Taking a stand on moral relativism

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
Possibly. I prefer to think that I’m just more sensitive to certain linguistic concerns than the average person.

Ah. So you admit that you are just playing semantic games then?

Pffh. The same problem exists with all scientific theories about the nature of the world.

Bollucks. While no theory can ever be shown to be absolutely true in all cases (there’s always a chance a coun ter-example will come along), most accepted scientific theories can still be used to make accurate predictions on a practical basis.

If I have a theory, for example, that describes how acids interact with bases, for example, I don’t need to test every combination of acid and base over an infinite time period before being able to predict with reasonable certainty what will happen if I add a cup of vinegar to a cup of baking soda.

There’s (at least) one key difference between your methodology and that used to validate scientific theories. Under the scientific method, a theory is first proposed to explained a subset of observed phenomena, and then more data is gathered to validate or disprove that theory. Under your methodology, however, one needs to examine all possible data over infinite periods of time before being able to form a theory in the first place. Which is why your methodology is wholly impractical.

First of all, if it’s universal, doesn’t it necessarily apply to everything?

Gee – another question answered with a question. What a surprise. Are you, in fact, alleging that all organisms make “moral choices” and not just man? Yes or no? I’m assuming from what you have said that your answer is “yes” (in which case this whole discussion is pointless since you are therefore using “morality” in a sense that nobody else is using it), but I want to be absolutely sure about wqhat you are actually saying so as to not be accused of putting words in your mouth.

Secondly, I dispute your implication that most human beings make their “moral decisions” through careful, reasoned thought and analysis. As far as I can determine, people tend to make their decisions based on instinct, custom, and “what everyone else is doing”. Rare is the person who approaches such problems logically.

I have made no such implication. You are correct in that most people make their decisions based on custom and peer pressure (I dispute that instinct has much, if anything to do with it, but I’ll let that slide for now). Choosing to follow a principle due to custom or peer pressure is still a matter of choice, however – I never said it had to be “careful, reasoned thought and analysis” in every instance, although I do believe that many people do give it such careful thought.

Thirdly, if we accept (as you seem to imply) that morality holds only for “sentient” creatures, what criteria define sentience?

“Man,” it has been said, “is the only animal that sits around debating what makes him different from other animals.” Morality is the system by which we evaluate choices, and choice is only possible with sentience. Organisms without sentience follow instinct. A wolf does not “choose” whether to feed its pup or not. An amoeba does not choose whether to divide or not. Sentience provides awareness, both of our mortality, the mortality of others, and the fact that our actions have consequences.

Again, if you are arguing that morality exists in the absence of the ability to make conscious choices, and that all organisms make “moral choices” regardless of whether they are intelligent or not, then you have defined “morality” in such a way that we are talking about two completely different concepts here and this entire discussion is pointless.

Yes, it may very well be true that instinct is an evolutionary based concept with absolute and unchanging underlying principles, and it may very well be possible to evaluate whether a particualr instinct is “good” or "bad " based on whether that instinct allows a species or a society to survive. However, nobody else but you equates instinct with morality.

Lots of creatures can change their environment to suit their needs. Admittedly, humans are “better” at this than most creatures.

Well, I’m glad you admitted that humans are a special case when it comes to changing our environment to suit our needs.

Evolution got us to the point where we acquired intelligence. But then we took over the process. When faced with an increasingly cold climate, for example, “evolution” would have us adapt to the environment, perhaps by growing fur. Instead, however, man simply builds a house and invents ways to provide heat to that house. Or else he learns to grow cotton or rais sheep for cloth and makes warm clothing. Or some combination of choices.

Regardless, the point is that man, being intelligent, is no longer forced to adapt to his environment or perish. Therfore, evolution has no absolute say in the validity of his choices.

As for other animals that are able to change their environment rather than adapt to it, all that means is that your theory of evolution-based moral absolutism would also not apply to them. It doesn’t mean that it therefore still applies to humans.

Humans are intelligent? By what standard?

Again, if you can’t even agree that humans are intelligent, this entire conversation is pointless.

Why are you suggesting that morality isn’t universal?

Because the entire concept of morality usually only comes up when discussing human behavior and not that of, say, wolves or amoebas. Why are you suggesting that it is universal?

**What about human being who don’t have the prerequisite level of intelligence? **

Small children and the mentally impaired are generally not held to be accountable for their actions in a court of law. What’s your point?

