This was being covered in an ethics class that I'm attending. My first reaction towards the concept of moral relativity was positive. That is, until a few counter points were discussed. Some of the counters seemed a bit contrived to me, and I was able to rebut to one of them, but in the end, the case for moral relativity seemed to be defeated. However, before I give up on it completely, I wanted to see how the PDers weighed in on the subject, without including moral systems along the lines of Utilitarianism and the like, just a simple Relative Vs. Absolute.
For what intended goal? Personal Freedom, or Social Coherence?
I'm kind of morally relativist, myself.
No rules except the ones you make, etc
QuoteFor what intended goal? Personal Freedom, or Social Coherence?
I suppose social coherence. I don't think people should try to build a moral system with the intention of being able to justify the things they do.
QuoteI'm kind of morally relativist, myself.
I'm both surprised, and not surprised by this, strangely enough. Now, do you find yourself leaning towards subjectivism or conventionalism? Subjectivism seemed a little off to me, but it answers a lot of the problems with conventionalism, but at the same time, introduces many problems of its own.
I see two possible arguments for an Absolute Moral System. First, God made one up. Since I don't really hold a belief in God, then thats a wash. The second is that the moral system is an absolute based on some sort of emergence... that is as social systems emerged and evolved, so too did an absolute moral system.
However, since we can't really point across disparate societies and say "See, here we have the same moral system on every continent, used by most social groups"... not even simple stuff like "Don't Kill" are absolute in every social group... each social group seems to have their own set of exceptions to that basic statement.
I think of it sort of like Model Agnosticism... any map may be useful, it may show us a relative model of the territory... but if your map says "Hyre thyre Be Dragyonnes" or "Its cool to kill your daughter if its an honor killing", it may not be a very good map and you'd probably benefit by getting a new one.
Just because all moral systems are relative, it doesn't mean they're equal.
Moral absolutism.
*MY* moral absolutism.
Does that answer your dilemma?
Well, if you want a society that has a strong sense of group-identity, you need to create a set of Absolute game rules that everyone agrees to through coersion, or force; those that violate the game rules are punished. That way, the people can feel like they belong to a group, and that their game rules are somehow ordained, granted to them by a higher Authority; this has a feedback effect of infantilizing the group (Big Sky Thunder Daddy makes the rules), making them more susceptible to follow the game rules, etc.
However, this is also fundamentally unfair, since the game rules are arbitrary. Now, we get into a tricky place when the "extreme" situations arise: Rape, Murder, etc. Almost everyone agrees that some definition of these acts are "immoral", yet the line is vague.
In order for humans to exist in a group, there must be behavioral game rules the group can agree on. However, these rules do not come from any source other than collective agreement.
I've never tried to classify my personal moral code under a preexisting label. Humans and their behaviors are very fuzzy- impossible to impose one grid on the whole thing and not end up with a lot of confusion and self-contradiction. I absolutely do not believe in "absolutes".
I support Cultural Relativism - the idea that you can't pass judgment on a culture without knowing what it's like inside of it. As westerners, we're horrified by female genital mutiliation, but we literally can't see how it looks to people within that culture. So it's hard to judge what's "right" from way over here.
extending that, I think that every human being is their own culture, and they have to make rules for themselves. Most people borrow their culture's mores without really evaluating them.
If that didn't answer your question, you'll have to elaborate on the subjectivism vs conventionalism part - I'm not familliar with the jargon.
That much said, female genital mutilation is pretty fucked up.
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 05:14:40 PM
That much said, female genital mutilation seems pretty fucked up to us.
I agree, but
fixed
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 05:14:40 PM
That much said, female genital mutilation is pretty fucked up.
Yeah, I condemn that out of hand. I don't care how their culture feels about it, or what their reasoning is. They should all have their junk chopped off, if they're worried about virtue and fidelity. That would solve the problem.
But that's different, because, you know, they're men and women are cattle.
Fuck 'em.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 22, 2009, 05:15:51 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 05:14:40 PM
That much said, female genital mutilation seems pretty fucked up to us.
I agree, but
fixed
No. Not seems. IS.
What do you think about morals vs. ethics?
Quote from: Nigel on September 22, 2009, 05:18:07 PM
What do you think about morals vs. ethics?
Ethics = rules observed to preserve morals, yes?
I realize that we are verging on philosophy wanker territory here, and I might have to step outside and vomit at any time.
Quote from: Nigel on September 22, 2009, 05:19:06 PM
I realize that we are verging on philosophy wanker territory here, and I might have to step outside and vomit at any time.
That's why I have a wastebasket.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 05:19:06 PM
Quote from: Nigel on September 22, 2009, 05:18:07 PM
What do you think about morals vs. ethics?
Ethics = rules observed to preserve morals, yes?
No, not as I understand the definition. As I understand it, morals are a set of standards of behavior that are very tied to culture and usually religion, whereas ethics are a philosophical attempt to define "good" behavior from a secular, objective perspective.
But maybe I have simply read the wrong books
and I will confess, I am racist against philosophers and Libertarians.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 22, 2009, 05:13:53 PM
I've never tried to classify my personal moral code under a preexisting label. Humans and their behaviors are very fuzzy- impossible to impose one grid on the whole thing and not end up with a lot of confusion and self-contradiction. I absolutely do not believe in "absolutes".
I support Cultural Relativism - the idea that you can't pass judgment on a culture without knowing what it's like inside of it. As westerners, we're horrified by female genital mutiliation, but we literally can't see how it looks to people within that culture. So it's hard to judge what's "right" from way over here.
extending that, I think that every human being is their own culture, and they have to make rules for themselves. Most people borrow their culture's mores without really evaluating them.
If that didn't answer your question, you'll have to elaborate on the subjectivism vs conventionalism part - I'm not familliar with the jargon.
It sure did. The bolded statement, just to clarify the jargon, would be "Subjectivism," in the sense that the individual produces his own moral code, whereas with conventionalism, the moral code is determined by the social habits in the context of a specific society.
QuoteMoral absolutism.
*MY* moral absolutism.
Does that answer your dilemma?
It would have a week ago, but Utilitarianism (my bad, I know I said to keep it out of this argument) is, technically, an absolute moral code (which states, roughly, whenever you make a decision, pick the choice that positively effects the most people, and keeps negative effects to a minimum) and it's not based around one central leader, and there is no other indoctrination opposed on people, outside it's initial "mission statement," so to speak.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 22, 2009, 05:15:51 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 05:14:40 PM
That much said, female genital mutilation seems pretty fucked up to us.
I agree, but
fixed
I normally go with e-prime... but I can't join you at that exrtreme, Cram. I think genital mutilation is simply the outcome of a broken map. I don't specifically blame individuals for acting in line with their social norms, but I can say that their acceptable norm is badwrong.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 05:21:46 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 22, 2009, 05:13:53 PM
I've never tried to classify my personal moral code under a preexisting label. Humans and their behaviors are very fuzzy- impossible to impose one grid on the whole thing and not end up with a lot of confusion and self-contradiction. I absolutely do not believe in "absolutes".
I support Cultural Relativism - the idea that you can't pass judgment on a culture without knowing what it's like inside of it. As westerners, we're horrified by female genital mutiliation, but we literally can't see how it looks to people within that culture. So it's hard to judge what's "right" from way over here.
extending that, I think that every human being is their own culture, and they have to make rules for themselves. Most people borrow their culture's mores without really evaluating them.
