Taking a stand on moral relativism

[godzillatemple]

Well, seeing as how I still have the floor to myself, allow me to add the following closing comments:

Usually, morality is discussed with regard to how we can determine what is “good” or “bad” so as to permit us to choose how to act. Yes, the ultimate source of morality is important to know, but that is only a means the end of allowing us to make correct moral determinations. Without this stated purpose in mind, any discussion of morality becomes largely pointless. I believe that everybody who has posted to this thread (with one noticible exception) has done so with the expectation that the discussion would be held within this traditional framework.

The exception, of course, is TVAA. He (or she – I apologize if TVAA is, in fact a female) comes to this discussion with a preconceived belief that “everything that ever happens is inevitable; probability and choice are illusions.” If this is true, however, it is impossible for somebody to “choose” to act one way instead of another – we all act the way we do based on strict adherence to natural laws, and no amount of reason or intelligence can change that. It matters not that we all think we make choices, or that we frequently change our mind. According to TVAA, this is all an illusion.

If this is the case, however, it is meaningless to even discuss the nature or morality in the first place. What does it matter to know that morality is based on evolutionary principles if that knowledge cannot change our behavior? What does it matter if we were able to somehow determine “correct” moral systems through years of painstaking experimentation if we could not choose to follow those systems even after discovering them.

Morality asks, “Why should we choose to do one thing rather than another?” TVAA, on the other hand, states “choice is an illusion; we have no control over what we do in the first place. ‘Morality’ is naught but a description of how we act, and you can’t choose to change the way you act.”

Kind of defeats the pourpose of having a discussion in the first place, don’t you think?

Barry

[erislover]

But then, it is your destiny to do so, the universe has commanded it.

[TVAA]

Your conception of morality as applying only to humans is a rather unusual one. You obey the same laws as a mud puddle – if you have choice, so does it, and if it doesn’t, neither do you.

Why is having this discussion – or any discussion – important? Because the illusion of choice is an unavoidable one.

The Christian theologian you offer as an example usually has a host of assumptions he’ll try to squeeze into statements like “good is that which proceeds from God”. I don’t need to assume that “good” is what evolution produces – evolution selects among perceptions of what “good” is.

Most conceptualizations of the concept are completely circular. You should do something because it’s good, and something is good because you should do it.

But why should you do anything? What makes something good? If you learn to explicitly understand why you consider something good, you can analyze whether something is actually good or not.

[erislover]

I don’t need to assume that “good” is what evolution produces – evolution selects among perceptions of what “good” is.

Evidence has not been sufficient for this claim. Traditionally, those asserting strong cases are required to put forth a proof of their ideas. You have not done so in this case. By inspection, multiple moral systems exist. Clearly your reduction of “good” to “survives” has failed to select to the point of undermining relativism. You seek to dodge this point by stating that it doesn’t matter what anyone believes, and in doing so remove the burden of proof from yourself since my, or your, perception of the case is, according to you, irrelevant. If you feel this is a satisfactory method of debate, then you are of course welcome to run with it. Don’t expect to shift the burden of proof and yet render all commentary on the point irrelevant and expect people to particularly care to argue the point. At least, I won’t.

If you have questions about relativism, I will answer them to the best of my ability. But your defense of your system has led to a very ridiculous point in debate.

Most conceptualizations of the concept are completely circular. You should do something because it’s good, and something is good because you should do it.

All definitions can be phrased as tautologies. This is not particularly stunning.

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
Your conception of morality as applying only to humans is a rather unusual one.

Define what you mean by “unusual”. If you mean that it differs from what you think it should be, I can’t argue with you. If, however, you mean different than the way the concept is usually described, then I ask you to provide a cite. You have referred to the “technical” definition of morality more than once in an effort to bolster your argument, but I still don’t see any support for your statement.

In contrast, here are some choice selections from our friends at Wikipedia:

A morality is a complex of concepts and beliefs by which an individual sets a standard of right and wrong for his or her actions. Oftentimes, these concepts and beliefs are created by a culture or group to develop a regulation of individual behaviours.