Barry

[erislover]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
The first is an unfounded assertion – a proposal for a moral axiom. It’s an opinion, nothing more.

The second is a claim about an objective reality – whether it’s true or false, it’s inarguably a statement of fact.

In what reality? “Survival is true goodness” is a statement of fact? They don’t make facts like they used to, then.

Furthermore, I don’t understand the claims about what moral relativism is. If it’s not an aspect of moral subjectivism, then isn’t it necessarily objective? What middle ground is there between subjective and objective?

Let go of the subjective/objective distinction. They’re irrelevant unless you are inside an actual moral system, which relativism is not. Denying moral relativism could be likened to asserting that one measurement system measures better than any other (ie actual measurements, not the ease of computation or something).

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**In what reality? “Survival is true goodness” is a statement of fact? They don’t make facts like they used to, then.

** A ‘fact’ is a statement about reality, one that can be true or false. Opinions can be neither true nor false.

My claim is either correct, or it isn’t. It is therefore a factual claim, not a statement of opinion.

**Let go of the subjective/objective distinction. They’re irrelevant unless you are inside an actual moral system, which relativism is not. Denying moral relativism could be likened to asserting that one measurement system measures better than any other (ie actual measurements, not the ease of computation or something). **

Not at all. Moral relativism doesn’t just acknowledge that moral beliefs can change over time, but that morality itself is fluid and alterable. Different measurement systems use different words and units to describe the same thing; thus, they can be translated into each other.

What you’re describing is more fundamental.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
My claim is either correct, or it isn’t. It is therefore a factual claim, not a statement of opinion.

Um, then please tell me how I evaluate ‘true good’ to see if your claim is factual. And anyway, we went over this several pages ago: “All moral propositions that end in vowels are bad” is an objective standard, independent of the appraiser; it reduces morality to a matter of syntax. You reduce morality to a morality of survival. Both are objective. What does this plurality of objective systems that can appraise others tell me about which one is privileged?

Not at all. Moral relativism doesn’t just acknowledge that moral beliefs can change over time, but that morality itself is fluid and alterable.

It acknowledges two things. One, that to make a moral evaluation like “good, better, best, bad, worst, etc” one must be inside a moral system; two, that there is no privileged moral system. If you suggest that “morality is fluid and alterable” means “morality is dependent on the system that defines and describes it, and there are multiple such systems that are independent and mutually exclusive” then, sure.

Different measurement systems use different words and units to describe the same thing; thus, they can be translated into each other.

They describe the same thing, ie length, provided we assume things like “spatial extension is a property of [stuff]”. Similarly, moral systems describe the same thing, ie good, provided we assume things like “goodness is a property of [stuff]”. While the latter is not necessarily a facet of any particular moral system, it is certainly not forbidden by relativism.

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by godzillatemple *
**Ah. So you admit that you are just playing semantic games then?

** Yes, in the same way that mathematicians play games by rearranging symbols.

If we’re discussing evolution, and someone points out that “theory” has a profoundly different meaning in scientific debate than in the vernacular, are they playing semantic games to confuse creationists? Isn’t evolution just a theory?

Bollucks. While no theory can ever be shown to be absolutely true in all cases (there’s always a chance a coun ter-example will come along), most accepted scientific theories can still be used to make accurate predictions on a practical basis.

And our knowledge and experience of the world can help us determine what’s most likely to be the correct way to live. But we can no more apply our experience without knowing the nature of the specific problem than we could use the Grand Unified Theory to predict the stock market.

**If I have a theory, for example, that describes how acids interact with bases, for example, I don’t need to test every combination of acid and base over an infinite time period before being able to predict with reasonable certainty what will happen if I add a cup of vinegar to a cup of baking soda.

** And I don’t need to observe the universe for infinite time before I can draw reasonable conclusions about whether certain strategies work well or not. But whether they’re right – that’s another story.

**There’s (at least) one key difference between your methodology and that used to validate scientific theories. Under the scientific method, a theory is first proposed to explained a subset of observed phenomena, and then more data is gathered to validate or disprove that theory. Under your methodology, however, one needs to examine all possible data over infinite periods of time before being able to form a theory in the first place. Which is why your methodology is wholly impractical.

** Scientific theories are never really true. They’re just approximations, some of which are better than others. Moral theories are never true, either. If you want to know what’s right, you’ll have to wait forever. If you want a reasonable approximation of correctness, it’s attainable – but you always run the risk of being wrong.