If that didn't answer your question, you'll have to elaborate on the subjectivism vs conventionalism part - I'm not familliar with the jargon.
It sure did. The bolded statement, just to clarify the jargon, would be "Subjectivism," in the sense that the individual produces his own moral code, whereas with conventionalism, the moral code is determined by the social habits in the context of a specific society.
QuoteMoral absolutism.
*MY* moral absolutism.
Does that answer your dilemma?
It would have a week ago, but Utilitarianism (my bad, I know I said to keep it out of this argument) is, technically, an absolute moral code (which states, roughly, whenever you make a decision, pick the choice that positively effects the most people, and keeps negative effects to a minimum) and it's not based around one central leader, and there is no other indoctrination opposed outside it's initial "mission statement," sop to speak.
Fuck utilitarianism. I want everyone to follow my morals and ethics, because I want what is GOOD, therefore anyone that differs from my beliefs is EVIL.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 05:23:34 PM
I don't specifically blame individuals for acting in line with their social norms,
I do. Excuses are like assholes. You KNOW that "the cutting of the rose" is going to deprive your daughter of a normal marriage, but you do it anyway, to "preserve her virtue" as society demands. This makes you an evil bastard, who should be shoved in a chipper.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 05:27:16 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 05:23:34 PM
I don't specifically blame individuals for acting in line with their social norms,
I do. Excuses are like assholes. You KNOW that "the cutting of the rose" is going to deprive your daughter of a normal marriage, but you do it anyway, to "preserve her virtue" as society demands. This makes you an evil bastard, who should be shoved in a chipper.
:horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth:
Absolutely.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 05:27:16 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 05:23:34 PM
I don't specifically blame individuals for acting in line with their social norms,
I do. Excuses are like assholes. You KNOW that "the cutting of the rose" is going to deprive your daughter of a normal marriage, but you do it anyway, to "preserve her virtue" as society demands. This makes you an evil bastard, who should be shoved in a chipper.
Well, in some sense I agree... though I can see the argument that a monkey with specific programs running in his head might not put those things together and recoginize the badwrongness of their actions. That doesn't make their actions less badwrong... it just means the monkey is in serious need of some reprogramming.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 05:31:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 05:27:16 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 05:23:34 PM
I don't specifically blame individuals for acting in line with their social norms,
I do. Excuses are like assholes. You KNOW that "the cutting of the rose" is going to deprive your daughter of a normal marriage, but you do it anyway, to "preserve her virtue" as society demands. This makes you an evil bastard, who should be shoved in a chipper.
Well, in some sense I agree... though I can see the argument that a monkey with specific programs running in his head might not put those things together and recoginize the badwrongness of their actions. That doesn't make their actions less badwrong... it just means the monkey is in serious need of some reprogramming.
Then you have a defective monkey. Any primate of average intelligence would realize the above, but they ignore their intelligence in favor of what other people have told them about what a big scarey man in the sky would have said, if he'd thought of it (female circumcision is not in the Koran, IIRC).
Programming is not a reason, it's an excuse.
But how can you "reprogram" with out superimposing an absolute system?
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 05:23:34 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 22, 2009, 05:15:51 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 05:14:40 PM
That much said, female genital mutilation seems pretty fucked up to us.
I agree, but
fixed
I normally go with e-prime... but I can't join you at that exrtreme, Cram. I think genital mutilation is simply the outcome of a broken map. I don't specifically blame individuals for acting in line with their social norms, but I can say that their acceptable norm is badwrong.
I don't want to get stuck arguing that female circumcision is okay, because I really think it isn't.
(discussions about moral relativity tend to go like, "Envision the most evil thing you can. How the fuck is that okay?" -- and then the person defending relativism has to justify it somehow. I'm not gonna play that game!)
But I don't think maps can be 'broken', they only appear that way to the vast majority of us who see that practice as insane. I can't believe in an absolute evil which female circumcision (and presumably other things) would be a subset of. The ideas that fem.circumcision is wrong comes from values present within our culture, and I can't take those things as a whole seriously enough to agree that any part of them are "absolutely true".
No matter how strongly I disagree with something, I won't agree that it is absolutely, universally bad for everybody in every situation for all time.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 06:41:19 PM
But how can you "reprogram" with out superimposing an absolute system?
Just because the game rules are arbitrary, it doesn't mean that they are equal.
That's been said before in this thread.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 06:10:05 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 05:31:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 05:27:16 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 05:23:34 PM
I don't specifically blame individuals for acting in line with their social norms,
I do. Excuses are like assholes. You KNOW that "the cutting of the rose" is going to deprive your daughter of a normal marriage, but you do it anyway, to "preserve her virtue" as society demands. This makes you an evil bastard, who should be shoved in a chipper.
Well, in some sense I agree... though I can see the argument that a monkey with specific programs running in his head might not put those things together and recoginize the badwrongness of their actions. That doesn't make their actions less badwrong... it just means the monkey is in serious need of some reprogramming.
Then you have a defective monkey. Any primate of average intelligence would realize the above, but they ignore their intelligence in favor of what other people have told them about what a big scarey man in the sky would have said, if he'd thought of it (female circumcision is not in the Koran, IIRC).
Programming is not a reason, it's an excuse.
I disagree. Programming is how societies work. For Erissake people used to sacrifice virgins because their programming told them that was a good idea. It was a BAD IDEA, but most of the participants didn't recognize that. I'm willing to say if someone is poorly educated, badly educated or indoctrinated with bad ideas... they may act badly, not because they're evil, but because they got programmed badly by their society. That doesn't excuse the act though, if you act, you are responsible for the action... there may be reasons that you acted the way that you did... and it might be sad that your society programmed you so stupidly... but you're still responsible for doing the deed.
In the 1700's I can grok that some people didn't see slavery as wrong because their leaders told them Africans weren't intelligent enough to live on their own, or that they were cursed by God or whatever... it doesn't excuse the act of slavery, it just provides reason and context to the act. That's why I disagreed with Cram's view that we have to grok the perception of the other person before we can make a judgement... I think we need to grok the perception of the other person, SO we can understand WHY they did what they did... but I don't think it excuses it.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 22, 2009, 06:42:10 PM
(discussions about moral relativity tend to go like, "Envision the most evil thing you can. How the fuck is that okay?" -- and then the person defending relativism has to justify it somehow. I'm not gonna play that game!)
Then you're walking away from the argument, because that's a valid question.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 06:45:37 PM
I disagree. Programming is how societies work.
But any individual can resist his/her programming.
I wouldn't read any more of your post after you said "grok".
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 06:45:37 PM
In the 1700's I can grok that some people didn't see slavery as wrong because their leaders told them Africans weren't intelligent enough to live on their own, or that they were cursed by God or whatever... it doesn't excuse the act of slavery, it just provides reason and context to the act. That's why I disagreed with Cram's view that we have to grok the perception of the other person before we can make a judgement... I think we need to grok the perception of the other person, SO we can understand WHY they did what they did... but I don't think it excuses it.
oh, to clarify: I'm not against judgment. Judge all ye like! I'm just saying that our judgment will be uninformed unless we understand the cultural framework which creates that situation. The most accurate use of language is to say say "X behavior is wrong within our / my value system", as opposed to "X behavior is just plain wrong." - no matter how wrong we may think it is
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 06:42:21 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 06:41:19 PM
But how can you "reprogram" with out superimposing an absolute system?
Just because the game rules are arbitrary, it doesn't mean that they are equal.
That's been said before in this thread.
Hrm, can you rephrase this? I don't think I'm getting it. What does equality among (or lack thereof) moral systems have to do with superimposing a system or not superimposing one? Or, are you saying a "dominant" (morally speaking, not physically or intellectually) system will superimpose itself naturally?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 06:48:31 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 22, 2009, 06:42:10 PM
(discussions about moral relativity tend to go like, "Envision the most evil thing you can. How the fuck is that okay?" -- and then the person defending relativism has to justify it somehow. I'm not gonna play that game!)
Then you're walking away from the argument, because that's a valid question.
That's an easy one. It's not ok.
Relative Morals mean that the rules come from consensus, even if it's a consensus of one. Absolute Morals means rules come from Authority.
The
quality of the rules are up for debate, but the
origin of them is not.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 06:49:29 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 06:45:37 PM
I disagree. Programming is how societies work.
But any individual can resist his/her programming.
I think if the right circumstances appear, resisting or re-imprinting are possible. I don't think its just a simple choice to resist though.
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 06:51:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 06:48:31 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 22, 2009, 06:42:10 PM
(discussions about moral relativity tend to go like, "Envision the most evil thing you can. How the fuck is that okay?" -- and then the person defending relativism has to justify it somehow. I'm not gonna play that game!)
Then you're walking away from the argument, because that's a valid question.
That's an easy one. It's not ok.
Relative Morals mean that the rules come from consensus, even if it's a consensus of one. Absolute Morals means rules come from Authority.
The quality of the rules are up for debate, but the origin of them is not.
BAM on the LMNO Motorcycle.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 22, 2009, 06:42:10 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 05:23:34 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 22, 2009, 05:15:51 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 05:14:40 PM
That much said, female genital mutilation seems pretty fucked up to us.
I agree, but
fixed
I normally go with e-prime... but I can't join you at that exrtreme, Cram. I think genital mutilation is simply the outcome of a broken map. I don't specifically blame individuals for acting in line with their social norms, but I can say that their acceptable norm is badwrong.
I don't want to get stuck arguing that female circumcision is okay, because I really think it isn't.
(discussions about moral relativity tend to go like, "Envision the most evil thing you can. How the fuck is that okay?" -- and then the person defending relativism has to justify it somehow. I'm not gonna play that game!)
But I don't think maps can be 'broken', they only appear that way to the vast majority of us who see that practice as insane. I can't believe in an absolute evil which female circumcision (and presumably other things) would be a subset of. The ideas that fem.circumcision is wrong comes from values present within our culture, and I can't take those things as a whole seriously enough to agree that any part of them are "absolutely true".
No matter how strongly I disagree with something, I won't agree that it is absolutely, universally bad for everybody in every situation for all time.
That's exactly the type of thing I want to combat. I don't want to go as far as to say that I am a moral relativist (because frankly, I'm not sure), it's just that my teacher seems a bit predisposed to more organized and absolute systems of morality (I won't say specifically which, I don't want to attack his faith, I just want to separate his potential biases from the meat of the lectures).
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 06:56:00 PM
I think if the right circumstances appear, resisting or re-imprinting are possible. I don't think its just a simple choice to resist though.
Happens all the time.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 06:42:21 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 06:41:19 PM
But how can you "reprogram" with out superimposing an absolute system?
Just because the game rules are arbitrary, it doesn't mean that they are equal.
That's been said before in this thread.
Hrm, can you rephrase this? I don't think I'm getting it. What does equality among (or lack thereof) moral systems have to do with superimposing a system or not superimposing one? Or, are you saying a "dominant" (morally speaking, not physically or intellectually) system will superimpose itself naturally?
Your quoted post indicated that RM could only be supplanted with AM.
You can easily replace one Relative Morality system with another. It doesn't have to be Absolute in order to do so.
Curious: Why use "grok" when the regular English word "understand" works quite nicely, and doesn't make you look like a fan of a hideous old bigot, or a pseudo-intellectual?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 06:57:31 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 06:56:00 PM
I think if the right circumstances appear, resisting or re-imprinting are possible. I don't think its just a simple choice to resist though.
Happens all the time.
Yes, to some individuals it does. When the right circumstances occur, or if their programming wasn't strong, or if their social system isn't a major chunk of their life... or if they don't have a very strong reliance on a specific social tribe.
Simply put, if from birth onward you are taught X is true, and you aren't exposed to people that believe X is false, or to ideas which run counter to X being true (like "Cutting a woman's genitals is a horrific barbarian act, you retard!") then I certianly don't expect someone to magcially have special knowledge that they are wrong.
It doesn't make them right, it just means there are reasons why they may not realize that they are wrong.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:05:12 PM
Yes, to some individuals it does.
Then no individuals have an excuse, barring the brain damaged, and people from the American Southeast. But I repeat myself.
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 06:58:43 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 06:42:21 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 06:41:19 PM
But how can you "reprogram" with out superimposing an absolute system?
Just because the game rules are arbitrary, it doesn't mean that they are equal.
That's been said before in this thread.
Hrm, can you rephrase this? I don't think I'm getting it. What does equality among (or lack thereof) moral systems have to do with superimposing a system or not superimposing one? Or, are you saying a "dominant" (morally speaking, not physically or intellectually) system will superimpose itself naturally?
Your quoted post indicated that RM could only be supplanted with AM.
You can easily replace one Relative Morality system with another. It doesn't have to be Absolute in order to do so.
Ok, I understand. How can we relate this to the "RM vs. AM" argument? Outside of the pro RM argument based on tolerance (which is that AM systems are not tolerant of anything that differs form their set belief system,which leads to things like the Spanish inquisition, which is somewhat stifled by the pro AM argument that superimposing tolerance paradoxically goes against the basis of RM. Tolerance as a rule just won't work in a system where you cannot make concrete "rules").
Also, I dig the word "Grok."
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 07:07:27 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 06:58:43 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 06:42:21 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 06:41:19 PM
But how can you "reprogram" with out superimposing an absolute system?
Just because the game rules are arbitrary, it doesn't mean that they are equal.
That's been said before in this thread.
Hrm, can you rephrase this? I don't think I'm getting it. What does equality among (or lack thereof) moral systems have to do with superimposing a system or not superimposing one? Or, are you saying a "dominant" (morally speaking, not physically or intellectually) system will superimpose itself naturally?
Your quoted post indicated that RM could only be supplanted with AM.
You can easily replace one Relative Morality system with another. It doesn't have to be Absolute in order to do so.
Ok, I understand. How can we relate this to the "RM vs. AM" argument? Outside of the pro RM argument based on tolerance (which is that AM systems are not tolerant of anything that differs form their set belief system,which leads to things like the Spanish inquisition, which is somewhat stifled by the pro AM argument that superimposing tolerance paradoxically goes against the basis of RM. Tolerance as a rule just won't work in a system where you cannot make concrete "rules").
