dfsdf

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: dfsdf

Postby iambiguous » Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:25 pm

phyllo wrote:
But, again, to me, this depends entirely on what you construe the basis of morality to be.

The Prince might embrace self-gratification as a moral font. And, so, he has to be prudent always in deceiving others in order to, at times, convince them otherwise? Think, say, a few prominent folks from the Showtime series The Borgias.
This is the idea that each person 'creates' their own morality. Mo has been criticizing you for having this position. I think that morality is set by the group. An individual may act morally or immorally with respect to the group standard. The Prince is not ignorant of morality but merely uses it to attain his own goals. Success is based on prudent action which may be saintly piety or ruthless brutality.


My point is this: We only have so much understanding of and control over all the myriad variables that come together -- and then evolve over the years -- as or into "I". Likewise the "group" is always situated problematically out in a particular historical and cultural context.

Mo is perturbed mostly by the suggestion that particular behaviors are rooted inextricably and inexplicably in dasein. And, thus, in the enormously complex labyrinths that are contingency, chance and change. He refuses to accept there is no way for philosophers to yank Virtue objectively out of all the many, many, many social, political and economic permutations possible "out in the world" of actual human interaction.

So he does it "in his head" instead. He creates an argument [a world of words] that is true only because he claims the meaning he gives to all the words in the argument are true. Morality and prudence are what he says they are. Basically, the same thing.

And, if you insist on being the sole arbiter regarding what either does or does not contribute "scientifically" to the "well-being" of the human race, I suppose they are just different facets of the same thing.

Is this in fact true though? I don't think so. But, more to the point, I don't think we can know for sure because facts pertaining to the behaviors precipitated by conflicting value judgments can distinguish what did from what did not happen but not what should from what should not happen.

And calling yourself "a river" instead of a "philosopher-king" here doesn't change that.

To paraphrase myself, "A prudent and objective morality isn't true or false unless you believe it is."

For, among other things, all practical purposes.
Last edited by iambiguous on Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 26604
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: dfsdf

Postby anon » Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:28 pm

Mo_ wrote:Prudence and morality are linked.

How can they be linked if they're the same thing?

Game over.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: dfsdf

Postby anon » Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:31 pm

Mo_ wrote:
anon wrote:But if my post here is morally positive, then how could you say it is morally wrong? You can't.
I can, and just did. If you do something that does not seem morally wrong, but you know it'll lead to something morally wrong (or at least that likelihood), then what you did initially is in fact morally wrong. That's clear. Buying a gun is not morally wrong, but buying a gun when I know I have an uncontrollable temper makes buying the gun morally wrong. It's something I ought not do.

Your example simply begs the question of what you think the distinction is. You should just state it. Because your example itself shows no distinction.

Anyway, let's stick with this concept you just brought up - "degrees of importance". So there is a spectrum, and prudence is to the left, while morality is to the right.
Wrong.

There is a spectrum of the force that an 'ought' claim has. On one end, you really really ought to do that. On the other end, yea, you sort of ought to do it. Perhaps on one end is brushing your teeth, and on the other end is saving a life. Neither side is prudence or morality, one and not the other. I've already told you there is no distinction there. If you think there is, it is incumbent on you to FOR ONCE EXPLAIN THE DISTINCTION.

Otherwise, you should more or less agree with me. Prudence and morality are linked. As with many philosophical puzzles and problems, the problem itself is with language and the way the problem is stated. I'm clarifying it. The distinction above is a relic of old religious thinking, which no longer makes sense... just as it didn't make sense pre-middle ages, to the Greeks. I am a Greek in spirit. Ironically, Ambigui, Faust and phyllo represent the Kantian priesthood.

By the way, according to your logic the only proper moral decision is to not engage with others at all. Absolute prudence. 'Cause I might fuck up.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: dfsdf

Postby phyllo » Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:40 pm

Ironically, Ambigui, Faust and phyllo represent the Kantian priesthood.
I'm not the least bit Kantian. :roll:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10879
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: dfsdf

Postby von Rivers » Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:18 pm

Mo_ wrote:They are not just conceptually linked, they are two concepts for the same thing (i.e., what you 'ought' to do).
anon wrote:How can they be linked if they're the same thing?

Correct. They differ only in letters.

You're welcome, btw.

anon wrote:By the way, according to your logic the only proper moral decision is to not engage with others at all. Absolute prudence. 'Cause I might fuck up.
You should probably hide yourself away if you know you're going to end up behaving like I usually see you do. I don't have that problem though.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: dfsdf

Postby anon » Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:31 pm

Mo_ wrote:
Mo_ wrote:They are not just conceptually linked, they are two concepts for the same thing (i.e., what you 'ought' to do).
anon wrote:How can they be linked if they're the same thing?

Correct. They differ only in letters.

You're welcome, btw.

anon wrote:By the way, according to your logic the only proper moral decision is to not engage with others at all. Absolute prudence. 'Cause I might fuck up.
You should probably hide yourself away if you know you're going to end up behaving like I usually see you do. I don't have that problem though.

If I stop posting it's not because I'm hiding. It's because I can't find a single interesting thread to engage in recently.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: dfsdf

Postby Only_Humean » Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:52 pm

Apologies, I've missed a couple of days due to real life popping up unexpectedly.

Time to lock this thread, as it's going nowhere fast. This post gets Monooq a warning.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6194
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: dfsdf

Postby von Rivers » Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:17 pm

deleted.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: dfsdf

Postby Moreno » Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:10 am

Let me a take a different tack here.