**Gee – another question answered with a question. What a surprise. Are you, in fact, alleging that all organisms make “moral choices” and not just man? Yes or no?

** Um, yeah. More precisely, there’s no fundamental distinction between a “moral choice” and any other kind of behavior, choice, or action.

**I’m assuming from what you have said that your answer is “yes” (in which case this whole discussion is pointless since you are therefore using “morality” in a sense that nobody else is using it), but I want to be absolutely sure about wqhat you are actually saying so as to not be accused of putting words in your mouth.

** It’s not at all pointless. May I ask what you do mean by “morality”?

**I have made no such implication. You are correct in that most people make their decisions based on custom and peer pressure (I dispute that instinct has much, if anything to do with it, but I’ll let that slide for now). Choosing to follow a principle due to custom or peer pressure is still a matter of choice, however – I never said it had to be “careful, reasoned thought and analysis” in every instance, although I do believe that many people do give it such careful thought.

** So “choice” is a function of intelligence? Bugs, dogs, shrubs, and birds don’t make choices?

And it seems that you don’t consider choice to require rational thought. What exactly do you mean by the word?

**“Man,” it has been said, “is the only animal that sits around debating what makes him different from other animals.”

** In one sense, nothing makes him different from the other animals. Remember: two-gallon jugs filled with mud are more complex than the human brain.

In many ways, bees and ants are more different from other animals than humans are.

Morality is the system by which we evaluate choices, and choice is only possible with sentience.

Define ‘sentience’. Why does choice require it? Your claim would seem to be trivially wrong: we watch animals make choices all the time. Why, then, do you make it? What do you mean?

**Organisms without sentience follow instinct. A wolf does not “choose” whether to feed its pup or not. An amoeba does not choose whether to divide or not. Sentience provides awareness, both of our mortality, the mortality of others, and the fact that our actions have consequences.

** Everything follows drives. Wolves constantly make choices. The certain knowledge that there is an underlying mechanism beneath their choices makes no difference – there’s a mechanism beneath our choices as well. In a deep sense, there’s no difference between an amoeba dividing and a person reaching a conclusion – they’re the end results of processes.

Are you seriously suggesting that other creatures do not understand that actions have consequences?

**Again, if you are arguing that morality exists in the absence of the ability to make conscious choices, and that all organisms make “moral choices” regardless of whether they are intelligent or not, then you have defined “morality” in such a way that we are talking about two completely different concepts here and this entire discussion is pointless.

** No, I’m operating according to the meaning of ‘morality’. I don’t know what definition you’re using, but it’s not lending itself to debate.

**Yes, it may very well be true that instinct is an evolutionary based concept with absolute and unchanging underlying principles, and it may very well be possible to evaluate whether a particualr instinct is “good” or "bad " based on whether that instinct allows a species or a society to survive. However, nobody else but you equates instinct with morality.

** What about learned principles? What about learned principles interacting with fundamental psychological drives? Isn’t that morality?

Well, I’m glad you admitted that humans are a special case when it comes to changing our environment to suit our needs.

Lots of things do that. Humans have specialized in it, more than any known creature. So?

**Evolution got us to the point where we acquired intelligence. But then we took over the process. When faced with an increasingly cold climate, for example, “evolution” would have us adapt to the environment, perhaps by growing fur. Instead, however, man simply builds a house and invents ways to provide heat to that house. Or else he learns to grow cotton or rais sheep for cloth and makes warm clothing. Or some combination of choices.

** We don’t “choose” to do those things, we learn to do them. We learn because we have needs that must be filled. Those needs are innate. It doesn’t matter precisely how an organism adapts as long as it does so.

Regardless, the point is that man, being intelligent, is no longer forced to adapt to his environment or perish. Therfore, evolution has no absolute say in the validity of his choices.
[/quote]
** Intelligence is not a binary state: it’s a continuum. Creatures aren’t either non-intelligent or intelligent any more than people are.

**As for other animals that are able to change their environment rather than adapt to it, all that means is that your theory of evolution-based moral absolutism would also not apply to them. It doesn’t mean that it therefore still applies to humans.

** This argument doesn’t even make any sense.

Again, if you can’t even agree that humans are intelligent, this entire conversation is pointless.

Intelligence isn’t binary. Intelligent compared to what?

Because the entire concept of morality usually only comes up when discussing human behavior and not that of, say, wolves or amoebas. Why are you suggesting that it is universal?