[M]orality is a system of personal ethical conduct that the individual imposes himself.

In short, your conception of morality as not applying only to humans is a rather unusual one.

You obey the same laws as a mud puddle – if you have choice, so does it, and if it doesn’t, neither do you.

So you keep saying. Everybody else, however, seems to recognize that there is a difference between following a law and making a choice. You state that “choice is an illusion” as if it were an absolute, unassailable and obvious fact, when instead it is but an unproven assumption that is contradicted by common sense and experience. It might be the case, but is not necessarily so.

**But why should you do anything? What makes something good? If you learn to explicitly understand why you consider something good, you can analyze whether something is actually good or not. **

From the standpoint of moralists, whether absolute or relativist, this makes perfect sense. From the standpoint of someone who claims that choice is an illusion, however, it’s a non-issue. You’ve already stated that your discussion of morality cannot include the concept of “should,” since we cannot help doing what we do. So how can you now claim that discussing morality can help somebody decide why they should do something? What use is analyzing whether something is actually good or not, if I cannot choose to alter my behavior as a result of the analysis?

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**Evidence has not been sufficient for this claim.

** You’re kidding, right?

How can there NOT be enough evidence to support the claim that moral systems are indeed selected for and against? Biology alone has enough evidence to convince anyone, I would think.

**By inspection, multiple moral systems exist. Clearly your reduction of “good” to “survives” has failed to select to the point of undermining relativism. You seek to dodge this point by stating that it doesn’t matter what anyone believes, and in doing so remove the burden of proof from yourself since my, or your, perception of the case is, according to you, irrelevant.

** Again, I fail to see how the existence of multiple moral systems weakens my case (or by implication strengthens relativism) any more than the existence of multiple religions suggests that more than one religion is valid.

My definition isn’t tautological. It’s a conclusion that follows necessarily from elementary assumptions. If you follow your own reasoning about what’s right and what isn’t back far enough, you’ll eventually reach the same conclusion.

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
How can there NOT be enough evidence to support the claim that moral systems are indeed selected for and against? Biology alone has enough evidence to convince anyone, I would think.

Yes, it’s obvious that is what you think. It’s equally obvious, however, that biology alone does not have enough evidence to convince everyone, since none of us are convinced by it. Reasonable minds can disagree as to whether we live in a state of biological determinism or not, you see, even if you are personally convinced that biological determinism is a “fact”.

Or, to borrow from the English/TVAA lexicon, just because biological determinism is a fact, that doesn’t mean it is a “true” fact.

My definition isn’t tautological. It’s a conclusion that follows necessarily from elementary assumptions.

Elementary assumptions that are neither shared by other people here nor necessarily true. The fact that you accept these assumptions as being true with a dogmaticism rarely seen outside of the most rabid fundamental Christians doesn’t change the fact that they are still unproven assumptions.

**If you follow your own reasoning about what’s right and what isn’t back far enough, you’ll eventually reach the same conclusion. **

And once again, you are wrong. We won’t reach that conclusion, because we don’t make the same fundamental assumptions that you, and, whether you admit it or not, your acceptence of these assumptions leads to your line of reasoning and not the other way around. Or perhaps we understand that different theories can be used to explain different phenomena and that everything need not be reduced to the same basic principles. Or perhaps we understand that evolution is but a subset of the physical laws of the universe, and that it may apply to some fields but not others.

Again, there are certainly people who believe, as you do, that moral systems are indeed selected for and against, especially if you carefully define moral systems as a system designed to promote survival of the species in the first place. Aside from the fact that most people choose not to define morality that way (and I’m still waiting for a cite for your “technical” definiton, BTW), the simple fact that you keep stating that it is “obvious” doesn’t make it so.

Barry

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by godzillatemple *
**Yes, it’s obvious that is what you think. It’s equally obvious, however, that biology alone does not have enough evidence to convince everyone, since none of us are convinced by it. Reasonable minds can disagree as to whether we live in a state of biological determinism or not, you see, even if you are personally convinced that biological determinism is a “fact”.

** Beg pardon? Who brought biological determinism into this? The theory applies equally well to “non-living” systems.

**Elementary assumptions that are neither shared by other people here nor necessarily true. The fact that you accept these assumptions as being true with a dogmaticism rarely seen outside of the most rabid fundamental Christians doesn’t change the fact that they are still unproven assumptions.

** That the universe operates according to set principles? That time “passes”? That probability applies to the behavior of the observable world? You don’t accept these elementary assumptions?

**Or perhaps we understand that different theories can be used to explain different phenomena and that everything need not be reduced to the same basic principles. Or perhaps we understand that evolution is but a subset of the physical laws of the universe, and that it may apply to some fields but not others.

** The universe still runs on the same basic principles, regardless of whether can figure out what they are or not. And you’d be hard pressed to demonstrate a field in which the accumulation of stable configurations doesn’t occur.

**Again, there are certainly people who believe, as you do, that moral systems are indeed selected for and against, especially if you carefully define moral systems as a system designed to promote survival of the species in the first place.

** They’re not “designed” to do so. They guide behavior, and if they happen to guide behavior in ways that promote their own survival and the survival of their hosts, they accumulate. “Design” in an evolutionary perspective is the side-effect of generation and selection.

**Aside from the fact that most people choose not to define morality that way (and I’m still waiting for a cite for your “technical” definiton, BTW), the simple fact that you keep stating that it is “obvious” doesn’t make it so.

** “Morality” is merely a system of defined values describing behavior selections. It has nothing to do with choice, intelligence, individuals, or traditions; at least, not necessarily by definition. Your definition of morality as human opinion, unconnected to any larger reality, doesn’t lead anywhere or permit conclusions about the nature of morality’s values to be drawn – and it’s STILL subject to selection!

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
Beg pardon? Who brought biological determinism into this? The theory applies equally well to “non-living” systems.

Ah yes, I forgot. In your world, “morality” applies equally to mud puddles and humans.

"Morality" is merely a system of defined values describing behavior selections. It has nothing to do with choice, intelligence, individuals, or traditions; at least, not necessarily by definition.

Cite, please? Is this your “technical definition” or morality that is supposeldy the “correct” one because you say it is? If moraily were to be defined simply as “a system of defined values describing behavior selections,” then I would say you possibly have a leg to stand on. That’s not how everybody else is defining the term, however, so you are obviously not discussing the same subject the rest of us are discussing. Please stop.

Barry

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by godzillatemple *
**Ah yes, I forgot. In your world, “morality” applies equally to mud puddles and humans.

** Well, yes. If morality is a thing that can be discussed intelligently, it must proceed from principles that give rise to both mud puddles and humans. Otherwise we have no way to derive conclusions about it.

Tell me, godzillatemple, what precisely is it that you claim to be discussing? How exactly is it not subject to the same conceptual analysis that all other categories are?

[Epimetheus]

It is humorous actually TVAA; you seem to ascribe to a determinalistic worldview, yet you talk about probabilities? Huh?

I also think it is very funny that you compare the morality of humans with those of mud puddles. I am sure other readers are getting just as much of a kick out of this thread. Mud puddles don’t have complex thinking patterns, they are nothing more than a group of water molocules that cannot do anything because of the physical laws that constrain them. They cannot get up out of their hole, and go steal another hole. It simply isn’t possible. It is, however, possible for a human to stand up, walk over to the next person, pull out a gun of his/her construction and plug some lead into their brain.

I have always seen you threads as thoughtful, intelligent, and very similar to my own thinking. This thread however, is making me think you are seriously deluded, or playing some sort of game, being a devils advocate, or just drunk or high.

Perhaps a good objective view of your “theory”, wrote out in a post in a professional manner would bring either you or I into light. Or are you even interested in elucidation?

[TVAA]

And the atoms in their brains are somehow different from the atoms in a mud puddle? The laws that describe their behavior aren’t the same laws that apply to everything, everywhere?

[sigh] Maybe I should just stick to Zen stories. Directly inducing enlightenment doesn’t seem to be a very successful strategy.

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
Well, yes. If morality is a thing that can be discussed intelligently, it must proceed from principles that give rise to both mud puddles and humans. Otherwise we have no way to derive conclusions about it.

Well, gee – I guess you’re the first person to ever discuss morality intelligently then. Congratulations.

The fact that the same “fundamental” (if you go back far enough) principles give rise to both mud puddles and humans is irrelevant. Evolution is but one set of laws that derives from the most basic fundamental laws. It is not the only set, however, and doesn’t apply to all situations. The basic laws of physics may apply to both puddles and people, but that doesn’t mean that puddles are subject to evolutionary forces in the same way that people are. Similarly, the basic laws of evolution may apply to some aspects of the human condition, but that doesn’t mean they apply to all aspects. The fact that evolution has determined some of our characteristics, such as our opposable thumbs and our ability to think in the first place, doesn’t inevitably lead to the conclusion that evolution also determines what we think. Influence, surely. But not determine.

If you were arguing that everything that occurs in the universe is subject to the same fundamental physical laws (including those described by quantum mechanics and chaos theory, insofar as those theories are correct), I would agree with you. Theists may feel that the spirit, like God himself, is outside the operation of natural laws, but I don’t susbscribe to that view. However, while fundamental physical laws may be the basis of all events, it is fallacious to assert that therefore that every set of rules that is derived from those fundamental laws must apply equally in all fields of inquiry.

Yes, everything in the universe must follow certain fundamental laws of the universe. That’s a tautology (even if it’s not one that most theists are willing to concede). Evolution, however, is not one of the fundamental laws of the universe; it is merely a subset of laws that apply in certain situations. The fact that it derives from those fundamental laws doesn’t mean can be applied to all situations.

Your argument also misses the point when you claim that the fact that everything derives from fundamental physical laws somehow proves that everything is determined and there is no such thing as choice. What if the fundamental physical laws of the universe specifically provide for choice? If the entire universe could be described solely with reference to “the movement of molecules” in a Newtonian sense, then you might be onto something. Once you introduce concepts as quantum mechanics and chaos theory, however, the universe may no longer wholly deterministic.

Tell me, godzillatemple, what precisely is it that you claim to be discussing?

Something which you apparently don’t believe exists in the first place (i.e., the unique capacity of human beings to make moral choices). As this thread has shown, it’s hard to have a menaingful discussion with somebody who refutes the existence of the concept being discussed.

Barry

[godzillatemple]

And it’s also hard to have a meaningful discussion when I misspell it “menaingful”… :smack:

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by godzillatemple *
**The fact that the same “fundamental” (if you go back far enough) principles give rise to both mud puddles and humans is irrelevant. Evolution is but one set of laws that derives from the most basic fundamental laws. It is not the only set, however, and doesn’t apply to all situations. The basic laws of physics may apply to both puddles and people, but that doesn’t mean that puddles are subject to evolutionary forces in the same way that people are. Similarly, the basic laws of evolution may apply to some aspects of the human condition, but that doesn’t mean they apply to all aspects. The fact that evolution has determined some of our characteristics, such as our opposable thumbs and our ability to think in the first place, doesn’t inevitably lead to the conclusion that evolution also determines what we think. Influence, surely. But not determine.

** Evolution works on memes, too, 'zilla. It applies to all the levels of reality on which “time” can be said to exist.

**However, while fundamental physical laws may be the basis of all events, it is fallacious to assert that therefore that every set of rules that is derived from those fundamental laws must apply equally in all fields of inquiry.

** Indeed not. Those rules apply only when certain specific conditions are met. The problem is that the conditions necessary and sufficient for evolution to be a valid rule set are so basic as to apply to virtually every level we can imagine, and our imagination of the levels on which it doesn’t apply.

Evolution, however, is not one of the fundamental laws of the universe; it is merely a subset of laws that apply in certain situations. The fact that it derives from those fundamental laws doesn’t mean can be applied to all situations.

Yes – it’s a consequence of those laws. I agree. And it can’t be applied to ALL situations – but the ones it can’t apply to, we don’t particularly care very much about.

**What if the fundamental physical laws of the universe specifically provide for choice? If the entire universe could be described solely with reference to “the movement of molecules” in a Newtonian sense, then you might be onto something. Once you introduce concepts as quantum mechanics and chaos theory, however, the universe may no longer wholly deterministic.

** Actually, Newtonian physics contained just as much uncertainty as quantum mechanics. It just wasn’t quite as obvious to the casual observer.

If it allows choice, how does it allow choice? What is the mechanism by which choice operates?

You see? We’ve come back to rules again.

Something which you apparently don’t believe exists in the first place (i.e., the unique capacity of human beings to make moral choices). As this thread has shown, it’s hard to have a menaingful discussion with somebody who refutes the existence of the concept being discussed.

If you accept that all events in the universe are part of the same system, then humans don’t have any fundamentally unique properties. Can you destroy computation by smashing all of the plastic and metal boxes that sit by our keyboards?

How do humans choose? How do they reach conclusions, have values, select and pick? What principles describe those behaviors? What input are the dependent on, and what output do they affect?

[erislover]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
How can there NOT be enough evidence to support the claim that moral systems are indeed selected for and against? Biology alone has enough evidence to convince anyone, I would think.

Biology demonstrates that genetic traits can be selected against. They are not selected for so biology cannot define the word “best” by an appeal to survival. Biology claims no link between what biological creatures do and what they should do. You put that there. You can’t appeal to the whole of science in support. Spiritus addressed this problem several pages ago.

Again, I fail to see how the existence of multiple moral systems weakens my case (or by implication strengthens relativism) any more than the existence of multiple religions suggests that more than one religion is valid.

NO ONE ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD IS TRYING TO TELL YOU THAT ALL MORAL SYSTEMS ARE EQUALLY VALID. I explicitly argued against that flawed conception of relativism in the damned OP. That we are still even discussing it eight pages letter is disappointing.

My definition isn’t tautological.

All definitions can be phrased tautologically. “Good” is defined as “what people should do”. Thus, moral investigations are investigations into goodness, that is, what people should do. People should do what is good, ie, people should do what people should do. Construction of a tautology from a definition. Try it with other words, it’s great fun. What it demonstrates to you escapes me.

It’s a conclusion that follows necessarily from elementary assumptions. If you follow your own reasoning about what’s right and what isn’t back far enough, you’ll eventually reach the same conclusion.

By reaching back far enough I have realized that I cannot justify everything. Thus, different systems can be made. Since I need an entire system to determine validity, there is no way, without begging the question, to determine the validity of my, or any, system. If you feel this is a reduction to “mere opinion”, I don’t know what to tell you. That’s your trip, not mine. There are several tactics in existence that serve as a response to skepticism. They are not a function of relativism.

[godzillatemple]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
Evolution works on memes, too, 'zilla. It applies to all the levels of reality on which “time” can be said to exist.

Ah, so I see you have a special “technical” definition of “evolution” to go along with your special “technical” definition of morality.

That’s actually a pretty radical definition of evolution you’ve got there, TVAA. I don’t suppose you’ve got a cite for it? I think most people here are using the term the way it is usually defined, to wit, “a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.”

Even if you hold to a more general definition, such as “a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state,” that still doesn’t mean that it would apply both to puddles and people, or that “the process” is the same in all cases even if puddles as a group could be said to be undergoing continuous change in the first place.

I suppose you could define evolution extemely broadly so that it means “a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena,” but then you lose the ability to apply the specific laws that govern biological evolution to the laws that govern other forms of evolution.

If it allows choice, how does it allow choice? What is the mechanism by which choice operates?

Are you familiar with the theories of quantum mechanics and chaos theory? I am, unfortunately, not well enough versed to provide a primer for you. But surely you are aware that not all phenomena can be predicted with reference to starting conditions, and that randomness and chance are indeed permitted as a result of the basic physical principles of the universe?

Barry

[epolo]

Okay, I’ve been following this thread for some time now and have been too timid to interject. But these issues are now weighing on my mind:

1. A meteor falls from the sky, hits me on the head, and kills me. Is this an example of something morally “correct”, morally “incorrect”, or morally indifferent? From my perspective? From the perspective of the meteor? From the perspective of an disinterested third party? From the standpoint of the “absolute morality” of the universe?

2. I was trying to come up with a more (pseudo)mathematical description of a system of morality that might be amenable to analysis. The best I could come up with is this: a moral system M(s, c) is a function that takes input in the form of a situation “s” and an array of choices “c” one can make in response. It returns c’, a set of choices ordered from most to least “good”. Does this seem reasonable? Can it be simplified further? Is it useful for understanding/analysis? Most importantly, if we accept it, what does it tell us about valuing moral systems as a whole?

3. What if an omnipotent alien offered to allow your physical and spiritual (or intellectual or memetic) decendents to persist and spread through all eternity? Would accepting this offer be an inherent moral “good”? What if there were conditions imposed? What if to accomplish this you were required to (for example) kill your own son (possibly on a mountain top)? Would this still be an inherent moral “good”? From what perspective?

4. Is there a place for the hopeless sinner who has hurt all mankind just to save his own beliefs?

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**Biology demonstrates that genetic traits can be selected against. They are not selected for so biology cannot define the word “best” by an appeal to survival. Biology claims no link between what biological creatures do and what they should do. You put that there. You can’t appeal to the whole of science in support. Spiritus addressed this problem several pages ago.

** We can just as easily say that biology selects for the things that survive as we can say that it selects against the things that don’t.

And it certainly does observe that it studies the creatures that did what they should do to survive. Note: “should” has meaning only when it’s applied to a standard of some kind, erislover.

**NO ONE ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD IS TRYING TO TELL YOU THAT ALL MORAL SYSTEMS ARE EQUALLY VALID.

But you’re not specifying the standard that “should” refers to. Without a standard, they’re all equally valid and invalid.

**I explicitly argued against that flawed conception of relativism in the damned OP. That we are still even discussing it eight pages letter is disappointing.

** You didn’t specify the standard. Ergo, everything is permitted.

**“Good” is defined as “what people should do”. Thus, moral investigations are investigations into goodness, that is, what people should do. People should do what is good, ie, people should do what people should do.

** Should do for what? To accomplish what? For what purpose?

See? We haven’t really gotten anywhere.

[TVAA]

*Originally posted by godzillatemple *
**That’s actually a pretty radical definition of evolution you’ve got there, TVAA. I don’t suppose you’ve got a cite for it? I think most people here are using the term the way it is usually defined, to wit, “a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.”

** I’m sorry, could I get you to repeat that? I wasn’t listening – I was distracted by my attempts to pour beach sand through this nifty sifter I purchased.

**Even if you hold to a more general definition, such as “a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state,” that still doesn’t mean that it would apply both to puddles and people, or that “the process” is the same in all cases even if puddles as a group could be said to be undergoing continuous change in the first place.

** Oh, goodness, no. It doesn’t have to be continuous. It doesn’t have to be from a lower or simpler state; nor does it have to be to a higher or more complex state. And isn’t “better and worse” really in the eye of the beholder?

**I suppose you could define evolution extemely broadly so that it means “a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena,” but then you lose the ability to apply the specific laws that govern biological evolution to the laws that govern other forms of evolution.

** You’re absolutely right – why, I guess we’ll just have to use the laws that govern evolution in general instead.

**Are you familiar with the theories of quantum mechanics and chaos theory? I am, unfortunately, not well enough versed to provide a primer for you. But surely you are aware that not all phenomena can be predicted with reference to starting conditions, and that randomness and chance are indeed permitted as a result of the basic physical principles of the universe?

** Ah, good old quantum mechanics. The deterministic theory that claims ignorance of certain features, allowing the perception of non-determinism. And chaos theory is equally deterministic. But if you’re not absolutely precise in your observations… well, your model fails almost immediately. Just like the good ol’ Three Body Problem in classical physics.