Moral Relativity VS. An Absolute Moral System

[fomenter]

You have to deconstruct each moral, figure out it's purpose, and if that purpose is effective and/or productive by itself, and as a part of the entire moral code.

very good i like this

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

You have to deconstruct each moral, figure out it's purpose, and if that purpose is effective and/or productive by itself, and as a part of the entire moral code.

I agree completely. Moral systems are models. Just like any model we must look at it and see what it's good for and what needs tossed. I think, though, that a moral code which has undergone such a process would likely be much smaller than most moral systems currently in existence.

[Captain Utopia]

I always liked the idea of mixing human behaviour modelling with artificial life simulations. I'm pretty sure you could come up with a scientific basis for saying that some behaviour patterns are more mutually beneficial than others.

For example, does the parable of the good samaritan demonstrate behaviour patterns, respective to their relative cultures, which were mutually beneficial? Or perhaps start with something simpler like "thou shalt not kill" and move up to female circumcision.

But I guess all that would do would provide an scientific absolutist framework for different sets of relativistic moralities.

[Dimocritus]

I also agree with LMNO here. Though, isn't what he said along the lines of utilitarianism (a form of AM)?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I also agree with LMNO here. Though, isn't what he said along the lines of utilitarianism (a form of AM)?

Utilitarianism is an abomination.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I always liked the idea of mixing human behaviour modelling with artificial life simulations.

Jesus.  Why?  We can't even model weather, let alone human behavior.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I also agree with LMNO here. Though, isn't what he said along the lines of utilitarianism (a form of AM)?

Nah, I think utilitarianism is still relative, much like Virtue Ethics which we discussed here some time ago. Utilitarianism says what is right is what brings the greatest good for the most people... however, what tbrings the greatest good, is still relative to the goals, perceptions and preferences of the individual, group/tribe etc.

[fomenter]

I also agree with LMNO here. Though, isn't what he said along the lines of utilitarianism (a form of AM)?

how is utilitarianism a form of AM?
and doesn't utilitarian say that which is most useful? if it does then what keeps a morality from being utilized to keep the most people down slave to the guy that finds that morality useful for that purpose...??

[Captain Utopia]

I always liked the idea of mixing human behaviour modelling with artificial life simulations.

Jesus.  Why?  We can't even model weather, let alone human behavior.

We can model weather quite accurately. We can't predict all of the statistical outliers, but it would be incredibly remarkable if we could.

Same with behaviour modelling - the occasional flaw or lack of simulation fidelity does not invalidate all results.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I also agree with LMNO here. Though, isn't what he said along the lines of utilitarianism (a form of AM)?

how is utilitarianism a form of AM?
and doesn't utilitarian say that which is most useful? if it does then what keeps a morality from being utilized to keep the most people down slave to the guy that finds that morality useful for that purpose...??

Utilitarianism is about what is most useful/best for the most people. What brings the most happiness for the most people... etc. You can't apply utilitarianism at the individual level, otherwise it's just Relativism.

[fomenter]

that makes sense i just don't see the "for the most people" part implied by the name..

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

that makes sense i just don't see the "for the most people" part implied by the name..

Its part of the definition within the ethical systems that are considered Utilitarian. I didn't grok that until I'd read "On Virtue Ethics" which was very interesting, but not entirely convincing.

[Cain]

GIVE ME YOUR FIRSTBORN SONS, AND I WILL GIVE YOU GOULASH!

Beef or pork?

[Cain]

I also agree with LMNO here. Though, isn't what he said along the lines of utilitarianism (a form of AM)?

Nah, I think utilitarianism is still relative, much like Virtue Ethics which we discussed here some time ago. Utilitarianism says what is right is what brings the greatest good for the most people... however, what tbrings the greatest good, is still relative to the goals, perceptions and preferences of the individual, group/tribe etc.

Actually, it was originally the greatest amount of pleasure or happiness, at least if you go by the Bentham or Mill definition.

[LMNO]

...and that's in the long run, right?

Like, getting wikkid drunk tonight might give pleasure, but the resulting hangover negated that.  Or something.