But that's not true. Of
course you make "rules" in RM.
You just don't have the Appeal to Authority fallcy to fall back on like you do with AM.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:06:35 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:05:12 PM
Yes, to some individuals it does.
Then no individuals have an excuse, barring the brain damaged, and people from the American Southeast. But I repeat myself.
Which is not at all a response to what I said... but its OK I expect nothing less from TGRR ;-)
Also, you're making it sound like you have a choice in the matter.
AM implies that the game rules are permanent and unchanging, delivered by some Authority.
RM implies that they are not.
A quick survey of world cultures reveals that AM cannot possibly be true.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 07:07:27 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 06:58:43 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 06:42:21 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 06:41:19 PM
But how can you "reprogram" with out superimposing an absolute system?
Just because the game rules are arbitrary, it doesn't mean that they are equal.
That's been said before in this thread.
Hrm, can you rephrase this? I don't think I'm getting it. What does equality among (or lack thereof) moral systems have to do with superimposing a system or not superimposing one? Or, are you saying a "dominant" (morally speaking, not physically or intellectually) system will superimpose itself naturally?
Your quoted post indicated that RM could only be supplanted with AM.
You can easily replace one Relative Morality system with another. It doesn't have to be Absolute in order to do so.
Ok, I understand. How can we relate this to the "RM vs. AM" argument? Outside of the pro RM argument based on tolerance (which is that AM systems are not tolerant of anything that differs form their set belief system,which leads to things like the Spanish inquisition, which is somewhat stifled by the pro AM argument that superimposing tolerance paradoxically goes against the basis of RM. Tolerance as a rule just won't work in a system where you cannot make concrete "rules").
Tolerance only works when there's reciprocity (for an example of this not happening simply watch a republican talk about "bipartisanship" in 2005 and the same guy in 2009). Since reciprocity is rare, tolerance of assholes is a bad strategy, as it gives the assholes the initiative. Ergo, out goes the MR, and an AM should be installed in which THE UNRIGHTEOUS ARE CHASTISED ACCORDING TO THE DICTATES OF AN ANGRY PROPHET. Namely me.
Give me special powers, and I will save the state. Lend me your freedom, and I will grant you safety. GIVE ME YOUR FIRSTBORN SONS, AND I WILL GIVE YOU GOULASH!
YARGANARG!
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 07:08:36 PM
Also, I dig the word "Grok."
That's because you're retarded. And you admire a racist.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:10:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:06:35 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:05:12 PM
Yes, to some individuals it does.
Then no individuals have an excuse, barring the brain damaged, and people from the American Southeast. But I repeat myself.
Which is not at all a response to what I said... but its OK I expect nothing less from TGRR ;-)
Of course it is, once you strip the petty excuses and rationalizations aside.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:10:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:06:35 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:05:12 PM
Yes, to some individuals it does.
Then no individuals have an excuse, barring the brain damaged, and people from the American Southeast. But I repeat myself.
Which is not at all a response to what I said... but its OK I expect nothing less from TGRR ;-)
Of course it is, once you strip the petty excuses and rationalizations aside.
Are you reading posts from some alternate reality again, TGRR?
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:17:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:10:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:06:35 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:05:12 PM
Yes, to some individuals it does.
Then no individuals have an excuse, barring the brain damaged, and people from the American Southeast. But I repeat myself.
Which is not at all a response to what I said... but its OK I expect nothing less from TGRR ;-)
Of course it is, once you strip the petty excuses and rationalizations aside.
Are you reading posts from some alternate reality again, TGRR?
I accept your surrender.
RM is often used to mean all morality's are equal by followers of AM
the reality that Morality's are Relative but some Morality's are better or worse needs its own name to separate the two uses of the words..
"Consensus Morality"?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:12:35 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 07:08:36 PM
Also, I dig the word "Grok."
That's because you're retarded. And you admire a racist.
Whoah, where does the word come from? I always thought it was from HGTTG. I'm pretty sure Douglas Adams wasn't a racist. (But then again, what the hell do I know).
QuoteAlso, you're making it sound like you have a choice in the matter.
AM implies that the game rules are permanent and unchanging, delivered by some Authority.
RM implies that they are not.
A quick survey of world cultures reveals that AM cannot possibly be true.
I agree with this entirely. My teacher seems to be leaning heavily towards AM, which I think makes his lectures biased, and therefore, I don't think he's portraying RM properly to the rest of the class. And now that I'm looking at my notes, what you say is an argument that we covered in class, and it was the only one that he didn't have anything to say against. This guy is gonna end up pissing me off...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:18:08 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:17:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:10:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:06:35 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:05:12 PM
Yes, to some individuals it does.
Then no individuals have an excuse, barring the brain damaged, and people from the American Southeast. But I repeat myself.
Which is not at all a response to what I said... but its OK I expect nothing less from TGRR ;-)
Of course it is, once you strip the petty excuses and rationalizations aside.
Are you reading posts from some alternate reality again, TGRR?
I accept your surrender.
That's all you got? I'd hoped for something better. But, if your done then we actually get back to the discussion at hand, instead of your delusions :)
Quote from: fomenter on September 22, 2009, 07:20:46 PM
RM is often used to mean all morality's are equal by followers of AM
the reality that Morality's are Relative but some Morality's are better or worse needs its own name to separate the two uses of the words..
This seems in line with my opinion as well. For morality to be absolute, there would have to be some constant outside of human consciousness and I don't have any evidence that such a thing exists. However, some moral systems are horrifically flawed.
Dimo: Heinlein - Stranger in a Strange Land.
NOTE: Some people think Heinlein is a racist because one of his books seem quite racist. If you actually read Heinlein, rather than Internet commentary about Heinlein, it appears he was writing a book ABOUT Racism being a major problem.
So, either:
1) AM rules are arbitrary, yet followed as if they were not.
2) Some AM rules are handed down from a higher Authority, but no one can be sure which rules they are.
3) All AM rules are handed down from a higher Authority, and that Authority is schizophrenic.
Doctor: Thanks. So, did Adams pick up the word from him?
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 07:25:43 PM
So, either:
1) AM rules are arbitrary, yet followed as if they were not.
2) Some AM rules are handed down from a higher Authority, but no one can be sure which rules they are.
3) All AM rules are handed down from a higher Authority, and that Authority is schizophrenic.
I'm putting this in my notes.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:24:00 PM
Quote from: fomenter on September 22, 2009, 07:20:46 PM
RM is often used to mean all morality's are equal by followers of AM
the reality that Morality's are Relative but some Morality's are better or worse needs its own name to separate the two uses of the words..
This seems in line with my opinion as well. For morality to be absolute, there would have to be some constant outside of human consciousness and I don't have any evidence that such a thing exists. However, some moral systems are horrifically flawed.
I hate to lead us in circles, but honest question-
how do you know that they're flawed, other than by juxtaposing them with your personal value system?
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 07:26:06 PM
Doctor: Thanks. So, did Adams pick up the word from him?
if we can believe wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok), it is originally from heinlein. I first read it in the Electric Kool Aid Acid Test. After I grokked it, it never bothered me. :p
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 07:22:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:12:35 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 07:08:36 PM
Also, I dig the word "Grok."
That's because you're retarded. And you admire a racist.
Whoah, where does the word come from? I always thought it was from HGTTG. I'm pretty sure Douglas Adams wasn't a racist. (But then again, what the hell do I know).
Not much, apparently. It comes from Robert Heinlien. Google "Farnham's Freehold" to gain a better understanding of this fascinating pinhead.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 07:26:54 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 07:25:43 PM
So, either:
1) AM rules are arbitrary, yet followed as if they were not. Therefore, it is a specific subset of RM.
2) Some AM rules are handed down from a higher Authority, but no one can be sure which rules they are.
3) All AM rules are handed down from a higher Authority, and that Authority is schizophrenic.
I'm putting this in my notes.
Please note addendum.
Quotehow do you know that they're flawed, other than by juxtaposing them with your personal value system?
:argh!: Just when I thought we were getting somewhere! Damn it, I guess this has to go in the notes, too...
QuoteTherefore, it is a specific subset of RM.
gotcha.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:24:00 PM
NOTE: Some people think Heinlein is a racist because one of his books seem quite racist. If you actually read Heinlein, rather than Internet commentary about Heinlein, it appears he was writing a book ABOUT Racism being a major problem.
Utter and complete bullshit, though I congratulate you on your hilarious attempt at a strawman argument. I've read Farnham's Freehold, and it was an unabashed racist screed. Have YOU read it, or are you relying on "internet commentary"?
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:24:00 PM
That's all you got? I'd hoped for something better. But, if your done then we actually get back to the discussion at hand, instead of your delusions :)
That's all I need. You've resorted to appeal to ridicule and strawman arguments, ergo you lose. End of story.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 07:26:06 PM
Doctor: Thanks. So, did Adams pick up the word from him?
Grok came into existence there and then got heavily memed throughout the geek community. Its a staple of hacker lingo, which was where it got into my lexicon. Unlike poor TGRR's addled old man brain, grok doesn't mean understand. Grok means that you are capable of entering the reality and perceptions of the other person... a comingling of understanding and empathy. In the book it was intimated that you had to do more than just process the information on a conscious level.
Freehold posits a reality where enslaved black men are freed and gain ascendancy over the whites and then proceed to do terrible things to them, including cannibalism. Reactionary fools call racist and think their smart. People that actually read Heinlein recognize that he's using shock and extreme viewpoints to emphasize the issue of bigotry as being a major problem here in the US. But, that requires grokking rather than just reading Internet reviews on the book ;-)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:33:40 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:24:00 PM
That's all you got? I'd hoped for something better. But, if your done then we actually get back to the discussion at hand, instead of your delusions :)
That's all I need. You've resorted to appeal to ridicule and strawman arguments, ergo you lose. End of story.
Dude, with you ridicule is the only language ;-)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:30:18 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 07:22:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:12:35 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 07:08:36 PM
Also, I dig the word "Grok."
That's because you're retarded. And you admire a racist.
Whoah, where does the word come from? I always thought it was from HGTTG. I'm pretty sure Douglas Adams wasn't a racist. (But then again, what the hell do I know).
Not much, apparently. It comes from Robert Heinlien. Google "Farnham's Freehold" to gain a better understanding of this fascinating pinhead.
From Wikipedia
QuoteSome have argued that the portrayal of the black ruling caste as cannibalistic, polygynous tyrants with a preference for Caucasian women utilizes most of the available racist stereotypes about Africans and African-Americans. Another interpretation posits that the cannibalism and sexual predation of the dark-skinned masters is allegorical, representing the way that black slaves were historically taken advantage of by their masters.
As always, more than one way to look at something. I haven't read it, so I'm not going to make a stand. Either way...
QuoteGrok means that you are capable of entering the reality and perceptions of the other person... a comingling of understanding and empathy. In the book it was intimated that you had to do more than just process the information on a conscious level.
I still dig the word "Grok"
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:35:59 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 07:26:06 PM
Doctor: Thanks. So, did Adams pick up the word from him?
Grok came into existence there and then got heavily memed throughout the geek community. Its a staple of hacker lingo, which was where it got into my lexicon. Unlike poor TGRR's addled old man brain, grok doesn't mean understand. Grok means that you are capable of entering the reality and perceptions of the other person... a comingling of understanding and empathy. In the book it was intimated that you had to do more than just process the information on a conscious level.
Freehold posits a reality where enslaved black men are freed and gain ascendancy over the whites and then proceed to do terrible things to them, including cannibalism. Reactionary fools call racist and think their smart. People that actually read Heinlein recognize that he's using shock and extreme viewpoints to emphasize the issue of bigotry as being a major problem here in the US. But, that requires grokking rather than just reading Internet reviews on the book ;-)
Yes, and the betrayal by the Black character that starts out with the hero was...
Oh, yeah. An illustration that Black people cannot be trusted. It was spelled out quite clearly in the text.
And what Rat described in his first paragraph IS "understanding".
Sorry Rat's young, addled mind was apparently damaged by fetal alcohol syndrome.
Also, Rat has apparently turned to outright lies in his desperation. How fucking pathetic is that?
QuoteAnd what Rat described in his first paragraph IS "understanding".
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I can grok that...
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:37:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:33:40 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:24:00 PM
That's all you got? I'd hoped for something better. But, if your done then we actually get back to the discussion at hand, instead of your delusions :)
That's all I need. You've resorted to appeal to ridicule and strawman arguments, ergo you lose. End of story.
Dude, with you ridicule is the only language ;-)
Understood. Between that and your insistance on outright lies, I don't think we need to carry on this conversation - or any other - any further.
See? You win! And all it cost you was your integrity. :)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:39:49 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:35:59 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 07:26:06 PM
Doctor: Thanks. So, did Adams pick up the word from him?
Grok came into existence there and then got heavily memed throughout the geek community. Its a staple of hacker lingo, which was where it got into my lexicon. Unlike poor TGRR's addled old man brain, grok doesn't mean understand. Grok means that you are capable of entering the reality and perceptions of the other person... a comingling of understanding and empathy. In the book it was intimated that you had to do more than just process the information on a conscious level.
Freehold posits a reality where enslaved black men are freed and gain ascendancy over the whites and then proceed to do terrible things to them, including cannibalism. Reactionary fools call racist and think their smart. People that actually read Heinlein recognize that he's using shock and extreme viewpoints to emphasize the issue of bigotry as being a major problem here in the US. But, that requires grokking rather than just reading Internet reviews on the book ;-)
Yes, and the betrayal by the Black character that starts out with the hero was...
Oh, yeah. An illustration that Black people cannot be trusted. It was spelled out quite clearly in the text.
And what Rat described in his first paragraph IS "understanding".
Sorry Rat's young, addled mind was apparently damaged by fetal alcohol syndrome.
Also, Rat has apparently turned to outright lies in his desperation. How fucking pathetic is that?
I've read almost every book that Heinlein has written. I don't particularly like Freehold, it was a hard book to read and displayed some horrific acts which are very uncomfortable. BUT if you read that and consider it a screed against black people... then you just didn't grok it.
And here we see Roger turning to his old standby of accusations when he runs out of lame comebacks, its his shtick though, so its fun :)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:41:36 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:37:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:33:40 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:24:00 PM
That's all you got? I'd hoped for something better. But, if your done then we actually get back to the discussion at hand, instead of your delusions :)
That's all I need. You've resorted to appeal to ridicule and strawman arguments, ergo you lose. End of story.
Dude, with you ridicule is the only language ;-)
Understood. Between that and your insistance on outright lies, I don't think we need to carry on this conversation - or any other - any further.
See? You win! And all it cost you was your integrity. :)
you really must start trying harder you impotent old fart ;-)
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:43:52 PM
And here we see Roger turning to his old standby of accusations when he runs out of lame comebacks, its his shtick though, so its fun :)
I stated that I have read the book. You then stated that I got my POV from internet reviews, and you stated it as fact.
You're a liar. I think that's pretty obvious.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:46:04 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:43:52 PM
And here we see Roger turning to his old standby of accusations when he runs out of lame comebacks, its his shtick though, so its fun :)
I stated that I have read the book. You then stated that I got my POV from internet reviews, and you stated it as fact.
You're a liar. I think that's pretty obvious.
I posted that before I saw that you read it.
Ok so you read the book and failed to understand it. I'm not sure that's better...
Quote from: Cramulus on September 22, 2009, 07:29:35 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 07:24:00 PM
Quote from: fomenter on September 22, 2009, 07:20:46 PM
RM is often used to mean all morality's are equal by followers of AM
the reality that Morality's are Relative but some Morality's are better or worse needs its own name to separate the two uses of the words..
This seems in line with my opinion as well. For morality to be absolute, there would have to be some constant outside of human consciousness and I don't have any evidence that such a thing exists. However, some moral systems are horrifically flawed.
I hate to lead us in circles, but honest question-
how do you know that they're flawed, other than by juxtaposing them with your personal value system?
the "honest question" is just restating the point that morality's are relative...
lmno's suggestion of consensus would be one way, are they rational or do they function another. and my gut instinct personal value system as well, i don't think the observers position cant be taken out of the equation
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.
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 07:52:26 PM
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
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 07:52:26 PM
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.
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.
I also agree with LMNO here. Though, isn't what he said along the lines of utilitarianism (a form of AM)?
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 08:07:14 PM
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.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 22, 2009, 08:06:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 08:07:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 08:07:14 PM
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...??
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 08:11:15 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 22, 2009, 08:06:05 PM
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.
Quote from: fomenter on September 22, 2009, 08:18:28 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 08:07:14 PM
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.
that makes sense i just don't see the "for the most people" part implied by the name..
Quote from: fomenter on September 22, 2009, 08:25:58 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 07:11:41 PM
GIVE ME YOUR FIRSTBORN SONS, AND I WILL GIVE YOU GOULASH!
Beef or pork?
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 08:15:13 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 08:07:14 PM
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.
...and that's in the long run, right?
Like, getting wikkid drunk tonight might give pleasure, but the resulting hangover negated that. Or something.
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 08:35:17 PM
...and that's in the long run, right?
Like, getting wikkid drunk tonight might give pleasure, but the resulting hangover negated that. Or something.
Only if it resulted in the greatest amounts of happiness for the most amount of people. Bentham's "system" was very simple, yet at the same time utterly useless, since he didn't really define things like happiness or pleasure or how to measure them.
John Stuart Mill complicated it by adding in the distinction between higher and lower pleasures, and Mill placed the focus on happiness above pleasure, since he felt something could be pleasurable in the short term but not give much in the way of happiness.
And there is also the division between act and rule utilitarianism. Rule utiliarianism works from, well, rules, generalizing what normally happens in a case and then following rules based on that, whereas act ultilitarianism relies on the particulars of each individual situation, while attempting to avoid rules
I'm pretty sure everyone's happier when I'm drunk.
Quote from: Cain on September 22, 2009, 08:33:40 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 08:15:13 PM
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 08:07:14 PM
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.
Yep, my exposure was through Virtue Ethics and the more modern takes on JS Mill's original positions.
As an aside, I'm pretty sure utilitarianism was invented only so first year philosophy students would have a theory so full of holes they could shoot it apart with ease.
Surprisingly useful, in that case.
Quote from: Cain on September 22, 2009, 08:44:31 PM
As an aside, I'm pretty sure utilitarianism was invented only so first year philosophy students would have a theory so full of holes they could shoot it apart with ease.
:lulz:
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 22, 2009, 08:18:57 PM
We can model weather quite accurately.
:lulz:
Come to Tucson. It's a fucking DESERT, and they can't predict the weather worth a fuck.
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 08:43:01 PM
I'm pretty sure everyone's happier when I'm LOCKED IN A Trunk.
Fixed.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 08:49:10 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 22, 2009, 08:18:57 PM
We can model weather quite accurately.
:lulz:
Come to Tucson. It's a fucking DESERT, and they can't predict the weather worth a fuck.
Dude, their model doesn't include a cactus eating rain god.... Thats a fuckin variable that you cannot dismiss.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 22, 2009, 08:18:57 PM
We can model weather quite accurately.
True, but only up to about three days, as I recall.
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 08:51:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 08:49:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 08:43:01 PM
I'm pretty sure everyone's happier when I'm LOCKED IN A Trunk.
Fixed.
:alevil:
Nonsense. My actions may
seem evil, but that is because I work in mysterious ways. For example, if Kim Kardashian was also in the trunk, would you then consider it an undesirable thing? She's not, though. I think I left some large rats in there. Again, mysterious ways.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 09:07:53 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 08:51:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 08:49:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 08:43:01 PM
I'm pretty sure everyone's happier when I'm LOCKED IN A Trunk.
Fixed.
:alevil:
Nonsense. My actions may seem evil, but that is because I work in mysterious ways. For example, if Kim Kardashian was also in the trunk, would you then consider it an undesirable thing? She's not, though. I think I left some large rats in there. Again, mysterious ways.
Uhh, how do you know the difference?
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 08:43:01 PM
I'm pretty sure everyone's happier when I'm drunk.
You sound like me. :(
My husband calls it "The Good Jennifer"...
Quote from: Cain on September 22, 2009, 08:44:31 PM
As an aside, I'm pretty sure utilitarianism was invented only so first year philosophy students would have a theory so full of holes they could shoot it apart with ease.
It just sounds so terribly Victorian...or borne of that era.
Quote from: Jenne on September 22, 2009, 09:21:28 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 22, 2009, 08:44:31 PM
As an aside, I'm pretty sure utilitarianism was invented only so first year philosophy students would have a theory so full of holes they could shoot it apart with ease.
It just sounds so terribly Victorian...or borne of that era.
100% troof, JS Mill was at his prime in London during the mid and late 1800's. Jenne gets 100 Internets for correctly placing the system!
Quote from: Jenne on September 22, 2009, 09:21:28 PM
Quote from: Cain on September 22, 2009, 08:44:31 PM
As an aside, I'm pretty sure utilitarianism was invented only so first year philosophy students would have a theory so full of holes they could shoot it apart with ease.
It just sounds so terribly Victorian...or borne of that era.
Well, it was. John Stuart Mill was an MP during the Victorian era, in fact. As well as Rector of my University, which it seems pretty much everyone has been at one point.
Also, Nietzsche lol:
QuoteThere are truths that are recognized best by mediocre minds because they are most congenial to them; there are truths that have charm and seductive powers only for mediocre spirits: we come up against this perhaps disagreeable proposition just now, since the spirit of respectable but mediocre Englishmen—I name Darwin, John Stuart Mill, and Herbert Spencer—is beginning to predominate in the middle regions of European taste. Indeed, who would doubt that it is useful that such spirits should rule at times? It would be a mistake to suppose that the spirits of a high type that soar on their own paths would be particularly skillful at determining and collecting many small and common facts and then drawing conclusions from them: on the contrary, being exceptions, they are from the start at a disadvantage when it comes to the "rule." Finally, they have more to do that merely to gain knowledge—namely, to be something new, to signify something new, to represent new values. Perhaps the chasm between know and can is greater, also uncannier, than people suppose: those who can do things in the grand style, the creative, may possibly have to be lacking in knowledge—while, on the other hand, for scientific discoveries of the type of Darwin's a certain narrowness, aridity, and industrious diligence, something English in short, may not be a bad disposition.
WOOHOO!
...and here I thought I'd missed something by not reading all this stuff except for soundbite potential back in the 90's...
The whole "higher" and "lower" value on pleasures of different degrees just smacked of Kellogg and his ilk. The US assholes had their own ring going over stateside, y'see.
Quote from: Jenne on September 22, 2009, 09:26:58 PM
The whole "higher" and "lower" value on pleasures of different degrees just smacked of Kellogg and his ilk. The US assholes had their own ring going over stateside, y'see.
But, his Grape Nuts will HEAL YOU!
Quote from: Jenne on September 22, 2009, 09:26:58 PM
The whole "higher" and "lower" value on pleasures of different degrees just smacked of Kellogg and his ilk. The US assholes had their own ring going over stateside, y'see.
"Better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied."
How do you make that determination? Is this anything more than Victorian snobbishness and fear of the culture of the lowly, teeming masses? Another two broadsides to be delivered by undergrads against utilitarianism.
Quote from: Jenne on September 22, 2009, 09:19:25 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 08:43:01 PM
I'm pretty sure everyone's happier when I'm drunk.
You sound like me. :(
My husband calls it "The Good Jennifer"...
Next time drink whiskey, and show him The BAD Jennifer.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 09:32:21 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 22, 2009, 09:19:25 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 08:43:01 PM
I'm pretty sure everyone's happier when I'm drunk.
You sound like me. :(
My husband calls it "The Good Jennifer"...
Next time drink whiskey, and show him The BAD Jennifer.
Aw, he sleeps next to that one most every night. :lulz: Whiskey makes me good. As does tequila, wine, beer...
Quote from: Cain on September 22, 2009, 09:29:31 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 22, 2009, 09:26:58 PM
The whole "higher" and "lower" value on pleasures of different degrees just smacked of Kellogg and his ilk. The US assholes had their own ring going over stateside, y'see.
"Better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied."
How do you make that determination? Is this anything more than Victorian snobbishness and fear of the culture of the lowly, teeming masses? Another two broadsides to be delivered by undergrads against utilitarianism.
:lulz: Exactly. It was this smugness that came from the well-heeled that made the suppositions that they were "above" the baser instincts of lust, hunger and what-all they thought the "lowly masses" and "great unwashed" would feel in any given day.
Meanwhile, the hijinks they got up to personally smacked of rank hypocrisy.
...and so goes the righteous.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 09:27:44 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 22, 2009, 09:26:58 PM
The whole "higher" and "lower" value on pleasures of different degrees just smacked of Kellogg and his ilk. The US assholes had their own ring going over stateside, y'see.
But, his Grape Nuts will HEAL YOU!
Wellville was a great movie--if a bit boring at times.
Well John Stuart Mill also backed the Opium Wars. Exactly how fighting the Chinese military for the right to get Chinese peasants addicted to smack fits into utilitiarianism or his ideas on liberalism I am not exactly sure about, but that is why JSM was an MP, philosopher and economist, and I serve drinks to doddering old fools.
Better to be a biped, satisfied than either of them.
A pig may walk on the meadow
A pig may swim in the sea
A pig may do whatever it likes
But no pig walks on me.
Is it fair to say that a workable moral system will unify people?
Assuming that a good moral system would unify (accent on assuming) people, and an RM system has no chance of unification, then it would lead one to beleive that a system must be in place. The one system that has been discussed here (utilitarianism) has been invalidated by an abundance of generalized terms, as opposed to specifics definitions of terms, so I still have some questions?
Is there a strong case for moral relativity (the more I think about it, the more it sounds like a means for the amoral to justify their actions)?
And, if not, what system has the ability to stand?
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 22, 2009, 11:44:03 PM
Is it fair to say that a workable moral system will unify people?
Assuming that a good moral system would unify (accent on assuming) people,
I stopped reading here.
As it is, my intellectual system rejects arguments that it considers to be utterly moronic. You may think this designation was arbitrarily designated, but you're just going to have to trust me when I tell you otherwise. Through years of research into what would be most beneficial to my cognitive development as a whole, I have discovered that peurile and poorly constructed theses such as yours must be eliminated.
I'm sorry. The thorough unification of my rational construct relies only upon my discretion.
Run along now, child. Adults are conversing.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 10:09:40 PM
Better to be a biped, satisfied than either of them.
A pig may walk on the meadow
A pig may swim in the sea
A pig may do whatever it likes
But no pig walks on me.
"4 legs good! Two legs baaaaad!"
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 09:07:53 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 08:51:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 08:49:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 08:43:01 PM
I'm pretty sure everyone's happier when I'm LOCKED IN A Trunk.
Fixed.
:alevil:
Nonsense. My actions may seem evil, but that is because I work in mysterious ways. For example, if Kim Kardashian was also in the trunk, would you then consider it an undesirable thing? She's not, though. I think I left some large rats in there. Again, mysterious ways.
Do the rats have round, firm asses?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 10:09:40 PM
Better to be a biped, satisfied than either of them.
A pig may walk on the meadow
A pig may swim in the sea
A pig may do whatever it likes
But no pig walks on me.
What about Kim Kardashian?
Why would a workable moral system unify people? There are already several workable moral systems, and people knowingly and willingly break the rules of them daily. Even if you got everyone to agree on one particular system, that would no doubt continue.
Quote from: LMNO on September 23, 2009, 02:02:52 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 09:07:53 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 08:51:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 08:49:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2009, 08:43:01 PM
I'm pretty sure everyone's happier when I'm LOCKED IN A Trunk.
Fixed.
:alevil:
Nonsense. My actions may seem evil, but that is because I work in mysterious ways. For example, if Kim Kardashian was also in the trunk, would you then consider it an undesirable thing? She's not, though. I think I left some large rats in there. Again, mysterious ways.
Do the rats have round, firm asses?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 10:09:40 PM
Better to be a biped, satisfied than either of them.
A pig may walk on the meadow
A pig may swim in the sea
A pig may do whatever it likes
But no pig walks on me.
What about Kim Kardashian?
Hell, yes. In 9" heels with broken glass glued to the soles.
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/goblinhill/kimcardassianplayboy.jpg)
hmmmm, whatever floats your boat I guess . . .