If it’s not universal, why discuss it?

Small children and the mentally impaired are generally not held to be accountable for their actions in a court of law. What’s your point?

What’s yours? What difference does it make whether a court of law holds them responsible?

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**Um, then please tell me how I evaluate ‘true good’ to see if your claim is factual.

** Wait for a infinitely long period of time and see what the universe becomes.

**And anyway, we went over this several pages ago: “All moral propositions that end in vowels are bad” is an objective standard, independent of the appraiser; it reduces morality to a matter of syntax. You reduce morality to a morality of survival. Both are objective. What does this plurality of objective systems that can appraise others tell me about which one is privileged?

** The system that runs the world is automatically privileged. By definition.

**It acknowledges two things. One, that to make a moral evaluation like “good, better, best, bad, worst, etc” one must be inside a moral system; two, that there is no privileged moral system.

** Then you’re abolishing the definitions of the words “good, better, best, bad, worst”, etc. Now they mean nothing: there is no usage that can be considered correct or incorrect.

Great job, eris. You’ve successfully dismantled part of the English language.

**If you suggest that “morality is fluid and alterable” means “morality is dependent on the system that defines and describes it, and there are multiple such systems that are independent and mutually exclusive” then, sure.

** Multiple such systems that are equally valid? Then it follows that morality can be changed, simply by changing the system that applies.

**They describe the same thing, ie length, provided we assume things like “spatial extension is a property of [stuff]”. Similarly, moral systems describe the same thing, ie good, provided we assume things like “goodness is a property of [stuff]”. While the latter is not necessarily a facet of any particular moral system, it is certainly not forbidden by relativism. **

No. “Spatial extension” is the [stuff] we’re talking about here. We’re talking about “goodness”: what is the concept?

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
A ‘fact’ is a statement about reality, one that can be true or false. Opinions can be neither true nor false.

No, a “fact” is a true statement about reality, not one that can either be true or false. There is no such thing as a “false fact,” although it is possible to have a false belief as to whether something is a fact or not.

Why do you persist in redefining common terms and then act so surprised when nobody agrees with your conclusions?

**And I don’t need to observe the universe for infinite time before I can draw reasonable conclusions about whether certain strategies work well or not. But whether they’re right – that’s another story.

If you want to know what’s right, you’ll have to wait forever.**

Fair enough. Except that the whole concept of morality deals with deciding what is “right” or “wrong” in the first place. If your theory cannot practically be used to determine what is right and what is wrong, then it isn’t a theory of morality in the first place.

Again, you are redefining the terms and then complaining that nobody understands what you are talking about.

We need to have an English/TVAA lexicon:
[ul][li]Moral absolutism: The doctrine that different societies can apply general principles ins such a way that what is “good” in one society is “bad” in another (i.e., a form of moral relativism).[/li]
[li]Morality: Biological and evolutionary impetuses that exist outside the realm of choice or belief (i.e., instinct).[/li]
[li]Practicality: The ability to use a theory to make reliable predictions and judgments only after first testing all possible permutations over an infinte period of time (i.e., impracticality).[/li]
[li]Fact: Something which can either be true or false (i.e., a belief or an opinion).[/ul][/li]We can add to the lexicon as needed.

Barry

[erislover]

Wait for a infinitely long period of time and see what the universe becomes.

That you don’t see all the assumptions that must be made to state this fascinates me. But I tire of it. Perhaps it would help if you simply stated what a moral system is before we start playing in your sandbox again.

Multiple such systems that are equally valid?

Not under relativism. See the OP, second point of the IEP’s passage I quoted. The same one that was a second-order link in the place you just linked to.

Q: How do we determine moral validity? Moral Relativism’s A: with a moral system.
Q: How do we know that system that is determining moral validity is valid? Moral relativism’s A: Without circular reasoning, we cannot. Thus, there can exist multiple moral systems where the word “valid” does not apply. If it did, we’d be begging the question.

Now they mean nothing.

When you explain this derivation perhaps I’ll toy with the idea.

[TVAA]

This debate is rapidly leaving Ludicrous Station and entering the Tunnel of Stupidity.

Usage Note: Fact has a long history of usage in the sense “allegation of fact,” as in “This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong” (Albert Shanker). This practice has led to the introduction of the phrases true facts and real facts, as in The true facts of the case may never be known. These usages may occasion qualms among critics who insist that facts can only be true, but the usages are often useful for emphasis.

n 1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; “first you must collect all the facts of the case” 2: a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; “he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts” 3: an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; “your fears have no basis in fact”; “how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell” 4: a concept whose truth can be proved; “scientific hypotheses are not facts”

The whole concept of morality deals with determining what is right or wrong, not deciding it. You’re saying that you’ve reached a particular conclusion, when the conclusion is actually an assumption present in your axioms!

Opinions cannot be true or false! That’s one of their defining elements.

[Fatwater_Fewl]

TVAA

No, I’m operating according to the meaning of ‘morality’. I don’t know what definition you’re using, but it’s not lending itself to debate.

I suspect that most of us, other than you, who’ve participated in this thread are labouring under accepted meanings of the word morality such as these: 1; 2.

What apparently fluid, ever-changing and constantly evolving definition of morality are you using?

Really, as godzillatemple and erl, etc., have pointed out, you are not debating moral relativism. Instead you seem to be in the process of developing a particular philosophy/belief system peculiar to you. Not a bad thing in itself, but another thread intended solely for that purpose might be a ‘better’ place to do it.

By the way, even though in moments of mild frustration with your approach to debate I find myself wondering about your Hinking index, I’d like to see the thread about memes that Spiritus suggested you open.

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
This debate is rapidly leaving Ludicrous Station and entering the Tunnel of Stupidity.

I’ve been saying that for pages. And yet, you still persist.

The whole concept of morality deals with determining what is right or wrong, not deciding it.

Ah. Another subtle distinction, this time between “determine” and “decide”. Yet another term to add to the lexicon.

Still, here you are claiming that the whole concept of morality does indeed involve determining what is right or wrong. Whereas just a few minutes ago you stated that “if you want to know what’s right, you’ll have to wait forever.”

So, it is your assertion that your theory somehow allows people to determine what is right and wrong without having to wait forever, or not?

Opinions cannot be true or false! That’s one of their defining elements.

In the TVAA lexicon, perhaps. To the rest of us, it makes perfect sense to say “my opinion that the moon is made of green cheese has been proven to be false.” Again, you are redefining common words to support your argument.

“Tunnel of Stupidity,” indeed!

Barry

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by erislover *
That you don’t see all the assumptions that must be made to state this fascinates me.

I understand the underlying principles – I don’t understand why you don’t understand them. It’s so simple…

**But I tire of it. Perhaps it would help if you simply stated what a moral system is before we start playing in your sandbox again.

** A system that produces an answer to the question of whether actions are right or wrong.

**Q: How do we determine moral validity? Moral Relativism’s A: with a moral system.
Q: How do we know that system that is determining moral validity is valid? Moral relativism’s A: Without circular reasoning, we cannot. Thus, there can exist multiple moral systems where the word “valid” does not apply. If it did, we’d be begging the question.

** Incorrect. We can resort to evaluative standards that don’t require us to implement them.

When we find a set of rules that are conceptually unassailable, we’ve found the ultimate standards. There isn’t anything else beyond them.

**When you explain this derivation perhaps I’ll toy with the idea. **

Quit picking at your ideas and clean you plate! The definitions of “good”, for example, are part of the systems we’re talking about. If the systems can be arbitrarily changed, the meaning of “good” is arbitrary. Asking “is this thing good” is now a meaningless question – good according to what standard?

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by godzillatemple *
**Still, here you are claiming that the whole concept of morality does indeed involve determining what is right or wrong. Whereas just a few minutes ago you stated that “if you want to know what’s right, you’ll have to wait forever.”

** Bingo! Some types of certain knowledge are not possible. That’s life for you.

So, it is your assertion that your theory somehow allows people to determine what is right and wrong without having to wait forever, or not?

No – they can come up with crude models that will almost certainly be flawed in finite time.

**In the TVAA lexicon, perhaps. To the rest of us, it makes perfect sense to say “my opinion that the moon is made of green cheese has been proven to be false.” Again, you are redefining common words to support your argument.

** To most people, it makes perfect sense to say “the Theory of Evolution is just wild speciulation!” We call these people “ignorant”.

Your claim or belief has been disproven, not your opinion.

[Fatwater_Fewl]

TVAA, I’d appreciate a reply to my post at the bottom of page 5.

[TVAA]

Sorry. It’s easy to miss a post in all this mess.

*Originally posted by Fatwater Fewl *
**I suspect that most of us, other than you, who’ve participated in this thread are labouring under accepted meanings of the word morality such as these: 1; 2.

** Okay. Now, do these definitions imply that morality exists independently of opinion and thought, or are they dependent on opinion and thought?

When we discuss “teachings” in general, we don’t claim that they’re valid merely because they can be taught. (Unless you’re an IDer trying to get Creation Science in school classrooms, but that’s another thread.) So, if a person, culture, or society teaches certain things about morality, can those teachings be considered to be true or false (factual in nature) or are they opinions, which are ‘valid’ merely by existing?

What apparently fluid, ever-changing and constantly evolving definition of morality are you using?

I’m not. I’m talking about objective morality, which bears the same relationship to teachings of morality as the laws of physics do to our theories about the laws of physics.

Really, as godzillatemple and erl, etc., have pointed out, you are not debating moral relativism.

I am trying to refute the claim that moral relativism, as 'zilla and erl are talking about it, is somehow distinct from moral absolutism. Their “relativism” isn’t what the Wikipedia considers relativism at all (not that it’s a definitive source).

**Instead you seem to be in the process of developing a particular philosophy/belief system peculiar to you.

** Well, I got hooked into attempting to describe it, which doesn’t generally seem to be successful.

**By the way, even though in moments of mild frustration with your approach to debate I find myself wondering about your Hinking index, I’d like to see the thread about memes that Spiritus suggested you open. **

What’s a Hinking index? I can only find one reference for that phrase, and it’s in Thai.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
[Morality is a] system that produces an answer to the question of whether actions are right or wrong.

Is there only one such system?

Incorrect. We can resort to evaluative standards that don’t require us to implement them.

Huh? Perhaps you could use this reasoning to explain how axiomatic set theory with the axiom of choice is more or less valid than axiomatic set theory without the axiom of choice.

When we find a set of rules that are conceptually unassailable, we’ve found the ultimate standards.

We’ve found the beginning of a moral system. The question is one of uniqueness. We may stop applying the quadratic equation and say that we’ve produced an answer, and be right. That doesn’t mean there exists only one answer. That doesn’t mean you can say one answer is more right than another, without additional criteria for correctness which are themselves debateable. At least, to anyone who understands math they are.

There isn’t anything else beyond them.

Of course. We’ve reached the level of assumptions and assertions.

The definitions of “good”, for example, are part of the systems we’re talking about. If the systems can be arbitrarily changed, the meaning of “good” is arbitrary.

This does not, of course, go to any length to say that there is no definition of “good”.

Asking “is this thing good” is now a meaningless question – good according to what standard?

Yes, good according to what standard. My, you’d think someone’s OP even mentioned that this is one of the two questions relativism demands we ask. I’ll have to see if a mod will let me edit that in

[godzillatemple]

posted by TVAA
**[A moral system is] a system that produces an answer to the question of whether actions are right or wrong.

If you want to know what’s right, you’ll have to wait forever.

Some types of certain knowledge are not possible. That’s life for you.

They can come up with crude models that will almost certainly be flawed in finite time.**

Which brings us once again to a point that I have had to make repeatedly since you refuse to deal with it directly. If the best your theory can allow for is a “crude model that will almost certainly be flawed in finite time,” it’s not particularly useful, is it? At least, no when it comes to actually making moral judgments in finite time?

Your claim or belief has been disproven, not your opinion.

Ah, so you don’t equate “opinion” with “belief”. Funny, my dictionary says they are synonyms. Here’s how Merriam-Webster defines the word “opinion,” for example:

1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view

Yet another term to add to the English/TVAA lexicon, I guess. Maybe you should just save us all the trouble and state up front the special definitions you will be using for common words. We’ve already established that you have a special meaning for “morality,” “absolute,” “fact,” “opinion,” and “practical.” And you seem to wander all over the place when it comes to terms like “exist” and “survive.” Have I missed any? Or are you ready to concede that it’s pointless to continue this whole discussion as long as you choose to define key terms differently than everyone else?

Barry

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**Is there only one such system?

** That depends on your implied question. Is there only one possible moral-answer-generating system? No. Is there only one correct one? Yes.

However, that moral system might permit a certain breadth of strategy.

**Huh? Perhaps you could use this reasoning to explain how axiomatic set theory with the axiom of choice is more or less valid than axiomatic set theory without the axiom of choice.
We’ve found the beginning of a moral system. The question is one of uniqueness. We may stop applying the quadratic equation and say that we’ve produced an answer, and be right. That doesn’t mean there exists only one answer. That doesn’t mean you can say one answer is more right than another, without additional criteria for correctness which are themselves debateable. At least, to anyone who understands math they are.

** There is only one set that is equilvalent to the solutions of the equation. That set might include more than one number.

It’s a subtle flaw in the way English considers units. If I ask “Is 2 a valid answer to the question ‘What is the square root of 4?’”, the answer is yes. If I ask “Is -2 a valid answer to the question ‘What is the square root of 4?’”, the answer is also yes. Both of those are right answers. But really, the correct answer to the question is “2 and -2”. Leaving out either of the solutions makes the answer incomplete.

And at no time does the answer to the question actually change. The square root of 4 is always 2 and -2.

**This does not, of course, go to any length to say that there is no definition of “good”. Yes, good according to what standard. My, you’d think someone’s OP even mentioned that this is one of the two questions relativism demands we ask. I’ll have to see if a mod will let me edit that in **

But that’s my point: there is an ultimate standard that evaluates all other standards.

For example: If “good” is whatever is taught to be desirable, then it follows that a principle that describes how teachings will change over time describes what “good” is over time.

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by godzillatemple *
**Which brings us once again to a point that I have had to make repeatedly since you refuse to deal with it directly. If the best your theory can allow for is a “crude model that will almost certainly be flawed in finite time,” it’s not particularly useful, is it? At least, no when it comes to actually making moral judgments in finite time?

** But that’s all the scientific method can do, but I don’t see you abandoning it.

Wait – I think I see the problem. I suspect that you don’t fully realize just how crude even the best scientific theories are, especially in fields like, say, physics.

Ah, so you don’t equate “opinion” with “belief”. Funny, my dictionary says they are synonyms. Here’s how Merriam-Webster defines the word “opinion,” for example:

I would call that an “impression”, or perhaps a “best judgment”.

I think you’re right: we’re at least using these terms in wildly different contexts at best.

**Or are you ready to concede that it’s pointless to continue this whole discussion as long as you choose to define key terms differently than everyone else?

** The difference is that I think the rest of you should stop using the vernacular and be more specific. [shrug]

[Fatwater_Fewl]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
Sorry. It’s easy to miss a post in all this mess.

No problem. In fact, I only asked that you reply in case you had missed it because of the recent posting flurry. Thanks.

Okay. Now, do these definitions imply that morality exists independently of opinion and thought, or are they dependent on opinion and thought?

That morality exists in the mind of man. That the concept of morality is one that man has created to ease frictions between members of human societies. Morality, as the word seems to be used by most people other than you and Ayn Rand (did you know erl’s username used to be aynrandlover?), seems to be dependant on opinion and thought.

When we discuss “teachings” in general, we don’t claim that they’re valid merely because they can be taught. (Unless you’re an IDer trying to get Creation Science in school classrooms, but that’s another thread.) So, if a person, culture, or society teaches certain things about morality, can those teachings be considered to be true or false (factual in nature) or are they opinions, which are ‘valid’ merely by existing?

Moral relativism is not a moral system. Neither the OP nor Wikipedia claim it to be. It is a perspective on moral systems which acknowledges itself to be a perspective on moral systems. The observed fact that there are a plurality of concurrent human societies/cultures with differing moral systems is a huge hint that more than one moral system exists and that their tenets can be examined relative to one another. Moral relativism is a perspective which acknowledges this.

I’m not. I’m talking about objective morality, which bears the same relationship to teachings of morality as the laws of physics do to our theories about the laws of physics.

Back to Ayn Rand. I’m not real familiar with her. But she (Objectivism) seems to be your starting point.

I am trying to refute the claim that moral relativism, as 'zilla and erl are talking about it, is somehow distinct from moral absolutism. Their “relativism” isn’t what the Wikipedia considers relativism at all (not that it’s a definitive source).

I don’t see a big distinction betwen Wikipedia’s moral relativism and the OP’s. Except that the OP does specifically mention relativism as it may apply to individuals.

Well, I got hooked into attempting to describe it, which doesn’t generally seem to be successful.

From what I can understand, you seem to be working on a personal version of Objectivism.

What’s a Hinking index? I can only find one reference for that phrase, and it’s in Thai.

Hinking was first used to describe the way former poster justhink expressed himself. A search of his posts should give you some insight into the term as I used it.