God."
I Corinthians 2:7-8 clarifies this:
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
By using those who killed Christ as an illustration, Paul shows that everyone has been held captive to ignorance of God and His way. God's wisdom was hidden from "the rulers of this age." Had they had it, their minds would have had the material to reach a far different conclusion about what to do about Christ. They would have produced a different result.
The wisdom of God was hidden from us too until God began to lead us by His Spirit. I Corinthians 2:10-12 informs us of the change this has wrought in our lives:
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
Read more: http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseact...#ixzz1dyJf1EiZ
Moral relativism is the world brainwashing you to think like everyone else and be oblivious to Jesus Christ.
If Satanic thinking isn't a powerful force in the world then how did infanticide become a worldwide phenomenon? Only for Judaism and Christianity to wipe it out and then infanticide rears its ugly head again in the 20th century in the form of abortion to become as common as infanticide when for thousands of years aborting babies was a socially unacceptable practice?
And what's the argument for abortion? Pro-choice. A woman having control of her body. Well how do you know the woman is in her right mind when she makes her decision whether to have one or not? A lot of women repent of abortion.
If Satanic thinking isn't a powerful force in the world then how did infanticide become a worldwide phenomenon? Only for Judaism and Christianity to wipe it out and then infanticide rears its ugly head again in the 20th century in the form of abortion to become as common as infanticide when for thousands of years aborting babies was a socially unacceptable practice?
And what's the argument for abortion? Pro-choice. A woman having control of her body. Well how do you know the woman is in her right mind when she makes her decision whether to have one or not? A lot of women repent of abortion.
On a different note--in reference to your conversation with Neue, since you are generally such an ontological slut, why are you a relativist about beauty?
Moral relativism is the world brainwashing you to think like everyone else and be oblivious to Jesus Christ.
If Satanic thinking isn't a powerful force in the world then how did infanticide become a worldwide phenomenon? Only for Judaism and Christianity to wipe it out and then infanticide rears its ugly head again in the 20th century in the form of abortion to become as common as infanticide when for thousands of years aborting babies was a socially unacceptable practice?
And what's the argument for abortion? Pro-choice. A woman having control of her body. Well how do you know the woman is in her right mind when she makes her decision whether to have one or not? A lot of women repent of abortion.
If Satanic thinking isn't a powerful force in the world then how did infanticide become a worldwide phenomenon? Only for Judaism and Christianity to wipe it out and then infanticide rears its ugly head again in the 20th century in the form of abortion to become as common as infanticide when for thousands of years aborting babies was a socially unacceptable practice?
And what's the argument for abortion? Pro-choice. A woman having control of her body. Well how do you know the woman is in her right mind when she makes her decision whether to have one or not? A lot of women repent of abortion.
Though even theists forget this when worshipping.
William McDowell, I Give Myself Away
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...ail&FORM=VIRE3
Moral relativism is the world brainwashing you to think like everyone else and be oblivious to Jesus Christ.
If Satanic thinking isn't a powerful force in the world then how did infanticide become a worldwide phenomenon? Only for Judaism and Christianity to wipe it out and then infanticide rears its ugly head again in the 20th century in the form of abortion to become as common as infanticide when for thousands of years aborting babies was a socially unacceptable practice?
And what's the argument for abortion? Pro-choice. A woman having control of her body. Well how do you know the woman is in her right mind when she makes her decision whether to have one or not? A lot of women repent of abortion.
If Satanic thinking isn't a powerful force in the world then how did infanticide become a worldwide phenomenon? Only for Judaism and Christianity to wipe it out and then infanticide rears its ugly head again in the 20th century in the form of abortion to become as common as infanticide when for thousands of years aborting babies was a socially unacceptable practice?
And what's the argument for abortion? Pro-choice. A woman having control of her body. Well how do you know the woman is in her right mind when she makes her decision whether to have one or not? A lot of women repent of abortion.
Yes this is correct, however evolutionary biology concepts are also becoming increasingly capable of answering moral questions, for they are able to trace the genesis of particular groups of morals, as well as the environmental variables that make those morals necessary - thereby explaining 1. why we still have those particular morals and 2. whether those morals are still applicable in the current environment. The answers to such questions can be scientifically derived, and neuroscience combined with biology are becoming increasinly adept at doing so. It is still a relatively new and developing approach to answering such questions and perhaps my own limited understanding of it is reflected in my inability to convincingly convey the theory, but I am trying.
As I said before, I think where you're going wrong is that you are either not distinguishing at all, or not distinguishing carefully between the explanation for why we have the particular moral attitudes we have and whether or not those moral attitudes are correct, and you are only reinforcing this suspicion here.
I also want to say that I admire your forthrightness in presenting your views here. Some of the posters on this forum are hesitant to put forward their views, whether because they are afraid they will be attacked or mocked, or because they are worried they will be unable to defend them, etc. It is refreshing to see you take such a bold stand, even if I think you are wrong.
The propagation of any given gene - within **** sapiens - is accomplished more successfuly when there are increased transactions between the agents/when the collective benefits. The reason for this, is that we are social animals who live in groups/tribes/cities/countries. When one of us helps another out, the chances of both people's genes propagating is increased. In contrast, when one of us murders or steals from the other, loyalty and trust is not displayed, therefore fewer transactions between us occur, and the chances of our genes propagating is reduced.
A good example of this is in iterated Prisoner's Dilemmas. Why is it that always cooperate is not the best strategy? After all, cooperating seems to be the strategy that best promotes collective survival. The reason why this strategy fails is because a population of such "social animals" would be easily taken advantage of and then replaced by a defector mutation--even though such a mutation would presumably be harmful to the collective survival of the population as a whole.
Thus, in **** sapiens and a lot of other animals that live in groups - the morals are tailored toward the benefit of the collective, rather than the individual. This is further evidenced in the fact that most people and a lot of animals would sacrifice their own life for their children. Under an evolutionary strategy that rewarded - individual survival - rather than - collective survival - this would not be the case (e.g. trees - in which the evolutionary strategy is to keep the individual entity alive as long as possible). Morals and emotions in humans are thus generally tailored toward facilitating the survival of the collective.
I'll also point out that on the genetic model a parent sacrificing her life for that of her child does reward individual survival. Remember, I'm not supposing that evolution rewards the individual survival of a particular person, or even of a particular instantiation of a gene, but rather that of the genetic code itself (with the previous caveats about it not actually being about survival but propagation). And since the child also carries some of the genetic code of the parent, the survival of the child can be more important in propagating that genetic code than that of the parent.
Silly hypothetical. Of course you'd pick A, you have only ever lived in something closer to A, than B. You have evolved in a way that would always choose A and your life experience has given you knowledge tailored to always picking A. You haven't really lived in B? or tried B in order to make an unbiased decision here have you?
It's like asking a 12 year old evangelical christian kid (who's only ever been exposed to christianity), if he would rather pray to Satan or Allah or if he would rather pray to Jesus...
It's like asking a 12 year old evangelical christian kid (who's only ever been exposed to christianity), if he would rather pray to Satan or Allah or if he would rather pray to Jesus...
Second, if you think that I really do prefer society A as described (and you acknowledge that this preference has moral implications), then you have to give up the claim that we can describe our moral beliefs as being based on the goal of collective survival alone. Society A is explictly less successful on this goal than society B, so you'll be unable to explain why I prefer it.
Your preference is not immoral because it aligns with everything that's demonstrated medical, scientific and technological advancement - hence increased chances of survival. Your hypothetical is unreasonable however, for no human society scoring 99 in intellectual, cultural and technological outcomes would have a lower chance of survival, than one that only scores 10 in these outcomes.
Also, how can you say that my preference is not immoral? I am explicitly claiming to prefer a society that has a lower collective survival probability. Doesn't that go against what you think is the ultimate basis for our morality?
It's like me asking you - if you could pick between A. believing in a God for which there is no evidence at all, but which provides you with 60% emotional solace and happiness, or B. believing in nothing and being depressed for your whole life/having a 90%chance of suicide - which would you pick?
Equally unreasonable hypothetical, for it simply does not align with reality. Not believing in God does not necessarily give you a 90% chance of suicide, and to suggest that it does (in attempting to argue FOR God) is unreasonable. This is essentially what you're doing here. Using an unreasonable hypothetical that is not grounded in reality, in order to argue FOR your particular side.
If you want to convince me of anything, please provide me with a reasonable hypothetical, that is grounded in reality, and not tailored in an unrealistic way, that has to manipulate reality in order to attain the answer you wish.
Edit: in thinking about it more, describing my preference as a hypothetical is misleading. As a matter of fact, I actually do have a preference for Society A over B. That is not a hypothetical at all. If I really do have such a preference, then it doesn't matter whether Society A is real, likely, or even possible. What you need to explain is how it is possible for me to prefer something that I think has a lower collective survival probability. It seems to me that your only option is to claim that I don't actually have such a preference or that this preference doesn't impinge on my moral beliefs.
If you think about it God has to be in a class by Himself because He's the only one with power over life. He's the only one that can give you a new body and raise you to new life.
Even if you argue the most altruistic act e.g., self-sacrifice to save another life, it can be argued that the sacrifice was for the survival of the greater whole.
yeah or becoming pointless. thanks for the effort you put into this, but everything you just wrote is like a foreign language to me. however i try to follow your parallel to discovering abstract math objects and learning about the complexity of nature, or envision idealizing to moral axioms and 'mapping back' to the real world, i just come up with 'humans can learn about a descriptive morality'. i am unable to fathom where or how should/shouldn't come in as objective, or how they can have any meaning at all without the added notion of subjective utility (or the will of god etc.) to me the notion of mind independent values is no different than saying what humans do matters to a rock
cheers
cheers
Well I think so. I was just pointing out the false dichotomy.
Nowhere. Or the same place as other abstract objects, whichever you prefer.
Using my idiosyncratic definition of soul, it kind of is (in that it isn't spatial). But it's not qualitatively very similar, no.
This is just the same error. We use it as a tool, so we give it a function.
When a caveman kills an animal with a rock it doesn't imply the purpose of rocks is weaponry.
Where does it exist?
Is it like a soul?
Is it a tool? If it's a tool, it has a purpose and a function. If it has a purpose and a function......
When a caveman kills an animal with a rock it doesn't imply the purpose of rocks is weaponry.
My second thought is that, just because I grant objective existence to lots of classes of object, it doesn't follow that I should deny the existence of any subjective concepts.
...there was a bit here I've now editted out trying to explain why beauty is subjective, but I ended up arguing it was objective. I think my first guess might be right. I'll have to think about it.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE