Taking a stand on moral relativism

Great Debates
261

** Then I submit that there is a paradox inherent in this question. If we accept that morality is what opinion and thought say it is, we’re forced to accept that the forces that determine how thought and opinion change as time passes determine morality. Since those forces exist objectively, morality is derived from objective principles.

If we accept the assumption, we immediately find we must discard it. If we discard it, however – we’re fine. Either way, we’ve left with the conclusion that morality is objective.

** Fair enough. I think that MR goes much further than this, though: specifically, it makes claims about the validity of the different moral systems, and in that sense, it’s not just a perspective.

Perhaps this is an improper characterization of the concept, but I haven’t seen it discussed differently.

** No, I came up with this stuff on my own. I’ve had people tell me that my ideas are similar to Rand’s – presumably we derived our ideas from the same data. Which, of course, is exactly what we would expect.

Eh. I’d say Objectivism was an attempt to understand the world in a meaningful way that is somewhat similar to the conclusions I’ve been forced to draw.

Hmmm… I’m not sure how to interpret this.

Yeah, I remember Justhink. My goodness – he makes me look lucid.

262

Ye, I’m sure that’s the “problem” and not your penchant for defining terms however they suit your needs :rolleyes:

I sincerely doubt you could find many physicists who would admit that their theories are provide as crude a model as that which your evolutionary theory of morality may or may not be able to provide. At least their theories explain observed phenomena and allow them to make accurate predictions as to future events with a large degree of reliability, something your methodology is unable to do.

Again, to quote from TVAA:

Therefore, by your own admission, your methodology would require one to wait forever before being able to produce a working moral system.

Barry

263

Of course, what does “correct” mean here? Most moral? Are you not getting a sense of a circle of justification here?

But the set of morals can’t include more than one system? The set of moral axioms can’t create more than one system? The perspectives on these systems can’t allow for more than one methodology?

It’s almost like you know of which I speak. Yet let’s continue. Instead of thinking purely of the square root of two, let me ask you: is there a solution to the quadratic
x[sup]2[/sup] + 1 = 0?

There are plenty of standards that evaluate all other standards. I have mentioned at least two in this very thread. In fact, they are even more complete than your own. If I valued completeness, perhaps that would persuade me to think that, in fact, those were “ultimate” systems.

264

Excuse my extreme density, but what exactly are these objective forces which determine how thought and opinion change as time passes?

I would say that the perspective of moral relativism allows one to make judgements from within one moral system on the validity of different moral systems or on any of their principles by acknowledging that systems and principles other than the one from which the judgement is being made can and do exist. Moral relativism does not make claims about the validity of moral systems – it allows a perspective from which systems can be compared or measured against one another and claims can be made.

No need to interpret it. What I meant was that your debating style sometimes leaves me wondering if you are being deliberately obfuscatory.

I do believe that your intentions in this thread are not to muddy the waters, but are misplaced. Instead of debating the OP, you’ve been trying to expound upon or witness about a philosophy which is not yet firm enough in your mind to allow you express it clearly. Perhaps the best thing to do is to attain a clarity of position and consistent terminology before attempting to continue to debate the OP. Another thread devoted to the exploration of your own philosophy in toto, rather than just its position on morality, might be enlightening to yourself and others.

265

But see, **everything[/] on this planet is objective.
Our brain is objective.
But the truth is, since the brain is more than the sum of it’s parts, that whole(or sum) is what we call subjectivity. It’s the collection of all the objective parts in our brain, that makes into a whole.
That means that all the concepts/propositions we make, are based solely on the subjective views we perceive everyday.
Which again means, without objectivity, morality wouldn’t exist, but without subjectivity, it wouldn’t exist either.

But what is more valued than the other? Subjectivity.
Even though my english is lacking to fully explain this, I hope you get my point.

The key is that the brain is more than the sum of it’s part.
That whole consciousness/self-awareness issue.

266

Father Fewl, I think he means physics, and the technical aspect of how the brain works. The scientists view, one might say.

267

** You mean, use the words correctly? Sure.

** Actually, no.

All physical theories are capable of generating accurate and reliable predictions only in very limited spheres. For example: we can’t use quantum mechanics to explain what happens when you flip a switch and turn on a light. In theory, we could. The problem is that even elementary interactions in quantum mechanics are described by equations for which there are no known methods to solve. They’re forced to resort to various kinds of simplification in order to get answers. Then there’s the issue that the number of particles involved is astronomical – the equation describing the situation would involve trillions and trillions of variables. It’s not solvable on a technological level.

No, we’d have to wait forever to produce a CORRECT moral system. Even then, we wouldn’t be able to know whether it was truly correct, just like any other theory about objective realities.

268

** No. It’s easy to generate a system of morality that has nothing to do with actual morality, just as it’s easy to generate a theory of physics. It’s generating a meaningful theory of physics that’s hard.

A Magic 8-Ball suffices as a moral system. Ask it whether any particular action is moral, and follow its instructions. It’s a moronic system, but a system nevertheless.

** There is only one set of rules defining morality. There may be multiple moral systems that are compatible with this ultimate morality; there may not be. But there is still only one final, moral standard: compatibility with the moral rules.

** Oh, yes. +i and -i.

There isn’t a real solution to the equation, where real refers to the number set and not reality.

Ah. I meant “evaluate” in the active sense. It selects those that work and rejects those that don’t – in fact, its acceptance and rejection define what “working” or “not working” mean.

269

** We might call them the laws of evolution. We might also call them the laws of physics, except that the laws of physics describe the general rules of the game while these laws take into account the specific configuration of the game. (I suspect that the configuration can actually be derived from the basic rules, but that’s a fairly complicated issue to bring up here.)

There’s no physical law that forces astronomical objects to be spheroids. We can imagine a cubical planet or a tetrahedronal one-- that’s permissable under known law.

Yet it is trivially obvious that such planets would slowly become rough spheres with the passage of time.

Perhaps we should call those laws the laws of entropy, except that entropy is a very general principle and these are more specific.

** Yes, but judging one moral system from the perspective of another always gives the same answer: it’s wrong. Unless of course the systems are compatible, in which case there’s not much point, is there?

From the perspective that it’s wrong to kill babies, is a moral system which permits people to kill babies right or wrong?

No, merely incompetent. I avoid the evil of being a liar and scoundrel by the dubious virtue of being bad at debate.

I was ultimately discussing the philosophy only as a counter-example. The ideas occurring before it came up are still troublesome.

I have a proposal to make: let’s all stop discussing this ethical theory of mine and return strictly to the discussion of moral relativity. (I’m sure both eris and 'zilla will be pleased.)

270

And I quote (once again) from TVAA:

I Just wanted to make sure I was getting this all down.

If your theory doesn’t allow one to determine whether a particular moral system is correct in less than an infinite period of time, of what practical use is it? Every time I ask this question, you cop out by asking what practical use “science” is since it also (according to you) cannot produce answers with certainty. You did finally admit, however, that “all physical theories are capable of generating accurate and reliable predictions only in very limited spheres.” Why is it, then, that your theory seems utterly incapable of making any accurate or reliable predictions whatsoever, even in a limited sphere? Again, what use is it?

There are so many other complaints I have about your theory, ranging from the basic (yet unproven) assumption that intelligent creatures are controlled by evolutionary forces, to the way that your theory does not allow one to decide which parts of a particular society’s moral system are correct (unless you think that the survival of a society means that all parts of its moral code must therefore be correct), to your insistence on using terms such as “morality” differently from (as far as I can tell) everybody who has ever discussed the concept in the history of mankind (OK, I admit that may be a tad overstated, but still, I’ve never heard anyone refer to wolves making moral choices before), etc.

Before I waste any more time and effort debating the merits of your theory, however, I just want to know if it’s even worth debating. As far as I can tell, and you have yet to prove otherwise, your theory is useless when it comes to actually making moral decisions (e.g., deciding whether a particular act is “right” or “wrong,” or whether a particular society’s moral code is “correct” or not).

Can you please give some examples wherein you apply your theory to determine whether particular acts are good or bad?

Barry

271

What little success we’ve had qualifying our theories with “meaningful” and then debating them should indicate that we’ve neared the end of the debate. And by “we” I mean “you and I”.

And one based on physics. And one that, it is expected, will let a proportion of people survive. Hence, it is a viable moral system that your ultimate methodology will select.

Again with this. Have you heard the phrase “the is-ought gap”?

So, *relative to the real number system, the quadratic *
x[sup]2[/sup] + 1 =0
has no solution.

Interesting. Is this more or less valid of an answer than i and -i?

Then either you’ve not used the word “work” enough, or you’ve deliberately restricted its use in order to make a point which can only stand if you do so, else you would see that, realistically used, work does not mean “survive” or “perpetuate” or “persist”.

272

** This is a joke, right? It would be utterly amazing if someone who made their important decisions by relying on a Magic 8-Ball survived for very long; at best, they’d be rapidly outcompeted by people using intelligent strategies.

** It’s an incomplete answer. If I asked “What is 24 + 98?”, and you replied “There is no solution to this equation that lies between 3 and 5”, isn’t that a “valid” answer? But it’s not the whole truth, is it?

So what does it mean, then?

273

TVAA said:

Sez you. coax’s post addresses this, I think. I also made a stab at it a few pages back in a post you never replied to. godzillatemple has also raised the intelligence/consciousness/self-awareness issue and how it applies to morality.

I refer you to these words which were sitting there plain as day in the portion of my post that you were commenting on, “… judgements from within one moral system on the validity of different moral systems or on any of their principles…” (italics added)

In other words, systems need not be judged wholly by one of their parts. Or, one bad apple does not necessarily spoil the barrel.

Note godzillatemple’s most recent reiteration/rephrasing of a question he’s been asking you for a while:

Can you?

I’m sure we’d all be pleased. Problem is, you keep bringing it up to use as a defence of statements you make which you say refute moral relativism – statements which you don’t seem to be able to defend without recourse to your nascent theory. Which is why I made the suggestion at the end of my previous post.

274

Well, that’s about as much credit as I give to the idea “wait forever and you’ll see”, but there it is, and they will be beat out by more intelligent strategies in the same way that plant life is beaten out by our more intelligent strategies? You appeal to evolution as an “ultimate” standard, the final one to appeal to, and yet it has created an entire planet full of life utilizing various physico-chemical strategies, which all “work” (your use) by inspection. So if I ask you, “How do we choose between these to find out how to live?” you tell me…?

So far, “try it and see” is the best I’ve actually gotten from you, ie “try it and see if the results impair your ability to survive” is what that’s supposed to indicate. But what I don’t see is how this is actually a useful criteria since environments are not stable, and so what morals might have been repressed in the past (ie caused the users to no longer “work” by your use, “die” by most people’s understanding) would in fact serve us advantageously in the present. Spiritus mentioned this some time ago, but it remains an important point against viewing “evolution” as a moral standard.

Nonsense. If we’re using the real number system, there is no answer. If we’re using the complex number system, there is an answer. Mutually exclusive answers from two systems. Thus, we must phrase our answers carefully in math, to indicate relative to which system, unless there is a customary system to use, as there is in, say, high school calculus (that’s the real number system). Ask me to solve a quadratic where
b[sup]2[/sup] - 4ac < 0
and you’ll find that I need to know, “Relative to which number system?” to give an answer that works. Which brings us to…

We could say, in the sense that you indicate, that “work” means “to perform to at least a level set by standards already defined or implied”. Thus, when an employee isn’t working out, we don’t mean he died. Thus, when I build an automobile bridge three feet across, “This won’t work” doesn’t mean “it will collapse”.

275

** But the answers they give will necessarily depend on their principles; if only one of the principles changes, the answers will change.

Some systems might be said to be more compatible than others, but they will still be “wrong”.

Well, people keep asking me what the standard is, and I feel the need to tell them.

276

Why make it so difficult?
You keep dragging generalized principles on how a system works, and posts become way long, when it’s pretty easy to describe this in one short post without the excessive use of words. But hey :slight_smile:

277

** The strategies of plants are very intelligent. (Pitcher plants alone are proof of that.) The plants themselves are not.

** You choose the one that works best. If you can’t determine which one works best, choose one – any one! – and see if it works better or worse than the others.

** That’s an excellent point. Some evolutionary biologists suggest that “meta-evolution” is a useful way to look at trends occurring across evolutionary histories: designs that are inherently more flexible, better able to speciate, and more open to evolution do better.

In a sense, that’s precisely why humans have been so successful (at least in the short term): instead of choosing a strategy that is well adapted for a specific environment, we chose a strategy that allows us to adapt well to a variety of different environments.

A “perfect” strategy would be one that allowed us to adapt to any environment. Whether such a strategy is meaningfully possible is unknown.

** Nonsense. We’ve been living in systems where those sorts of answers are appropriate.

The answer to the question is the set of numbers that satisfy the equation. There may well be types of numbers that we haven’t even conceived of yet that fulfill that requirement. If we want to consider whether there’s an answer within a subset of numbers, we can do so – and the answer we get will be relative to the subset we’re examining. But we didn’t do that – we asked what the answer is.

Ah: fulfillment of intended function. So when we apply this question to morality, we need to know what morality’s function is. Well, what is morality for?

I’d say perpetuation of the self/species. What do you say?

278

Here, let me sum up TVAA’s theory in one short post:

The same general evolutionary principles that govern the existence of species also govern the existence of moral systems (why this should be the case is an unproven assumption).

These general evolutionary principles can roughly be stated thusly:
[ul][li]Anything which leads to survival is, by definition, “good” or “correct”[/li]
[li]Anything that does not lead to survival is, by definition, “bad” or “incorrect”[/ul]Therefore, the entire moral code of any society that survives is, by definition, a “good” or “correct” moral system, and the “correctness” of any particular moral system can only be determined by evaluating how well that moral system enables a society to survive. [/li][*However, the definition of “survive” is a fluid one. Optimally, one would need to wait an infinte amount of time to determine whether a society has “survived,” since the mere fact that a society currently exists does not mean that it will continue to exist tomorrow. Thus, any value judgments based on the survival of a particular society will be crude approximations at best.

In addition, this theory can only provide a means of determining the validity of a society’s entire moral system and cannot be used to determine whether particular parts of that system are evolutionarily “good” or “bad,” much in the same way that biological evolution can only determine whether an organism as a whole has survivability, and not whether any particular characteristic of an organism is conducive toward survival or not.

In addition, this theory ignores the possibility that a society with a “correct” moral system could still fail for other reasons (sacked by invaders, caught in an earthquake, death by plague, etc.)*]
In sum, this theory can (if the original unproven assumption is accepted) theoretically be used to evaluate complete moral systems over long time periods. It cannot, however, be used to make practical judgements about moral systems in real time, nor can it be used to make moral judgments about particualr acts within a moral system.

Or, to put it even more succinctly, this is a theory which is based on unproven assumptions and which, even if true, is not particularly useful when it comes to making real-time value judgments.

How’s that? Can we all go home now?

Barry

279

An excellent question! And, I believe, key to this discussion. If one were to assume (as TVAA has done) that the sole function of morality is the perpetuation of the self/species, then an evolutionary model makes a good deal of sense (well, as long as you ignore the concept of “perpetuation of self” and stick to just “perpetuation of the species” as most evolutionary theories are wont to do).

Unfortunately, this is circular reasoning. TVAA assumes as a given that the function of morality is the perpetuation of the species, and then argues that the laws of evolution (which govern the perpetuation of species) are the only way to judge moral systems.

However, that is not the only possible definition of the function of morality nor, I would suggest, even the most common one. A completely different definition, for example, would be that the function of morality is to provide the smoothest interaction between members of a society. Another would be that the function of morality is to provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people in a society. Neither of these two definitions say anything about perpetuation or survival, and yet both are equally valid possible definitions. A society that exists in perpetuity with half its members miserable would not, by many people’s definition, be considered a “moral” society.

So yes, if you assume that morality is all about survival of the fittest, it follows that “survival of the fittest” is the best way to evaluate morality. Strip away that assumption, however, and evolution is no longer a necessary part of the discussion.

Regards,

Barry

280

erislover, I apologize for the contributions I’ve made to the slow-motion derailing of a thread which began with such a wonderful OP.

Yes, Barry, let’s go home now.

Are we there yet? I gotta pee. Are we there yet?