# Taking a stand on moral relativism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 24, 2003, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288 "2003-08-24T06:06:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/401 "2003-09-12T20:06:34Z")
> [@](#): > > I reassert that teleology is used to indicate goals and purposes built into situations, while evolutionary morality holds that goals arise from the purposeless change of the cosmos Yes, well, that’s great when human consciousness is not deterministic, but since you’ve made a point out of assering a deterministic frame, our goals are exactly what the universe “wants” us to have. I realize you want it both ways, but I don’t think you can have your cake after you’ve eaten it like this. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/402 "2003-09-12T20:32:19Z")
But what difference does it make? Whether the universe is deterministic or not, it will always appear that we have “free will” and such. And it doesn’t do much good to assume non-determinism if you’re concerned about human dignity anyway. Then we still have the same goals that the universe “wants” us to have, chosen randomly from a list of possibilities. Is that any better? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/403 "2003-09-12T20:47:35Z")
> [@](#): > > we still have the same goals that the universe “wants” us to have, chosen randomly from a list of possibilities. I hesitate to ask how this follows, but I’m asking: how the hell does this follow? > [@](#): > > Is that any better? What, do you suppose, would it take to answer such a question? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/404 "2003-09-12T20:49:07Z")
Perhaps it would help if we rephrased things slightly: Instead of asking what we should do, without specifying _what_ we should do (which leads to horrible problems and terrible headaches for me), let’s use a different phasing. Morality is our understanding of the right way to live. If we choose a path that results in our dying, isn’t that by definition not the correct way to live? In a way, my claim is somewhat similar to Teilhard de Chardin’s ideas. There are several differences: he claims the universe has a goal or endstate towards which it is proceeding purposefully, I claim that universe is without purpose and generates purposes from its actions. He claims the final state of the universe is God; note that he’s not making a definition of the term “God”, but asserting that the universe will proceed towards a specific entity that he’s pre-defined. I have no idea what the “final state” will be, but it will be the ultimately incarnation of morality; I don’t directly make claims about what that morality is. Emotions are evolutionary memories, prejudices that we’re born with because they were successful at being passed down. It doesn’t necessarily follow that obeying your emotions or impulses is the best way to survive. Reference _gom jabbar_. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/405 "2003-09-12T20:55:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \*\*\*I hesitate to ask how this follows, but I’m asking: how the hell does this follow? \*\* Non-determinism: certain events have genuinely random outcomes. That doesn’t make us any more free than we were before: there’s no rhyme or reason for why those events turn out any particular way. And we’re still bound by the determinstic events. There’s also the very real possibility that the universe is the sum of all possibilities, in which case the non-determinism of the universe is what makes it deterministic. It would be like imaging every possible ordering of a deck of playing cards: there’s one in which the cards have been placed sequentially. Or like viewing a sculpture made up of flat planes, suspended at seemingly random angles, that form a coherent image when viewed from a particular angle. Except that it would be the superposition of all such sculptures. > [@](#): > > \*\*What, do you suppose, would it take to answer such a question? \*\* I don’t think it can be. Human “choice” is just as much an illusion one way as the other. The problem is that people want to believe that their decisions are controlled by an underlying mechanism while they’re simultaneously NOT controlled by any mechanism. They can’t perceive how their own minds work (necessarily), and so they insist that they’re not the result of causal processes, yet they also claim their actions are consistent and meaningful. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/406 "2003-09-12T21:09:55Z")
> [@](#): > > If we choose a path that results in our dying, isn’t that by definition not the correct way to live? Only if… [drummroll]… you’ve defined “good” as “not dead”, then yes, you are right. Funny thing is? It isn’t obviously necessary to define it as such. > [@](#): > > Emotions are evolutionary memories, prejudices that we’re born with because they were successful at being passed down. This is false, _still_. I know you would absolutely love to twist it around, but evolution only determines what isn’t fit. Traits that don’t cause death do not necessarily cause life; witness the appendix. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t necessarily follow that obeying your emotions or impulses is the best way to survive. **It would if existing as such is the definition of ‘good’** like you’ve been saying. So, hey, how’s that cake? > [@](#): > > Non-determinism: certain events have genuinely random outcomes. I’m sorry, I thought we were using standard philosophical conceptions of non-determinism which do not consider the opposite of “everything is predetermined” to be “stuff is random”. > [@](#): > > They can’t perceive how their own minds work (necessarily), and so they insist that they’re not the result of causal processes, yet they also claim their actions are consistent and meaningful. And this false dichotomy of “meaningful” versus “uncaused” is supposed to be obvious to me… how, exactly? > [@](#): > > They can’t perceive how their own minds work (necessarily), and so they insist that they’re not the result of causal processes, yet they also claim their actions are consistent and meaningful. Is this anything like you insisting there is an absolute standard even though you don’t know it? Ah, of course not, because you have true truth that evolution defines goodness, while the rest of us are stuck with untrue falseness. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/407 "2003-09-12T21:26:41Z")
And, actually, determinism is just that everything has a cause; fatalism is that everything is predetermined. Sorry. ---
**Author:** ![epolo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@epolo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/epolo)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/408 "2003-09-12T21:46:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*\*\* From your perspective? You’d probably see it as wrong – you want to go on living, after all. Meteor – doesn’t really have any desires, as far as I can determine. Disinterested third party? Is there really such a thing? Absolute morality? Well, obviously you were killable, so I suppose the universe approves. Okay, who are you and what did you do with the **TVAA** who had been posting to this thread? 1. How could I see it as “wrong” if I’m dead? 2. To whom would I ascribe the “wrong” action? What “wrong” _choice_ was made? 3. If the meteor has no desires how can it hold something to be “wrong”? If it cannot hold something to be wrong how can it be said to have a moral system? If I can be said to have a moral system but a meteor cannot what is the underlying difference between us? Or is it only mud puddles that you cannot distinguish from people? 4. If a thing is possible, the universe approves of it? If a thing happens, the universe approves of it? 5. Doesn’t claiming that the universe “approves” of something smack of teleology? 6. Your answer admits that there are many possible moral perspectives on one event none of which appear to be privileged. How do you square this with a rejection of relativism as defined by **erislover**? > [@](#): > > Um. It’s not bad, but I think information theory has done this before you. I’m not actually all that familiar with information theory. I was just trying to define my terms clearly. If you feel my definition is both clear and useful, how do you respond to the conclusions I draw from it? > [@](#): > > Let’s say that the scenario would actually work. Then the moral system of the individual who thought it was a good deal would spread and persist. Of _course_ it’s a good thing! Well, thank you for your generosity in accepting the premise of my thought experiment. But you’ve missed the point. I suppose I made an unfounded assumption in taking for granted that you would think killing someone you love is “wrong”. My point was to highlight a paradox in which a violation of someone’s established moral system could lead to “success” (as you’ve defined it) for that moral system. Stated like that, do you have a reply? Or are you of the mind that one cannot violate one’s moral system, only modify it? In which case, how can it be said to be a guide for behavior? Or do you reject morality being a guide, since all of our actions are predetermined and “morality” is simply a state that our brains have come to? > [@](#): > > It has been noted that evolution doesn’t necessarily produce happy things, it produces things that are good at remaining present in the universe. Right. And what everyone else here has been saying is that evolution doesn’t necessarily produce _moral_ things, it produces things that are good at remaining present in the universe. Why couldn’t all your arguments be reproduced with the word “happy” instead of “good”? > [@](#): > > I believe that position would be “religious leader”. Do _none_ of you listen to classic Reggae? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/409 "2003-09-12T21:51:38Z")
Not just “happy”, but _true_ happiness. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/410 "2003-09-12T23:38:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*Only if… [drummroll]… you’ve defined “good” as “not dead”, then yes, you are right. \*\* Not “only if”. Isn’t it clear that the right way to live doesn’t involve dying? How can dying be part of proper living when death is defined as not being alive? > [@](#): > > \*\*This is false, _still_. I know you would absolutely love to twist it around, but evolution only determines what isn’t fit. Traits that don’t cause death do not necessarily cause life; witness the appendix. \*\* It caused life. It doesn’t seem to be necessary now, which is why it’s fading. > [@](#): > > \*\*I’m sorry, I thought we were using standard philosophical conceptions of non-determinism which do not consider the opposite of “everything is predetermined” to be “stuff is random”. \*\* But that IS the opposite of “everything is predetermined”, and vice versa. Either everything is predetermined, or there is at least one thing that isn’t. > [@](#): > > **And this false dichotomy of “meaningful” versus “uncaused” is supposed to be obvious to me… how, exactly?** If people’s choices aren’t attributable to anything, there’s no way that anything can be considered responsible for it. > [@](#): > > \*\*Is this anything like you insisting there is an absolute standard even though you don’t know it? Ah, of course not, because you have true truth that evolution defines goodness, while the rest of us are stuck with untrue falseness. \*\* Hello… the universe exists. Thus its functioning happens without our understanding what the its nature is. ---
**Author:** ![godzillatemple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/49beb7/32.png) [@godzillatemple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godzillatemple)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2003, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/411 "2003-09-12T23:47:57Z")
Let me ask a question for **TVAA** , just to possibly help clarify things a bit (hey – it could happen): Let’s say you have a population of moths living in, say England before the industrial revolution. These moths are generally white, although on a rare occasion a random mutation causes a moth to be born with dark spots, or even entirely dark. These moths live in peace in harmony, and avoid airborn predators by blending in seemlessly with the white trees that exist in their environment. Now, let’s say that along comes the industrial revolution and pumps tons of coal dust into the air to such a degree that all the previously white trees are now black. As a result, these poor moths start getting eaten by birds at an unprecedented rate. Except, of course for the moths with dark spots who are able to blend in with the now black trees and avoid getting eaten. As a result, within a few generations there are no more black moths, and the entire species has evolved to become a new color. Previously, the random mutations were contrary to survival (since black moths could be seen easily against white trees), but as the environment changed the principles of evolution allowed the moths to successfully adapt to that evironment, and being a black moth is now a “good” thing (assuming you think it’s good to have a large moth population). My question for **TVAA** is what does the fact that the species has survived as a result of random mutation say about the moth’s system of morals? If the species has adapted and survived according to the laws of evolution, this must be the result of having a good moral system, right? After all, morality doesn’t just apply to humans, does it? What choices did the moths make to allow them to survive? Barry ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/412 "2003-09-13T00:00:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by epolo \* > \*\*Okay, who are you and what did you do with the **TVAA** who had been posting to this thread? \*\* I’m still here. I’ve always been here. > [@](#): > > **1) How could I see it as “wrong” if I’m dead?** You could see it as wrong as a hypothetical. Clearly it would be difficult for you to hold an opinion when you’re dead. > [@](#): > > **2) To whom would I ascribe the “wrong” action? What “wrong” _choice_ was made?** The universe produced an outcome you find undesirable. Obviously you’d blame the universe. You would of course be wrong to do so, but that’s life. (And death.) > [@](#): > > \*\*3) If the meteor has no desires how can it hold something to be “wrong”? If it cannot hold something to be wrong how can it be said to have a moral system? If I can be said to have a moral system but a meteor cannot what is the underlying difference between us? Or is it only mud puddles that you cannot distinguish from people? \*\* Your emotions are just the result of your brain operating according to the laws of physics. The meteor follows its nature, as do you. The whole point of this thread is that morality is more than human opinion. The only difference between you and the puddle is that your substance is in a different configuration. > [@](#): > > \*\*4) If a thing is possible, the universe approves of it? If a thing happens, the universe approves of it? \*\* Metaphorically, yes. It’s what came next. > [@](#): > > \*\*5) Doesn’t claiming that the universe “approves” of something smack of teleology? \*\* No, just metaphor. _You_ try discussing unintelligent processes without using it. > [@](#): > > \*\*6) Your answer admits that there are many possible moral perspectives on one event none of which appear to be privileged. How do you square this with a rejection of relativism as defined by **erislover**? \*\* Privileged system: one moment came as a consequence of the preceding one. That’s all there is. Are you suggesting that your opinion about whether you should be hit with a meteor can be _compared_ with the principles of physics themselves? > [@](#): > > **I’m not actually all that familiar with information theory. I was just trying to define my terms clearly. If you feel my definition is both clear and useful, how do you respond to the conclusions I draw from it?** What conclusion is that, again? > [@](#): > > \*\*But you’ve missed the point. I suppose I made an unfounded assumption in taking for granted that you would think killing someone you love is “wrong”. My point was to highlight a paradox in which a violation of someone’s established moral system could lead to “success” (as you’ve defined it) for that moral system. \*\* I do not currently believe that murder would be the proper response to the basic scenario, but your presentation of it stated the outcome as a given. You can never violate the system that controls how you behave. If you take an action, you’ve selected it. You _can_ take an action that you reject later. Perhaps in the absence of a particular emotion, you view the choice differently. You may not consciously “like” the choice before or after you make it, but that’s not the point. Everything that everyone does seems like a good idea at the time. That’s why the phrase is a cliche. When the decision is made, it’s the result that is given by the configuration of the person’s mind at that particular time by definition. > [@](#): > > \*\*In which case, how can it be said to be a guide for behavior? Or do you reject morality being a guide, since all of our actions are predetermined and “morality” is simply a state that our brains have come to? \*\* Now you’re discussing human ideas about what the module making decisions should do. That can be and is a “guide”, but it’s not the module itself. > [@](#): > > \*\*Right. And what everyone else here has been saying is that evolution doesn’t necessarily produce _moral_ things, it produces things that are good at remaining present in the universe. Why couldn’t all your arguments be reproduced with the word “happy” instead of “good”? \*\* My point is that morality WILL BE understood to mean “things that are good at remaining present in the universe”. Evidence demonstrates that evolution doesn’t necessarily produce happiness. Let’s assume that your scenario would actually work out as you said it would. From one perspective, would it be “wrong” to reject the offer? Perhaps not – but the component of that person which lead to that decision might not have survived, while the selfish jerk who carried out the murder would have been duplicated and amplified throughout the universe. That component, which perceived the murder as the “right” thing to do, has now eliminated the competing opinions. It is now, necessarily, “good”. I personally hope I don’t live in such a universe. But my hopes have nothing to do with whether or not I do. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/413 "2003-09-13T00:14:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by godzillatemple \* > \*\*Let me ask a question for **TVAA** , just to possibly help clarify things a bit (hey – it could happen): > > Let’s say you have a population of moths living in, say England before the industrial revolution. These moths are generally white, although on a rare occasion a random mutation causes a moth to be born with dark spots, or even entirely dark. These moths live in peace in harmony, and avoid airborn predators by blending in seemlessly with the white trees that exist in their environment. > > Now, let’s say that along comes the industrial revolution and pumps tons of coal dust into the air to such a degree that all the previously white trees are now black. As a result, these poor moths start getting eaten by birds at an unprecedented rate. Except, of course for the moths with dark spots who are able to blend in with the now black trees and avoid getting eaten. > > As a result, within a few generations there are no more black moths, and the entire species has evolved to become a new color. Previously, the random mutations were contrary to survival (since black moths could be seen easily against white trees), but as the environment changed the principles of evolution allowed the moths to successfully adapt to that evironment, and being a black moth is now a “good” thing (assuming you think it’s good to have a large moth population). > > My question for **TVAA** is what does the fact that the species has survived as a result of random mutation say about the moth’s system of morals? If the species has adapted and survived according to the laws of evolution, this must be the result of having a good moral system, right? After all, morality doesn’t just apply to humans, does it? What choices did the moths make to allow them to survive?\*\* We’re now looking at the moths as fiduciary observers, yes? One group of moths had a property that camoflaged them, and the others didn’t. Then circumstances changed so that the first group was disadvantaged and the second benefitted. The properties are what matter. The moths don’t make choices. The system in question had certain properties, and it changes according to certain principles, and they produce a certain outcome. That’s all there is. Human beings are not separated from the rest of the universe. They have thoughts and opinions and beliefs, but these are just properties of their neurology. It’s just a different system, and it develops according to the same principles. The system accepts input, _so_, and produces output, _so_. That’s all there is. It was morally correct that the white moths survived in the first part of the scenario, and morally correct that they be eaten in the second. _But it doesn’t matter what the moths thought about things._ We’re not talking about the moth’s morality, we’re talking about the universe’s. Now, if the moths held beliefs about white supremacy, and killed all moths who deviated from their own genetic “perfection”, all the moths would probably have died when conditions changed. _Then_ we could discuss the morality of their strategy, since you seem set in your conception of morality as associated with consciousness. ---
**Author:** ![godzillatemple](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/49beb7/32.png) [@godzillatemple](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godzillatemple)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/414 "2003-09-13T00:15:35Z")
> [@](#): > > **Evidence demonstrates that evolution doesn’t necessarily produce happiness.** Yes, well, evidence also demonstrates that evolution doesn’t necessarily produce things that are good at remaining present in the universe either. Was the Dodo produced by evolution? How about the Passenger Pigeon? There are plenty of species which “evolved” to their current state, only to go extinct. On what basis can you claim that the “purpose” of evolution is survival? Just because some species survive longer because of how they evolved doesn’t mean that other species haven’t failed because of how they evolved. You are the one who has arbitrarily decided that the purpose of evolution is survival. Perhaps the “purpose” of evolution is, say, mererly to provide as much variety as possible. Barry ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/415 "2003-09-13T00:28:09Z")
Actually, the dodo is an excellent example of the dangers of paradise. Mauritius appeared to be a perfect environment: no predators, plenty of food, no competition. In the absence of selection pressures which maintained them, many of the dodo’s traits atrophied: it seems to have lost its fear response, it lost its nesting instincts (and supposedly left its eggs where they fell), and so forth. Between the energy saved by terminating metabolically expensive traits and genetic randomization not countered by selection, the dodo _devolved_. The same thing is happening to the koala, by the way. When the environment changed radically, with the introduction of predators such as rats and dogs, the dodos had lost the ability to adapt to anything other than the extremely simple and safe existence it, as a species, had become accustomed to. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/416 "2003-09-13T00:47:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > Not “only if”. Isn’t it clear that the right way to live doesn’t involve dying? How can dying be part of proper living when death is defined as not being alive? For someone so concerned with survival I’d think it would be clear that a sacrifice of the individual so the rest may prosper could (not necessarily would) be a valid judgment. I mentioned earlier that your survival criterion was not so clear cut, because the question “_My_ survival or _everyone’s_ or _only these people_’s survival” were all variously at odds with each other, but still using the “survive = good” criterion. If the fact is that there is a proper way to be, then this criterion fails. If the fact is that this is a privileged methodology, then this criterion fails and in fact will create dilemmas between people valuing different survivals. In short: it fails to eliminate relativism. > [@](#): > > It caused life. It doesn’t seem to be necessary now, which is why it’s fading. Again, this is not necessarily the case. Mutations that do not kill the organism will perpetuate. This never has and never will mean that mutations that do not kill the organism will make the organism survive “better”. Another mechanism for selection involves enabling procreation in an easier form. However, this can obviously be a species’s downfall if it outgrows the food supply. From talkorigins > [@](#): > > From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don’t interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating. Note it never says, nor can it be deduced from the passage, that all mutations that perpetuate are either beneficial to reproductive success or (exclusive) directly harmful. Should we return to the square root of two? 😛 😉 Actually, in this case, a more illustrative example would be the cube root of two. > [@](#): > > But that IS the opposite of “everything is predetermined”, and vice versa. Either everything is predetermined, or there is at least one thing that isn’t. Yes, of course, that is a simple application of the law of the excluded middle. However, “isn’t predetermined” still does not **necessarily** indicate “is random”, which was my problem. This is a false dichotomy. For further reading on the matter, I suggest reading up on incompatibilist theories of free will. > [@](#): > > If people’s choices aren’t attributable to anything, there’s no way that anything can be considered responsible for it. Obviously. When I read this I see, “If people’s choices aren’t causal in origin then you can’t create a causal chain to explain them” which is trivial. The interesting question would be: why has **TVAA** ruled out all non-causal activity? > [@](#): > > Hello… the universe exists. Thus its functioning happens without our understanding what the its nature is. Yes, but only **TVAA** has claimed a unique and intimate understanding of how the universe works. While most of us indeed assume it exists in a definite and (at least partially) knowable way, that has not cleared the way for **single, unique theories** of epistemology, morality, aesthetics, will, and etc. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/417 "2003-09-13T01:50:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*For someone so concerned with survival I’d think it would be clear that a sacrifice of the individual so the rest may prosper could (not necessarily would) be a valid judgment. \*\* Of the person deciding, yes. Whether a particular choice would result in a particular outcome is not dependent on the person’s opinion. > [@](#): > > \*\*I mentioned earlier that your survival criterion was not so clear cut, because the question “_My_ survival or _everyone’s_ or _only these people_’s survival” were all variously at odds with each other, but still using the “survive = good” criterion. If the fact is that there is a proper way to be, then this criterion fails. If the fact is that this is a privileged methodology, then this criterion fails and in fact will create dilemmas between people valuing different survivals. In short: it fails to eliminate relativism. \*\* What? The reality _is_ the absolute. The proper way to be _is_ that which leads to survival. Instead of sticking to a human perspective, you’re going to have to step outside. > [@](#): > > \*\*Again, this is not necessarily the case. Mutations that do not kill the organism will perpetuate. This never has and never will mean that mutations that do not kill the organism will make the organism survive “better”. \*\* It might. It depends. Depends on what? On the forces that affect the organism. > [@](#): > > **Another mechanism for selection involves enabling procreation in an easier form. However, this can obviously be a species’s downfall if it outgrows the food supply.** If such a thing happened, then it wouldn’t be an improvement, would it? > [@](#): > > \*\*Note it never says, nor can it be deduced from the passage, that all mutations that perpetuate are either beneficial to reproductive success or (exclusive) directly harmful. \*\* Of course harmful mutations tend not to propagate. I presume that’s what you meant? Without selection, the genome “spreads”. Mutation and recombination will slowly broaden the species’ extent in genome-space. It’s easier to eliminate traits than generate them, so the random shifting of the genotype will gradually erode the organisms’ traits. Selection is what maintains those traits – without it, information degrades. With too much selection, the genome “constricts”. Selection will slowly eliminate all diversity and difference, focusing the species’ extent in genome-space. The eventual result will be a species that is in perfect equilibrium with its environment, but is unable to adapt to even a minor change. When the environment inevitably changes, the species will probably be destroyed. If it survives at all, it will probably take dozens of generations to regain its genetic diversity: harmless mutations that might one day prove adaptive. > [@](#): > > \*\*Yes, of course, that is a simple application of the law of the excluded middle. However, “isn’t predetermined” still does not **necessarily** indicate “is random”, which was my problem. This is a false dichotomy. For further reading on the matter, I suggest reading up on incompatibilist theories of free will. \*\* “Pre”-determined may be the wrong way to speak of it. Causality is causality: the universe proceeds from one state to another in a specific manner. Any moment in time implies all the others that came before and after. Something that isn’t derivable from earlier moments is by definition truly random. “Determined” does not mean forseen by a cosmic intelligence. A god does not need to know the future for things to be determined, because they’re determined by the workings of the universe. I suggest you find and play with an Applet of the Game of Life to gain an intuitive grasp of this concept. > [@](#): > > \*\*Obviously. When I read this I see, “If people’s choices aren’t causal in origin then you can’t create a causal chain to explain them” which is trivial. The interesting question would be: why has **TVAA** ruled out all non-causal activity? \*\* We can simply imagine a probablity tree: the Tree of Worlds. It contains all possible pasts and possible futures. The tree itself is static. All the previous arguments apply. > [@](#): > > \*\*Yes, but only **TVAA** has claimed a unique and intimate understanding of how the universe works. While most of us indeed assume it exists in a definite and (at least partially) knowable way, that has not cleared the way for **single, unique theories** of epistemology, morality, aesthetics, will, and etc. \*\* If “aesthetic”, for example, is merely that which induces a particular state in the human brain, then _anything_ can be aesthetic. It’s only necessary to create a link between that which detects and condition and that which produces the state. What’s important is that most such linkages do not seem to be viable. There are standards that judge whether the link is compatible with existence or not. These are not standards that exist in the human mind; they are parts of universal law. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/418 "2003-09-13T01:56:44Z")
The passenger pigeon is another fascinating study. It lived in flocks so huge that they literally blocked out the sun. Millions would travel in groups, carpeting the skies. Their numbers were why people foolishly assumed they couldn’t become extinct. From what scientists can gather, their breeding instincts had come to depend on being in large groups. (It’s an obvious progression: first, such a social animal must necessarily have instincts and responses that permit it to breed in large groups, and as time goes on it will accumulate traits that depend on that state for activation. When it reaches equilibrium with the forces it generates, it will inevitably take the conditions it creates for granted.) The minimum population for successful breeding was quite high. Hunting diminished the numbers below that minimum population, and the population crashed. Didn’t you people ever take elementary differential equations in college? Population dynamics are a standard example. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/419 "2003-09-13T03:13:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Of course harmful mutations tend not to propagate. I presume that’s what you meant? Not at all. I meant exactly what I said. There are more mutations than “beneficial” and “lethal”. Anything which doesn’t kill will be passed on. > [@](#): > > The passenger pigeon is another fascinating study. Human beings with varying moral standards that all exist are much more pertinent. > [@](#): > > The proper way to be is that which leads to survival. **Who’s survival?** Mine? Mine and those I like? _Everyone’s_? Why is this answer conspicuously absent? I have my ideas but in this case time may very well tell. > [@](#): > > If such a thing happened, then it wouldn’t be an improvement, would it? Of course. My point wasn’t that death is really good. > [@](#): > > Causality is causality: the universe proceeds from one state to another in a specific manner. Except for your conception of morality which is quite static, of course, and seemingly uncaused 😉 (I hope you take that as lightly as I meant it, but I _do_ mean it.) > [@](#): > > “Determined” does not mean forseen by a cosmic intelligence. I hope you don’t think I suggested that was your position. If you do, please let me assure you I do not harbor that conception. > [@](#): > > We can simply imagine a probablity tree: the Tree of Worlds. It contains all possible pasts and possible futures. The tree itself is static. Good luck with that. Again, whether you have faith that such a thing is factual does not change epistemic limitations which create plural systems that are not able to be concurrently evaluated. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2003, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288/420 "2003-09-13T03:30:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Didn’t you people ever take elementary differential equations in college? Population dynamics are a standard example. Actually I took it in high school. Growth and decay curves are part and parcel of trivial diffy-qs. I’m not sure what you think this illustrates about morality per se. I understand where you want to get to, but it is like the old cartoon, “A miracle occurs” and I’m telling you you might want to develop that step a bit more. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/taking-a-stand-on-moral-relativism/197288.md?page=22)