It seems to me an assumption in your position, Mo, is that, really, with some quantitative variation, we are all the same. Culture and ignorance can make it seem like we are vastly more different than each other, but at root we really want the same things, and thus we can come up with a morality based on pain and other measurable neurological reactions, a morality that works for everyone, in fact, even if their culture and ignorace of cause and effect, make it hard for them to realize.

I used to think something like this. In any case that we are all, really, pretty much the same.

It doesn't really fit my experience.

There seem to be a lot of people who like to be under authority. Who may like the idea of freedom in the abstract, but seek to place themselves under authority as much as possible and do seem happier there than I ever would. They made the transition from royalty based governments to republics and democracies without really granting themselves or seeming to be very attracted to utilizing freedoms I like to and would like to. They conform because it is normal. And they dislike the not normal because it is not normal. They may at times weigh in with arguments about why normal is better, but often, in fact, they can come right out and say the issue is simply that being normal is good, period.

I can think, oh, I know how they really would like to live. If I could teach them critical thinking, and perhaps undo some of the judgments and fear that lock them into these places. If they could be encouraged to experience freedom, creativity, individuality - rather than thinking that Nike and Chanel will give them individuality - they would realize they are like me, not in specifics, but in the general urges.

How...presumptuous.

What if there are people who simply do not thrive in the same ways? They are not really at root like you, Mo. It seems clear to me that some people actually want there to be strife, war, conflict, dog eat god environments, harsh interpersonal dynamics. (this is not necessarily at all the same group as the conformists I mentioned above) It is not an us them, I see a number of groups out there.

I spent a long time thinking, really, they differed with me over what was a necessary evil. Or they did not know there might be ways to mitigate some of this. Or that their upbringing distorted their real selves.

I don't buy that at all, now.

It seems to me your sense of morality is based on this general unity of humankind. (if that does not seem like the case to you, then we need to focus there and perhaps I am wrong about this implication)
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: dfsdf

Postby von Rivers » Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:24 am

Moreno wrote:It seems to me an assumption in your position, Mo, is that, really, with some quantitative variation, we are all the same. Culture and ignorance can make it seem like we are vastly more different than each other, but at root we really want the same things, and thus we can come up with a morality based on pain and other measurable neurological reactions, a morality that works for everyone, in fact, even if their culture and ignorace of cause and effect, make it hard for them to realize.

Yes, I think this is fair. Culture is a surface phenomenon---a way of expressing the sort of impulses that all creatures of our type hold in common. They get expressed in different ways, through culture... but at a deeper level, it's possible to judge culture because at the deeper level there are commonalities.

There seem to be a lot of people who like to be under authority. Who may like the idea of freedom in the abstract, but seek to place themselves under authority as much as possible and do seem happier there than I ever would.
What is the problem here? I am one of those people.

What if there are people who simply do not thrive in the same ways? They are not really at root like you, Mo.
That would be surprising indeed. Are they from an alien planet? Do they not share hundreds of thousands of years of the same forging as me? Are we not from the same place, in Africa? Are we not virtual genetic identicals? I'd say, let them thrive as they see fit. At this point, you might want to say that torturing and slavery are thriving, and ask what my response is. It's clear, while there may be many different ways of thriving and flourishing, there are at least some ways of getting it wrong. I know that because I am from the same place as you, and your virtual genetic identical. There are surface variations. You want love, and that urge expresses itself in different ways. Why should I care? You want to avoid pain, and that urge expresses itself in different ways. Why should I care? You want pleasure, and that urge expresses itself in different ways. Why should I care? There can be different ways of expressing yourself, but there are clearly some ways of getting it wrong.

It seems clear to me that some people actually want there to be strife, war, conflict, dog eat god environments, harsh interpersonal dynamics.
No there isn't. People only fight for a reason. People only have conflict in order to settle something. People only hurt to get something. Nobody does these things for no reason. These things aren't inherently good, they're means.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: dfsdf

Postby Moreno » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:57 am

Mo_ wrote:Yes, I think this is fair. Culture is a surface phenomenon---a way of expressing the sort of impulses that all creatures of our type hold in common. They get expressed in different ways, through culture... but at a deeper level, it's possible to judge culture because at the deeper level there are commonalities.
OK, good.

There seem to be a lot of people who like to be under authority. Who may like the idea of freedom in the abstract, but seek to place themselves under authority as much as possible and do seem happier there than I ever would.
What is the problem here? I am one of those people.
Well, you seemed to describe yourself in libertarian terms. You did not use that term, so I may be way off, but I somehow got that impression. That position has a lot of trouble with authority, compared to many conservatives who are not libertarians, for example.

What if there are people who simply do not thrive in the same ways? They are not really at root like you, Mo.


That would be surprising indeed. Are they from an alien planet? Do they not share hundreds of thousands of years of the same forging as me? Are we not from the same place, in Africa? Are we not virtual genetic identicals? I'd say, let them thrive as they see fit. At this point, you might want to say that torturing and slavery are thriving, and ask what my response is. It's clear, while there may be many different ways of thriving and flourishing, there are at least some ways of getting it wrong. I know that because I am from the same place as you, and your virtual genetic identical. There are surface variations.
Those surface variation seem to run deep. You ask a lot of questions and I think essentially I had to run through the ideas in those questions like a gauntlet as I more and more decided I actually believed people when they said what they wanted, even if it was nothing like what I wanted. I am not saying that culture and, cough, cough, brainwashing, do not have effects, but it no longer seemed to match my reality this idea that really we are all the same. If nothing else, even if you are correct about morality and our sameness, you are going to meet one hell of backlash when you start telling people that really they are like you and don't realize that what you are saying is objectively good, they like, deep down also. But that's a practical issue you may already know is there.

I simply don't find that other people all really deep down are like me in important ways. They seem to have other needs, other modes of life that make them comfortable and also, seem to have very little interest extricating themselves from what I might decide is causing them pain or keeping them from a life that I would find more fulfilling or interesting or whatever. IOW I do see people shift from their family/group cultures. I see people who decide that there is something wrong - even that in itself is to some degree unique, even if on the specifics they may disagree with others in this category - and they question and probe their training and upbringing and whatever cultural truths once seemed a given to them. I do see this happens. I am not ruling out the possibility that someone who seems to have what you would call surface differences might shift to not having these and even that discussions of morality might be part of such a shift. But I see others, most in fact, who seem not likely to ever shift. Not having trouble around the edges of their cultures and not at all like me.

It may seem logical to point at genetics, but even amongst animals raised in the same litters and herds I have seen radically different lifestyle needs and choices.

But perhaps we are even more variable than other social mammals even. I don't know. But your logical or perhaps 'logical' argument doesn't shift in the slightest my day to day experience. It seems to me it bears the burden of empirical evidence. Not merely deductive arguments. I need to see this deep down reallly all the sameness. Can you do this?


You want love, and that urge expresses itself in different ways. Why should I care? You want to avoid pain, and that urge expresses itself in different ways. Why should I care? You want pleasure, and that urge expresses itself in different ways. Why should I care? There can be different ways of expressing yourself, but there are clearly some ways of getting it wrong.
It seems to me a very large percentage of the population thinks what I call wrong is something good. I see this in child rearing, for example. I suppose I used to feel superior, they don't know any better. I know what they would really want to do if they really knew themselves and their children and well, life. But I am no longer sure that is the case. That seems like a ghost of an idea.

It seems clear to me that some people actually want there to be strife, war, conflict, dog eat god environments, harsh interpersonal dynamics.

No there isn't. People only fight for a reason. People only have conflict in order to settle something. People only hurt to get something. Nobody does these things for no reason. These things aren't inherently good, they're means.
AGain that is not my experience. The reasons seem to be in part enjoying conflict and even war. Enjoying levels of competition, say in a workplace, that seem hostile to me, and not mildly. I am not saying they have no reasons. I am sayhing that a society that met their needs would not meet mine and vice versa. I am not saying they are stupid or random. In fact presuming that there seeking out conflict, finding reasons, not being satisfied with enough, pride in provoking and so on are some distortion of what their real needs are seems just that a presumption and a judgment that their choices are stupid or to put it in more nicey nice terms, not ideal.

As it is now we have different groups whose surface differences would lead them to have societies in which members from other groups would at the very least be under the illusion they were suffering immensely. Not because we can't solve all the problems in these different cultures, but because of how these different groups want to live. Or at least think they want to live.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: dfsdf

Postby von Rivers » Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:46 am

Moreno wrote:Well, you seemed to describe yourself in libertarian terms. You did not use that term, so I may be way off, but I somehow got that impression. That position has a lot of trouble with authority, compared to many conservatives who are not libertarians, for example.

Brethren, I have no idea where you're getting this from. If it's key to a point you want to make, let me know---and I'll think harder about it. Most people think I'm too authoritarian it seems, you know, telling people there are such things as wrong answers, and other ghastly things.

Those surface variation seem to run deep. You ask a lot of questions and I think essentially I had to run through the ideas in those questions like a gauntlet as I more and more decided I actually believed people when they said what they wanted, even if it was nothing like what I wanted. I am not saying that culture and, cough, cough, brainwashing, do not have effects, but it no longer seemed to match my reality this idea that really we are all the same. If nothing else, even if you are correct about morality and our sameness, you are going to meet one hell of backlash when you start telling people that really they are like you and don't realize that what you are saying is objectively good, they like, deep down also. But that's a practical issue you may already know is there.

I think this is overblown, because I think the agreements among base values across cultures are very similar. That'd be a factual claim. Take a vague example... Just imagine, hypothetically, that one culture seems to value "equality" above all else... and for an arbitrary designation, just call them "the communists"---you know, just to give them a name. And one culture seems to value "freedom" above all else, just for the sake of also giving them a name, call them "the capitalists". These names are arbitrary; you can call them X and Y if you prefer. But if ever there was a hypothetical example that bore out the deep variation that you're talking about, it would be this one. But I have a hunch... My hunch is the allegedly chief values among these cultures are surface varations that grow out of deeper common base values. What would make my hunch look plausible? Well, suppose that the culture we've arbitrarily decided to call "the communists" started to see their society perfectly equal in every respect---but it was equally poor in every social/economic category (like quality of food, income, leisure time, etc). My hunch is that they would drift from their prizing the value of "equality", and my suspicion is that this would be done by the felt infringement of a deeper value they hold. Now, take the culture that just for the sake of a name we've called "the capitalists"... Suppose that everyone had perfect freedom to do whatever they wanted, but this led some having everything, and others having nothing, of those same social/economic categories. My hunch is that they'd also start to change, for the same general reason. I suppose we'll never know if something like this is born out by reality, you know, in the real world. But alas... we can hypothesize...

Anyways, why don't we just, for the time being, create a bucket term for a collection of values the proper ordering of which these cultures would move toward, if indeed they move anywhere. Call it "well-being". If something like this were happening, it'd cast doubt on how deep your surface variations run. Perhaps you also have an entirely hypothetical example with no bearing in the real world that you'd like to use to make your view more plausible...?

I simply don't find that other people all really deep down are like me in important ways. They seem to have other needs, other modes of life that make them comfortable and also, seem to have very little interest extricating themselves from what I might decide is causing them pain or keeping them from a life that I would find more fulfilling or interesting or whatever.

Examples, brethren?

IOW I do see people shift from their family/group cultures. I see people who decide that there is something wrong - even that in itself is to some degree unique, even if on the specifics they may disagree with others in this category - and they question and probe their training and upbringing and whatever cultural truths once seemed a given to them. I do see this happens.

Dude, that's suggestive of an objective standard on which you'd base morality, right? It simply wouldn't happen if cultures actually were the generators of normative force, and nothing else was.

It seems to me a very large percentage of the population thinks what I call wrong is something good. I see this in child rearing, for example. I suppose I used to feel superior, they don't know any better. I know what they would really want to do if they really knew themselves and their children and well, life. But I am no longer sure that is the case. That seems like a ghost of an idea.
Explain. Give the example some concrete features. It seems pretty clear to me that I was were you said you were. I mean, it seems pretty clear to me that there's at least a wrong way to raise a kid, which might involve regular verbal/physical abuse, social isolation, lack of education, and dismissal, at 7 years old. Of course, sans God, how can we say... No wait, wait, I'll have empirical evidence for that if you want the empirical thing...

Again that is not my experience. The reasons seem to be in part enjoying conflict and even war. Enjoying levels of competition, say in a workplace, that seem hostile to me, and not mildly. I am not saying they have no reasons. I am sayhing that a society that met their needs would not meet mine and vice versa.

Well what if I said that a society was intolerant about either of your needs could objectively be improved by removing its intolerance, and allowing plural ways of living...? If morality is objective, it's possible that one objective moral truth is to allow for people to walk down different paths as they see fit at different stages.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: dfsdf

Postby Moreno » Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:50 am

Mo_ wrote:Brethren, I have no idea where you're getting this from. If it's key to a point you want to make, let me know---and I'll think harder about it. Most people think I'm too authoritarian it seems, you know, telling people there are such things as wrong answers, and other ghastly things.
I got if from what you said about taxation, how you seem not to care how people get pleasure as long it seems as they do not hurt other non-consentors. One can pontificate and be utterly sure one is right without wanting a society based on a dictator, or even wanting a democratically elected set of representative dictate about many areas of life. But if libertarian is a poor fit that's fine. You can be part of the group that has a different set of needs and desires for their day to day life than I have. The only important point is that there seem to be differences and not superficial ones. (brethren? I am just one guy. though maybe you meant that a bunch of us misunderstand you)

There are large swathes of the country that are very concerned both with following religious norms and social norms - based on their ideas of what normal is. They tolerate and seem upset by things that are not what they would call normal. They also seem to want very strong guidelines for much of their own behavior and pass this on to their children, who are tightly kept within norms - dress, gender norms, even down to how one crosses one's legs, walks and the length of your hair. Doesn't matter if you are in this group or not. Just that this group and whatever group I would get lumped in would each say we want certain things and these things would be significantly different. Such that to live in each others society would cause regular pain.

It seems to me your position works only if all this is superficial and at least one group is confused about what it really needs and wants and how it would thrive.

I think this is overblown, because I think the agreements among base values across cultures are very similar. That'd be a factual claim. Take a vague example... Just imagine, hypothetically, that one culture seems to value "equality" above all else... and for an arbitrary designation, just call them "the communists"---you know, just to give them a name. And one culture seems to value "freedom" above all else, just for the sake of also giving them a name, call them "the capitalists". These names are arbitrary; you can call them X and Y if you prefer. But if ever there was a hypothetical example that bore out the deep variation that you're talking about, it would be this one. But I have a hunch... My hunch is the allegedly chief values among these cultures are surface varations that grow out of deeper common base values. What would make my hunch look plausible? Well, suppose that the culture we've arbitrarily decided to call "the communists" started to see their society perfectly equal in every respect---but it was equally poor in every social/economic category (like quality of food, income, leisure time, etc). My hunch is that they would drift from their prizing the value of "equality", and my suspicion is that this would be done by the felt infringement of a deeper value they hold. Now, take the culture that just for the sake of a name we've called "the capitalists"... Suppose that everyone had perfect freedom to do whatever they wanted, but this led some having everything, and others having nothing, of those same social/economic categories. My hunch is that they'd also start to change, for the same general reason. I suppose we'll never know if something like this is born out by reality, you know, in the real world. But alas... we can hypothesize...
Sure, I catch the sarcasm, but I wasnt really thinking of political groups, though the groups I notice would have some tendencies towards political positions. For example the group that seems to like what I would call excessive competition, conflict, personal facades, display of strength, clear domination and submission dynamics or at least a lot of room to play these things out
function quite well in both capitalist and communist countries. (and note submissives can also like these cultures and call for their strenghtening or return)

Anyways, why don't we just, for the time being, create a bucket term for a collection of values the proper ordering of which these cultures would move toward, if indeed they move anywhere. Call it "well-being". If something like this were happening, it'd cast doubt on how deep your surface variations run. Perhaps you also have an entirely hypothetical example with no bearing in the real world that you'd like to use to make your view more plausible...?
Again, the real world makes my view vastly more plausible. And the testimony of most people would also run counter to your case.

Examples, brethren?
Me just one guy. I hope the one earlier in this post counts.

IOW I do see people shift from their family/group cultures. I see people who decide that there is something wrong - even that in itself is to some degree unique, even if on the specifics they may disagree with others in this category - and they question and probe their training and upbringing and whatever cultural truths once seemed a given to them. I do see this happens.

Dude, that's suggestive of an objective standard on which you'd base morality, right? It simply wouldn't happen if cultures actually were the generators of normative force, and nothing else was.
No, its not. I think this can move away from what I think is good and certainly away from what I think is good for me. I have seen the children of people whose values I share question those values and move away. My point was merely that I do see the possibility for some people to decide to move away from their culture to what they feel feels better. I am not ruling that out. But there certainly seems to be a vast group of people - who come from all groups - who don't have this quality or interest. In fact this is also a group division. There are those who side with authority, be it Muslim, Communist, Neo Con, whatever. And there are those who are raised in these environments who question the values. Who somehow constitutionally want to feel and think there way to something that feels better. This latter group may end up with different solutions, but they seem constitutionally different from the former group. And the former group, if they were born as Jews not in Jesus's circle, go with the authority rabbis and call for him to die. If born in a Christian society/group worship Jesus. I don't see them having moved an inch through all their incarnations. Try telling them that they really will feel better with the whatever values you think are objective.

Explain. Give the example some concrete features. It seems pretty clear to me that I was were you said you were. I mean, it seems pretty clear to me that there's at least a wrong way to raise a kid, which might involve regular verbal/physical abuse, social isolation, lack of education, and dismissal, at 7 years old. Of course, sans God, how can we say... No wait, wait, I'll have empirical evidence for that if you want the empirical thing...
There can be the highly authoritarian, very control based household. Where even questioning the ideas of, often, the father is seen as problematic. Corporal punishment is more likely here, though not what is considered physical abuse legally - in the US. Often reference to authority is seen as a full explanation. The range of choices of the children say for interests or career or friends is limited at least until they leave home. However they certainly can have friends and a social life. A lot of things are simply not to be discussed. There is often a strong religious component to all this but it is not necessary.

For me that's hell.

Others claim to have thrived and recreate it with their own children.

Well what if I said that a society was intolerant about either of your needs could objectively be improved by removing its intolerance, and allowing plural ways of living...? If morality is objective, it's possible that one objective moral truth is to allow for people to walk down different paths as they see fit at different stages.
You'll have an easier time selling that to my group then to others and man that sure does sound libertarian, brethren. There are other groups that will not accept this currently. And will not think you are connected to what is objective. Further, this means there are no objective values, but one single meta value. And it is sort of like Alistair Crowley's one law.

Further given the enmeshment of modern life, this isn't reallly possible.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: dfsdf

Postby von Rivers » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:55 am

Moreno wrote:There are large swathes of the country that are very concerned both with following religious norms and social norms - based on their ideas of what normal is. They tolerate and seem upset by things that are not what they would call normal. They also seem to want very strong guidelines for much of their own behavior and pass this on to their children, who are tightly kept within norms - dress, gender norms, even down to how one crosses one's legs, walks and the length of your hair. Doesn't matter if you are in this group or not. Just that this group and whatever group I would get lumped in would each say we want certain things and these things would be significantly different. Such that to live in each others society would cause regular pain.

It seems to me your position works only if all this is superficial and at least one group is confused about what it really needs and wants and how it would thrive.

Right. It's possible to get worked up about stuff that doesn't matter upon reflection. I'm not saying etiquette or social rules all fall in this category necessarily. But yea, you ought to reflect on the things that get you worked up and why they do---that's a moral imperative. Just because someone causes you pain doesn't mean he should stop what he's doing---it may be that the best course is just for you to change, if intolerance toward the other person caused greater pain, while yours was easily changed by reflection. Something like interracial marriages might fit this. Yea, it might cause some racists a deal of pain to see it. But the solution is obviously not banning interracial marriages.

Sure, I catch the sarcasm, but I wasnt really thinking of political groups, though the groups I notice would have some tendencies towards political positions.
In my example, I took those values ("equality" and "freedom" to be moral values, and for those values to be the moral values of society). But sarcasm aside, I made the example for a reason. You want to say that cultural differences cut to the core---let's have an example, already. You might be right...

Again, the real world makes my view vastly more plausible.
That's patently false. And the example to establish my case (freedom vs equality)was the central value conflict of recent decades. You haven't fleshed out a single example for thinking what you do. You should think it would be easy, going by what you've said. Is the point of what follows that you're going to argue that conservatives and progressives (in any walk of life) have the deeply divided separate values? Let me know if this is what you are suggesting, please. But pick an actual value difference in your example. The same aversion that a conservative feels about some value of a progressive is what the progressive feels about some value of a conservative. Get at a value difference and let's see what you have.

There can be the highly authoritarian, very control based household. Where even questioning the ideas of, often, the father is seen as problematic. Corporal punishment is more likely here, though not what is considered physical abuse legally - in the US. Often reference to authority is seen as a full explanation. The range of choices of the children say for interests or career or friends is limited at least until they leave home. However they certainly can have friends and a social life. A lot of things are simply not to be discussed. There is often a strong religious component to all this but it is not necessary.

For me that's hell.

If it'd be hell for you, then you ought not raise the kid that way. I've never said that in a conflict of values, there's one right answer. I've just said that sometimes there's a wrong answer. And I don't even see a conflict of values here... My guess is that the parent who is an authoritarian wants similar things to the hippie parent. They want a happy kid, who grows up to stand on his own feet, is able to respect others, and move through the world independently somehow.

You'll have an easier time selling that to my group then to others and man that sure does sound libertarian, brethren. There are other groups that will not accept this currently. And will not think you are connected to what is objective.
Yea, well recognize this: There are some groups who are wrong about morality. One option that my position leaves me, is to say to someone that they're wrong. Suppose I'm talking to leadership of the KKK about values and so on. Guess what I can tell them?

Btw, have you seen The Master? You remind me of the character played by Hoffman, who is the master guy.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: dfsdf

Postby lizbethrose » Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:32 am

Excuse me, Mo, but what does dfsdf stand for?
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3556
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: dfsdf

Postby Moreno » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:18 pm

Mo_ wrote:[
Right. It's possible to get worked up about stuff that doesn't matter upon reflection. I'm not saying etiquette or social rules all fall in this category necessarily. But yea, you ought to reflect on the things that get you worked up and why they do---that's a moral imperative. Just because someone causes you pain doesn't mean he should stop what he's doing---it may be that the best course is just for you to change, if intolerance toward the other person caused greater pain, while yours was easily changed by reflection. Something like interracial marriages might fit this. Yea, it might cause some racists a deal of pain to see it. But the solution is obviously not banning interracial marriages.
And we have, likely, a great deal of overlap on specific reactions and sense of what people should be allowed to control in the lives of others. However we are not all islands, (even if you are a river.) and the way we want to live and be social, work, etc. overlaps in society, and we cannot simply live and let live. It is not simply very active racists who see a lot of issues as not superficial. IOW you are telling the majority of people that many things they consider deeply important are superficial.

In my example, I took those values ("equality" and "freedom" to be moral values, and for those values to be the moral values of society). But sarcasm aside, I made the example for a reason. You want to say that cultural differences cut to the core---let's have an example, already. You might be right...

I don't think you responded to my point about the people who want to interact very differently, from say, me, and can manage this in both capitalist and communist situations. My point was not that you were wrong to bring up politics, which I consider a very moral realm, but that in fact I was thinking of something different.

That's patently false. And the example to establish my case (freedom vs equality)was the central value conflict of recent decades. You haven't fleshed out a single example for thinking what you do.
But I have, see above. And below.

There can be the highly authoritarian, very control based household. Where even questioning the ideas of, often, the father is seen as problematic. Corporal punishment is more likely here, though not what is considered physical abuse legally - in the US. Often reference to authority is seen as a full explanation. The range of choices of the children say for interests or career or friends is limited at least until they leave home. However they certainly can have friends and a social life. A lot of things are simply not to be discussed. There is often a strong religious component to all this but it is not necessary.

For me that's hell.

If it'd be hell for you, then you ought not raise the kid that way. I've never said that in a conflict of values, there's one right answer. I've just said that sometimes there's a wrong answer.
Yes, you have said this. Those same parents and the children when they become adults want society to reflect that parenting style, and likewise the parents of those who are unlike them. And they are working at this all the time.

And I don't even see a conflict of values here... My guess is that the parent who is an authoritarian wants similar things to the hippie parent. They want a happy kid,
They may want a happy kid, but this is prioritized much lower than that kid being their version of moral and normal. And they are often and generally quite clear about this. In fact they will often criticize the overprioritization of happnness and sense of well being being prioritized by the hippie team.

Yea, well recognize this: There are some groups who are wrong about morality. One option that my position leaves me, is to say to someone that they're wrong. Suppose I'm talking to leadership of the KKK about values and so on. Guess what I can tell them?
What about the neo cons? We've had a good run where we managed to spread resources thick inside Western countries and our behavior has been, in my view, morally wrong, not simply one of the right ones or OK ones, in relation to the rest of the world. Recently globalization has made it that corporations no longer need a generally well off population in any one place and poverty itself is being redistributed. And so what you would see as superficial differences between conservatives and progressives or whatever groups, now end up with people calling the other groups candidate the anti-christ.

You may be right, perhaps there are a bunch of right answers, but most people disagree and think that at least half the other people have very bad answers and further that only through great efforts by their group has the other group been kept from perpetrating even more evil. IOW they do not think there are a bunch of write answers, and we can all agree that the KKK is fucked up. Obama is a communist mulsim. Bush was a fascist. Etc.

This isn't just Moreno trying to make out these issues as deep - some kind of distrustful cult leader in the making, see below - but at the very least a huge practical issue you have to deal with to apply your truth if it is one. If I read your responses it is as if I have some strange marginal position on the issue. Obviously I do not hold that majority ideas are necessarily at all true, but it seems like your responses are as if my sense these differences are profound rather than superficial is a mere tiny marginal view.

And I think of this in the context of people supposedly really all being quite the same and needing more or less the same things to have pleasure and not have too much pain. I think they in general disagree and that what you want to call superficial they consider important factors that make, for example, their workplaces not cause them pain or their schools, etc. To such a degree that they think a large percentage of the population is dangerous, barely kept from enacting evil in those overlapping realms. What you are telling them is that, really, these differences are not so great, and you know that really there is not a problem for them. But generally the onus is on the person going against someone's own sense of what causes them pain or keeps them from being happy. I am not saying that people cannot be confused, they can be, but that's where the onus is.

Btw, have you seen The Master? You remind me of the character played by Hoffman, who is the master guy.
I have not seen it and from what I know it's hard to take your speculation on me here being positive, even if the guy has some positive qualities. I wish you could just stick to ideas and never focus on me Mo, because it pisses me off and sometimes feels a little creepy. Jesus. I mean, give it a mull, what is that about?

I'll take a pass for a while again with you.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: dfsdf

Postby phyllo » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:40 pm

Yea, well recognize this: There are some groups who are wrong about morality. One option that my position leaves me, is to say to someone that they're wrong. Suppose I'm talking to leadership of the KKK about values and so on. Guess what I can tell them?
Then you are stuck arguing with the KKK about whose racial claims are objectively correct. The KKK has just as much moral authority as you until you can prove that yours is the correct position. If you accepted morals as a social construct, then you could dismiss the KKK claims by referring to an agreed benefit to society. The dismissal does not need to be objectively proven.
We believe that KKK morals are destructive to our society and therefore we reject them. We can show examples from other societies which demonstrate this.
Done deal.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10879
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: dfsdf

Postby von Rivers » Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:55 pm

Moreno wrote:It is not simply very active racists who see a lot of issues as not superficial. IOW you are telling the majority of people that many things they consider deeply important are superficial.
Examples...

I don't think you responded to my point about the people who want to interact very differently, from say, me, and can manage this in both capitalist and communist situations. My point was not that you were wrong to bring up politics, which I consider a very moral realm, but that in fact I was thinking of something different.
Your example was not an example of a conflict of values, if you think it was, you at least did not say what those values were. Your point is that some people are conservatively-minded, and some people are progressively-minded? Yes, some people like no change, and some people like change. But what values are you talking about? Some like the normal and some like the non-normal----that's what you've said. It's not a value conflict.

Yes, you have said this. Those same parents and the children when they become adults want society to reflect that parenting style, and likewise the parents of those who are unlike them. And they are working at this all the time.
Well, I'd make the case that intrusion into other people's lives and forcing them to raise a kid a certain way and taking away their autonomy and violating their privacy and making personal decisions for them can be morally wrong. But recognize the point: you said that one parent raises their kid this way, and another doesn't----what do you think of my reduction of those styles to similar/shared values about the kind of person the kid becomes?

They may want a happy kid, but this is prioritized much lower than that kid being their version of moral and normal.
Doubt it. I think moral/normal is just what they think leads to happiness. And that about 'happiness' they don't mean something essentially different than the hippie parents.

What about the neo cons? We've had a good run where we managed to spread resources thick inside Western countries and our behavior has been, in my view, morally wrong, not simply one of the right ones or OK ones, in relation to the rest of the world. Recently globalization has made it that corporations no longer need a generally well off population in any one place and poverty itself is being redistributed. And so what you would see as superficial differences between conservatives and progressives or whatever groups, now end up with people calling the other groups candidate the anti-christ.
Conservative and progressive are not values. They're an orientation to any particular value. If you want to use these categories to get at a value difference you'd like to see reduced, then be specific.

You may be right, perhaps there are a bunch of right answers, but most people disagree and think that at least half the other people have very bad answers and further that only through great efforts by their group has the other group been kept from perpetrating even more evil. IOW they do not think there are a bunch of write answers, and we can all agree that the KKK is fucked up. Obama is a communist mulsim. Bush was a fascist. Etc.
Nice, so you make a point... and then you actually give an example, but it's not one that supports the point. Obama is not muslim, that's false. Bush is not a fascist, that's false. In this case, both sides are clearly wrong.

And I think of this in the context of people supposedly really all being quite the same and needing more or less the same things to have pleasure and not have too much pain. I think they in general disagree and that what you want to call superficial they consider important factors that make, for example, their workplaces not cause them pain or their schools, etc. To such a degree that they think a large percentage of the population is dangerous, barely kept from enacting evil in those overlapping realms. What you are telling them is that, really, these differences are not so great, and you know that really there is not a problem for them. But generally the onus is on the person going against someone's own sense of what causes them pain or keeps them from being happy. I am not saying that people cannot be confused, they can be, but that's where the onus is.
As I said, give an example you'd like to see me work on... (Progressive vs Conservative is not an example of a value conflict).

I have not seen it and from what I know it's hard to take your speculation on me here being positive, even if the guy has some positive qualities. I wish you could just stick to ideas and never focus on me Mo, because it pisses me off and sometimes feels a little creepy. Jesus. I mean, give it a mull, what is that about?

Oh for fuckssakes.
Last edited by von Rivers on Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: dfsdf

Postby von Rivers » Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:59 pm

phyllo wrote:Then you are stuck arguing with the KKK about whose racial claims are objectively correct.
Exactly. That's a good thing.

If you accepted morals as a social construct, then you could dismiss the KKK claims by referring to an agreed benefit to society. The dismissal does not need to be objectively proven.
"Agreed benefit to society"----who agrees? The KKK? Are you joking?

We believe that KKK morals are destructive to our society and therefore we reject them. We can show examples from other societies which demonstrate this. Done deal.
Yea, and when the KKK was more popular, guess what they'd say to justify the KKK.... the same thing as you are right now. And guess what some smaller communities would say to justify the KKK... the same thing as you are right now. They'd say exactly what you are, but you're proud to say it for some reason...
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: dfsdf

Postby phyllo » Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:03 pm

Exactly. That's a good thing.
Not it isn't. You are giving potential legitimacy to every crackpot because they just might be 'objectively' correct. Now you have to prove your correctness against everyone. And you have already said that that's not easy to do when dealing with hard cases.
If morals are a cultural construct, the KKK could gain control in an area but as soon as you convince enough people that they are wrong then you can impose your own moral standards. If morals are objective, even a small lunatic group can claim to know the 'objective' truth. They have ammunition to fight you to the last man. Fanatic religious groups do this all the time because they know the 'one true God's will'.

Your claim weakens your ability to effect change. And that's because it's very difficult to prove who is being objective.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10879
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: dfsdf

Postby von Rivers » Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:35 pm

phyllo wrote:
Exactly. That's a good thing.
Not it isn't. You are giving potential legitimacy to every crackpot because they just might be 'objectively' correct.
If they are objectively correct, then they're not a crackpot. And since I'm objectively correct, I'm not a crackpot. But you can only call someone a crackpot, in the first place, if there's an objective truth that the person in question is wrong about. Guess what? You're the crackpot, because you don't have a way of telling the KKK they're wrong. Do you think it would be hard to prove that people with different color of skin are human and feel pain and so on? Do you think the KKK come by their positions by science?

If morals are a cultural construct, the KKK could gain control in an area but as soon as you convince enough people that they are wrong then you can impose your own moral standards.
YOU DON'T HAVE A WAY OF CONVINCING ANYONE THAT THEY ARE WRONG, IF MORALS ARE A CULTURAL CONSTRUCT. That's because their construct has already set up a moral, and you recognize it as legitimate---you are required to by your position.

If morals are objective, even a small lunatic group can claim to know the 'objective' truth.
IF THEY ARE LUNATICS, THEN IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE OBJECTIVELY WRONG.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: dfsdf

Postby phyllo » Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:48 pm

You're the crackpot, because you don't have a way of telling the KKK they're wrong.
I can tell them that they are wrong as long as I have enough support. If I don't have support then I need to get support before I can confront anyone.
Do you think the KKK come by their positions by science?
I'm sure that they can find enough scientific research to support their position or to cloud the issue.

Every one of your answers is dependent on you knowing the objectively correct moral position and being able to demonstrate it convincingly. If you can't do it, then you concede that your opponent may be objectively correct (even if he is a crackpot).
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10879
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: dfsdf

Postby von Rivers » Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:15 am

phyllo wrote:I can tell them that they are wrong as long as I have enough support. If I don't have support then I need to get support before I can confront anyone.
NO YOU CANNOT. As soon as you admit that morality is whatever a culture/community decides, then you cannot go to another culture/community and tell them they are morally wrong because you disagree. THAT DOESN'T MATTER. You've just said "moral rightness" is whatever THEY decide.

I'm sure that they can find enough scientific research to support their position or to cloud the issue.
What a disgrace. If you think there's good evidence for the notion that black people aren't human or don't feel pain... present it.

Every one of your answers is dependent on you knowing the objectively correct moral position and being able to demonstrate it convincingly. If you can't do it, then you concede that your opponent may be objectively correct (even if he is a crackpot).
Get this through your skull: Nobody is a crackpot of what they are saying is OBJECTIVELY TRUE. There are only such things as crackpots, in the first place, if objective truth exists---because a crackpot is just someone who is wrong and thinks he's right.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: dfsdf

Postby Moreno » Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:23 am

I realized afterwards, Mo, that your perfect example - which I mainly ignored since it was not responding to the kinds of category I raised - was perfectly confused.

The capitalists in the US have not realized that freedom has some limit and have been heading towards equality. Sorry, but the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. And this did not stop after the fall of USSR. Along with the rich getting richer, the rich have also gotten more powerful, and power is now concentrated in less hands than it was 20 years ago, and then it was less hands than 40 years ago. There were some trends earlier in the 20th century that fit your idea, but they are long in the past. I hesitate to even judge where Russia is on freedom and equality now. Sure, there is a leisure class that has more freedom, as long as they don't get too uppity, but for the vast majority, I really can't tell.

Besides, the citizens of the USSR did not decide they no longer like the balance of freedom and equality in their countries. The system fucked itself up and fell. The people in power under whom the system fell, never supported equality except in propaganda. They had more power, more priviledges and more money than everyone else. A gang of thugs with, sure, a propaganda machine. You'd have to look elsewhere for equality, hell, even Castro did better before the blockage did that economy in. Scandanavia, perhaps. When the USSR was falling apart the world's monetary systems ran in and fucked them over. They made damn sure nothing like the mixed economies of Scandanavia could be set up. Naomi Klein goes into this well in Shock Doctrine.

But there was never some, oh, we need more freedom period of insight. The thugs overreached and it fell apart. Other thugs keep increasing their power.

And the rest of Europe is belatedly kissing Thatchers ass via Reagan and eliminating equality as fast as it can. (and the Democrats have been helping along this redistribution of power and wealth and a slower rate of change. Note the rate of change is slower, but they have enacted changes that kept this going. I love how conservatives think of Clinton as some, spit, liberal, while he continued the gutting of the social system and opened up more protected lands for the powers that be while allowing and contributing to concentrations of power, just not so proudly and fast as his rep forebears.

Gotta keep that good cop, bad cop thingy going.
Nixon was a communist compared to any recent democrat.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: dfsdf

Postby von Rivers » Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:49 am

Moreno wrote:I realized afterwards, Mo, that your perfect example - which I mainly ignored since it was not responding to the kinds of category I raised - was perfectly confused.

Thank you for admitting it. Anyways, as I said, "freedom" and "equality" are moral values, and they demonstrate well what I said. At least, so I think currently...

Sorry, but the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. And this did not stop after the fall of USSR. Along with the rich getting richer, the rich have also gotten more powerful, and power is now concentrated in less hands than it was 20 years ago, and then it was less hands than 40 years ago. There were some trends earlier in the 20th century that fit your idea, but they are long in the past.
This is all wrong. Whether we're talking about social programs like social security, medicare, higher income tax rates---but really, income tax rates at all, welfare, healthcare, or other social programs... what you've said is just wrong. Now, you can lament the rich getting richer and so on. That's fine, I'm just not sure what you think it shows. I've never said that freedom is no longer an ideal---I've just suggested that it will be abandoned by degree to the extent that it infringes on other deeper values. (That's the example).

Besides, the citizens of the USSR did not decide they no longer like the balance of freedom and equality in their countries. The system fucked itself up and fell.

AND THAT'S WHEN THEY DECIDED THAT EQUALITY WASN'T ALL TO VALUE. Dude, total poverty among everyone is perfect equality. You really can't get more equal than that. But there are different DEEPER ideals---and they're not different from ours.

I am not ignoring your example---I just don't get what you think your example is an example of. Flesh it out. Conservatives vs progressives is not a value conflict. Those are just orientations to any given value or political position.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]