Quote from: MMIX on September 23, 2009, 07:06:24 PM
(http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a289/goblinhill/kimcardassianplayboy.jpg)
hmmmm, whatever floats your boat I guess . . .
Hell, yeah. It would be better if her face really looked like that.
yep, better than a paper bag . . . :wink:
Quote from: MMIX on September 23, 2009, 07:34:25 PM
yep, better than a paper bag . . . :wink:
What's wrong with Kim Kardashian's face?
I'm sorry, I was looking about two to three feet lower than her face, and from the back.
What was that you were saying?
Quote from: LMNO on September 23, 2009, 08:13:13 PM
I'm sorry, I was looking about two to three feet lower than her face, and from the back.
What was that you were saying?
Apparently, there is an element at PD that thinks she's ugly.
Two people so far. MMIX and Rat.
Ugly? Really? Looks fine to me.
Is hitting Kim Kardashian a categorical imperative, though?
Quote from: Cain on September 23, 2009, 09:39:05 PM
Is hitting Kim Kardashian a categorical imperative, though?
Yes. Or the short sister. The tall one looks like some kind of alien.
But is hitting Kim Karsashian the best possible outcome in all possible worlds?
Quote from: Cain on September 23, 2009, 10:27:32 PM
But is hitting Kim Karsashian the best possible outcome in all possible worlds?
Um, no. Using a time machine to kidnap Raquel Welch from 1968 for wild monkey sex holds that title.
But, given no time machine, then yeah.
Quote from: Cain on September 23, 2009, 03:37:27 PM
Why would a workable moral system unify people?
Shouldn't a moral system work for the benefit of more than one social construct (for more than just your social construct)?
If yes, than it should work towards a unification of peoples, as rifts between cultures retard the spread of ideas. No large achievements are made by individuals, they're accomplished by collaboration and the exchange of ideas between different societies. No international space station without collaboration. None of the wonders of the world (on the other hand, no atomic bomb) etc.. I feel a moral system should be used to benefit even those beyond yourself or your society, because it is that that will reap the most benefit for humanity as a whole.
If no, then what is the point of even trying to solve international and cross cultural issues? Why not just stay in bed, or do whatever it is that makes you happy?
I agree, however, in the end that complete RM can't sustain itself (based on the resulting impediment in progress), a solid AM is not flexible enough to meet the requirements of the complex situations it's meant to judge in simple terms, and any combination of the two would, in the end, eat itself.
What is there that's left?
i'd be careful using words like "should" around here.
Quote from: rong on September 24, 2009, 04:18:45 AM
i'd be careful using words like "should" around here.
. . . allergies??? . . .
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 09:15:21 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 23, 2009, 08:13:13 PM
I'm sorry, I was looking about two to three feet lower than her face, and from the back.
What was that you were saying?
Apparently, there is an element at PD that thinks she's ugly.
Two people so far. MMIX and Rat.
She's only ugly on the inside.
LMNO
-has watched the TV show. The entire family are horrible, horrible people.
Quote from: Dimo1138 on September 24, 2009, 02:21:36 AM
Quote from: Cain on September 23, 2009, 03:37:27 PM
Why would a workable moral system unify people?
Shouldn't a moral system work for the benefit of more than one social construct (for more than just your social construct)?
If yes, than it should work towards a unification of peoples, as rifts between cultures retard the spread of ideas. No large achievements are made by individuals, they're accomplished by collaboration and the exchange of ideas between different societies. No international space station without collaboration. None of the wonders of the world (on the other hand, no atomic bomb) etc.. I feel a moral system should be used to benefit even those beyond yourself or your society, because it is that that will reap the most benefit for humanity as a whole.
If no, then what is the point of even trying to solve international and cross cultural issues? Why not just stay in bed, or do whatever it is that makes you happy?
I agree, however, in the end that complete RM can't sustain itself (based on the resulting impediment in progress), a solid AM is not flexible enough to meet the requirements of the complex situations it's meant to judge in simple terms, and any combination of the two would, in the end, eat itself.
What is there that's left?
Why do arbitrary game rules have to have a net gain on society?
You're introducing a priori value judgements here; you're applying your personal moral game rules upon all game rules.
Oh, I found a chapter in the Chao te Ching that may relate:
Chapter 19
Abandon blind faith and pseudointellectual bullshit,
the people will benefit.
Abandon absolute morality,
the people won't try to kill the Other.
Abandon intellectual copyright,
and there will be nothing to steal.
People will always be distracted by their imagination:
Religion; Territory; Morals; Politics.
Quote from: LMNO on September 24, 2009, 01:55:51 PM
She's only ugly on the inside.
So I'd make her wear a flag over her pancreas.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 09:15:21 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 23, 2009, 08:13:13 PM
I'm sorry, I was looking about two to three feet lower than her face, and from the back.
What was that you were saying?
Apparently, there is an element at PD that thinks she's ugly.
Two people so far. MMIX and Rat.
Did I say she was Ugly?
I don't think she's ugly, Hell, I'd tap that if I could boil her for 15 minutes first. :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO on September 24, 2009, 03:05:56 PM
Oh, I found a chapter in the Chao te Ching that may relate:
Chapter 19
Abandon blind faith and pseudointellectual bullshit,
the people will benefit.
Abandon absolute morality,
the people won't try to kill the Other.
Abandon intellectual copyright,
and there will be nothing to steal.
People will always be distracted by their imagination:
Religion; Territory; Morals; Politics.
Yep, I suppose this wins the thread. The only crappy thing is I'm stuck in this ridiculous class for the rest of the semester.
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 22, 2009, 06:45:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 06:10:05 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 05:31:51 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 05:27:16 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 22, 2009, 05:23:34 PM
I don't specifically blame individuals for acting in line with their social norms,
I do. Excuses are like assholes. You KNOW that "the cutting of the rose" is going to deprive your daughter of a normal marriage, but you do it anyway, to "preserve her virtue" as society demands. This makes you an evil bastard, who should be shoved in a chipper.
Well, in some sense I agree... though I can see the argument that a monkey with specific programs running in his head might not put those things together and recoginize the badwrongness of their actions. That doesn't make their actions less badwrong... it just means the monkey is in serious need of some reprogramming.
Then you have a defective monkey. Any primate of average intelligence would realize the above, but they ignore their intelligence in favor of what other people have told them about what a big scarey man in the sky would have said, if he'd thought of it (female circumcision is not in the Koran, IIRC).
Programming is not a reason, it's an excuse.
I disagree. Programming is how societies work.
And THIS is what we're trying to determine.
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 24, 2009, 06:56:33 PM
I don't think she's ugly, Hell, I'd tap that if I could boil her for 15 minutes first. :lulz:
Thank you, Ratatosk, I'll be writing that one down and using it the next time my cheating soon-to-be-ex-husband pisses me off. "God, I hope you boiled it for 15 minutes before you stuck your dick in it."
Quote from: Luna on March 10, 2011, 07:13:46 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 24, 2009, 06:56:33 PM
I don't think she's ugly, Hell, I'd tap that if I could boil her for 15 minutes first. :lulz:
Thank you, Ratatosk, I'll be writing that one down and using it the next time my cheating soon-to-be-ex-husband pisses me off. "God, I hope you boiled it for 15 minutes before you stuck your dick in it."
:lulz: