I know you and I love/miss you, Mr. Roboto.
Of course: The Corner!!!
Thank God [one of them] for the PN forum!! [-o<
domo arigato
We’re born biased. Such is the nature of living beings.
Our instincts scream at us that certain behaviors are to be avoided.
Any preference we hold, are products of the biases instilled upon by natural selection and personal experience.
But this can be said to literally every motive we have.
Why do anything?
Because we’re influenced so.
Objectively, setting aside our personal biases, the existence and ‘welfare’ of life is neither here nor there.
It neither ought or ought not be. It simply is.
It’s us and our biases that make these judgements, all rooted in our own shit - subjective shit.
What’s morality?
Shit we made up to interact with each other.
We think it’s useful, and it’s an effective tool for the purpose at hand.
But purpose is all bullshit too. Yet, we’re attached to bullshit. Our lives are the summation of shit.
I’ll get to the point below.
Hey, life’s a circle. Every atrocity you commit, you will endure. For the pleasure you receive in this one puny life at the expense of many others, you will pick up that bill and by enduring each torment you perpetuated on others. Hey, you killed millions of people? You’ve got million lives of being killed by some fuckhead called Hitler - was it worth it?
The suffering is real to us. Cost-benefit analysis.
We’re only hurting ourselves, because we’re dumbfucks.
Born into ignorance, and flailing around desperately and recklessly.
Morality doesn’t need to be objective to be useful to us.
[I’m being rude, but it’s not directed at you. It’s me not dedicating energy to filtering my language.]
Yeah.
Out bias is not a thing to pretend to avoid. Bias is the basis of all our opinions, and we can have none without it.
Objectivity is a myth.
Whilst it is very important to remind ourselves that others have opinion and bias too, and that some might coincide with our own ; that is not an excuse to pretend that we enjoy some sort of perfect objectively derived opinion about the world.
There are those that peddle ideas as if they were objective morality; they are wrong.
They are not only fooling themselves but trying to fool others.
Each moral rule, suggestion, prescription needs to be argued in its own terms of usefulness and consequences. And should always allow mitigation of action, otherwise we just become slaves of tradition and out-of-date values of the past.
Morals are not furniture, planets or elements. Morals are abstracted values about how it might be best to live our lives and to live in a community of other humans. Objectivity here is a myth a- a dangerous myth and we should all suspect the motives of anyone trying to impose a set of objective moral rules upon us or try to claim they know what they are.
I see.
It’s mostly carbs that feed my hunger, and that is why I avoid them.
DOES POSTMODERNISM MEAN MORAL RELATIVISM?
Guest Contributor Gary Aylesworth at Philosophy Talk.
The “current hysteria” over moral relativism? Well, this was written in 2009. So, sure, maybe back then hysteria reigned when some [postmodernists or otherwise] sanctioned the “anything goes” approach to human interactions. On the other hand, think of the “current hysterias” that cropped up any number of times historically when dealing with the consequences of “moral objectivism”…God or No God. Those who sanctioned the “nothing goes unless we say so” approach to human interactions. From the Nazis to the Ayatollahs.
To wit…
Exactly. My own frame of mind…in being a moral relativist…is aimed in the general direction of moderation, negotiation and compromise as the “best of all possible worlds” political agenda.
So, which is worse: “anything goes”, "my way or the highway "or a “give and take” somewhere in the middle?
In other words, instead of assuming that the “others” are necessarily evil because we are necessarily good, it’s important to explore our assumptions about each other in order to see if something “in the middle” short of “anything goes” and “us vs. them” is possible. Perhaps it’s not in some cases. For example, what might the compromise be in dealing with those who embrace “female genital cutting” as part of their own cultural or religious rituals? Okay sometimes, but not others?
We all have our own “no way” moral and political agendas given particular issues. But better “democracy and the rule of law” here than might makes right and right makes might.
Right, the part where biologically, genetically, instinctually we come into this world hardwired, predisposed…just as all other animals are.
But then the part where folks of our own species intertwine historical and cultural and personal memes into this in very, very different ways.
For example, go over to Know Thyself and learn that it’s entirely “natural” that the white race is superior to all the other races, that men are superior to women, that homosexuals are perverts out to bring down civilization as we know it, that nihilists are morons.
All I suggest here is that the things we do choose to do [in a free will world] we do because we have to [in order to subsist, to survive] or because we want to [for any number of personal reasons].
And that in both cases, conflicts ever and always unfold in any given community.
And that, in a No God world, all things can be rationalized. After all, historically, what hasn’t been?
And basically revolving around our indoctrination as children and around the fact that, as adults, living what can be very, very different lives in very, very different communities down through the ages and across the globe, those biases can be all over the moral map. Or, for some, off the map altogether.
Now here of course we need a context. Morality and shit in regard to what particular human behaviors intertwined in what particular sets of circumstances? What can we all agree is true objectively and what does come down to personal prejudices?
Uh, karma? The problem here though is that sometimes the terrible things people do comes back around to them…but sometimes it doesn’t. With God there’s no question of justice. With mere mortals, however, it often comes around instead to might makes right. Over and over and over again those in power can and do thump those not in power. Whether in regards to nations or individuals. And often the pain and the suffering here are justified in the name of one or another God or No God…Cause.
No, sometimes we get away only with hurting others. And we are able to convinces ourselves that they deserved it because they are the dumbfucks born into ignorance and flailing about.
You can say that again. Or, we can dispense with morality altogether and make it all about “me, myself and I”. And fuck the Ayn Rand rendition of that: “the virtue of selfishness”. Just do it because it gratifies you. Or because you are so “fractured and fragmented” you just don’t know what to think anymore.
Our senses fail us. We recognize this and see it within ourselves.
From this, we say, there’s an objective reality - which is the true state of existence.
And we say, we have our flawed internalization of reality - a connection tarnished by our faulty senses.
Our direct awareness, is not of objective reality, but of our internalization in response to reality.
We infer that there’s a pure reality, beyond our body’s interpretation of it.
If something applies equally to everything, we call this something objective - it is not subject dependent.
If something only applies to particular individuals, rooted in their own flawed interpretation - we call this subjective.
We give objectivity more credibility, because it’s more consistent and reliable.
As far as making plans go, reliable things are far more predictable than unreliable things.
Thus, we rather align ourselves with objectivity - because ideally it’s not in dispute.
Strategies are utilized as preferred ways to respond to scenarios,
and if we can predict them in advance, we can respond more effectively.
We can economize our actions, if we don’t need to assess each scenario from scratch.
Morality is a shorthand strategy for engaging with others.
Trying to find universalizable strategies that can apply to widely varying scenarios - in this case, individual preferences.
Our feelings are not objective.
Our preferences are not objective.
Morality deals with working on non-objective components.
It’s primary focus is non-objective components.
Existential nihilism says there is no objective meaning for preferences.
We feel as we do, because if we didn’t, we wouldn’t survive.
Yet survival objectively is neutral.
All the species that went extinct, were not inherently wrong.
The species that survive, are not inherently right.
These concepts are products of our bullshit judgements - subjective judgements.
Existing because that is what enabled us to survive.
There is a fuzzy kind of consistency to what we feel -
As our feelings are a response to an objective reality.
Living beings on earth, were filtered roughly by the same set of circumstances.
Thus, there are commonalties between us - not that these commonalities have any objective worth.
We can work this though.
Morality is never going to be objective, no matter the context.
Morality is a response to subjectivity. What suits one, easily may not suit another.
This is an inevitable consequence of subjectivity.
I think objective reality is a circle.
I think once we die, an absurdly long period of time will pass, until existence produces a state where we can be conscious again.
I think we’ll cycle through every single state of possible consciousness, and not be aware of the intervals of non-consciousness.
This is a theory not rooted in any religion, but in my understanding of physics and the nature of reality. Eternal recurrence.
From this, every life is on the chain or film-reel. Every life a season on the grand theatre that is existence. We’ll live every life.
So in a very literal way, we’ll pick up the bill from our mistakes.
And here’s a more in-depth response I gave regarding Karma:
Nietzsche & Values
Alexander V. Razin
As with the Golden Rule, the things that you do, you may well want everyone else to do. Whereas others will, instead, be absolutely appalled if anyone did it. And then back to Kant, the categorical imperative, moral obligation and…lying. To tell or not to tell the murderer at the door where the friend is hiding.
Clearly, exploring something of this sort in a philosophical exchange gets no one killed. And even if one does the “right thing” and refuses to lie, in the end Kant has his own rendition of God around to make sure that ultimately justice prevails.
Thus…
So, basically you tell the murderer where the friend is because even though it results in his or her death, you did the right thing before God and in the end you are vindicated in being reunited in paradise. Meanwhile the murderer writhes in agony for all of eternity for Hell.
Or have I got it all wrong?
So, is there anyone here who would seal a friend’s fate? On this side of the grave. Though, sure, we know that some will. Those who hijacked the planes on 9/11 taking their own lives as well. Those who practice a religious faith that forbids them [or their loved ones] from seeking medical help or to have a blood transfusion. Putting everything in God’s hands.
On the other hand, any atheists here who believe that in a No God world they would agree that under no circumstances is lying permitted? Telling the murderer where the friend is because it is the only rational thing to do.
This part…
Not an empty intention [from my frame of mind] so much as one confined to a “world of words”…a world of theoretical assumptions up in the intellectual clouds that the “serious philosophers” ascend to in order to keep things like lying and morality far removed from actual human interactions.
“You must not hate those who do wrong or harmful things; but with compassion, you must do what you can to stop them — for they are harming themselves, as well as those who suffer from their actions.” - Dalai Lama
“I knew as well as I knew anything that the oppressor must be liberated just as surely as the oppressed. A man who takes away another man’s freedom is a prisoner of hatred, he is locked behind the bars of prejudice and narrow-mindedness. […] The oppressed and the oppressor alike are robbed of their humanity.” - Nelson Mandela
They suffer, by not nurturing the light of unconditional love - that it doesn’t permeate their being, and overflow their heart. They turn their backs to the light - which is the greatest injustice that falls upon them.
But compassion & love says, we don’t want this for them. We don’t wish their suffering, but if they are without love, suffer they will.
In accord with this and my previous post, I disagree.
Why Moral Nihilism is Problematic
From The Retrospective
Uh, no kidding?
On the other hand, which set of facts precipitating which set of behaviors precipitating which set of consequences?
Tell that to the moral objectivists here. On the other hand, in discussing conflicting goods there are any number of facts that both sides can agree on. It’s not like the entire debate regarding conflicting value judgments revolves around mere personal opinion. A woman chooses an abortion as just another birth control option or she had been raped. The 4 week old embryo is “the size of a poppy seed”, a 24 week old fetus looks much like a new born baby and is “approximately the size of an ear of corn”. It is legal to have an abortion in a particular jurisdiction or it is illegal. The woman wants to give birth or the woman wants to end the pregnancy.
Again, given what set of circumstances? If some people describe “the real, factual, tangible properties of certain actions” one way and others describe them another way, what then? The real, factual, tangible properties embedded in John murdering Jim? Or the real, factual, tangible properties embedded in the state executing John?
Yes, in any community behaviors such as this will involve some measure of prescription and proscription. But in the absence of God [and Judgment Day] mere mortals can easily be all over the map when it comes to “this is okay to do, but that isn’t”.
And the sociopaths will simply scoff at “society” and do whatever they are convinced is in their own best interest.
Nietzsche & Values
Alexander V. Razin
Again, if this is how some choose to construe moral nihilism, it’s not likely that I would be able to convince them to consider my own rendition instead.
Common sense? Okay, choose a moral conflict and encompass a resolution revolving around common sense.
Doubt everything? Who would be preposterous enough to suggest that?
Instead, it is when confronting dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome that I am myself likely to throw doubt on metaphysical constructions that the objectivists sustain in order to hammer the sheer complexity of human interactions into what I construe to be one or another “arrogant, autocratic and authoritarian” moral or political dogma.
Hmm…
Now all we need is a context?
Sure, take into account these considerations…and others. But trust me: once they become intertwined in an actual set of circumstances, out in a particular world, expect any number of conflicting sets of assumptions regarding life and death, being free, I vs. we, we vs. them, compassion for this, compassion for that, my emotions or your emotions, my happiness or your happiness, our shared values and goals or their shared values and goals.
And here I quote [loud and clear] human interactions to date.
This was no less true for Nietzsche back than it is for us now.
Why Moral Nihilism is Problematic
From The Retrospective
Yes, I agree. That is certainly one way to think about it. But: Either we are genetically [intuitively] predisposed to react to those things as we do or we are not. Still, the bottom line is that not only are some not predisposed to react this way but, on the contrary, are able to actually rationalize doing these things themselves. In fact, events like the Holocaust are embraced by some as nothing less than a moral crusade to rid the community of those that are said to be behind all that is wrong in the world. Then the sociopaths and their “me, myself and I” moral agenda.
My point is that in a No God world there does not appear to be a way for mere mortals to establish a moral philosophy such that all rational men and women are obligated to embody it. Then back to the point that, in regard to abortion, some argue that it is itself the equivalent of the Holocaust on steroids to the unborn.
Okay, for those who embrace Putnam’s frame of mind, let’s bring it out into the world and explore it in regard to conflicting goods of note. How straight-forward a refutation? And few would argue that in any community there need not be rules of behavior. Nor that these rules will revolve around moral judgments. Instead, the contention revolves around who will decide what those rules are to be. Then the part where that revolves politically around either might makes right or right makes might or democracy and the rule of law.
Why Moral Nihilism is Problematic
From The Retrospective
Conclusion
Has that ever really been the problem down through the ages? After all, we all come into world hard-wired genetically to feel or to experience these things. No, instead, down through the ages historically and around the globe culturally when things “go bad” it’s because different communities and/or different individuals insist that others are obligated to feel these things or to experience them as they do. And, as always, God or No God objectivist fonts being the main motivations.
Admit it, in regard to things like abortion or gender roles or sexuality or animal rights or guns or the government…your “positive moral behavior” or theirs?
Of course: morality encompassed in yet another “general description intellectual contraption”.
And, from my own point of view, a virtue derived from moral nihilism is one where a community eschews both might makes right and right makes might and accepts that the best of all possible world is actually “moderation, negotiation and compromise.” Democracy and the rule of law. Then the main concern [as always] will revolve around political economy. Acknowledging that even in a democratic republic the rich and the powerful – the deep state – will prevail in regard to economic and foreign policy. Whether in the form of crony capitalism in the West or state capitalism in nations like Russia and China.
Or, as The Onion quipped: “Congress Takes Field Trip To Goldman Sachs To Learn How Laws Get Made”
Moral Absolutism, Moral Nihilism, Moral Relativism
University of Notre Dame
And, as always, my own approach here would revolve less around asking them to explain why they believe one thing rather than another and more around asking them to explore with me how the life that they lived – their indoctrination as children, their individual experiences as adults – inclined them existentially to think one thing rather than another. The part I challenge others to peruse here…
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529
…in regard to questions like that.
And, over and again, I come back to why that is the case: the distinction here between the is/ought world and the either/or world.
They are either serving beef stroganoff in North Dining Hall that night or they are not. No, instead, our reactions here [intuitive or otherwise] come into conflict when the question becomes, “should they be serving beef stroganoff in North Dining Hall at all?”
In other words, a question that a vegetarian might ask.
So, should they?
A Solution to the Trolley Problem
Rick Coste says the solution depends upon what we’ll realistically allow.
Of course, there is all the difference in the world between a solution to the Trolley Problem and the solution.
It’s the difference between ten renowned ethicists proposing their own solution given their own set of assumptions and all ten of them then agreeing on the optimal solution. Or even proposing that the optimal solution is in fact the only solution. Then God sealing the deal by making it the Divine Solution.
I’ve read other versions of it as well. Different people will or will not die given different frames of mind regarding the trolley and the switch.
Me?
As I posted before…
And on and on and on. How can this not revolve basically around “the devil is in the details”? The details for you may prompt one reaction while the details for me and others prompt very different reactions.
And then the misanthropic sociopaths among us wishing there were two runaway trolleys.
A Solution to the Trolley Problem
Rick Coste says the solution depends upon what we’ll realistically allow.
Right, like for those like him, the actual reality of the situation is…moot? Instead, once you take the quandary up into the intellectual clouds, it can all revolve around the numbers…this many dead or that many dead. Or around this many dead or that many dead if you yourself are responsible for who does die. As though a philosopher or an ethicists can [deontologically] actually pin down the most rational answer…the wisest answer.
Whereas I prefer introducing actual existential elements. They aren’t just abstract “workmen”, but particular men or women or children. And, perhaps, you know one or more of them. Or there is someone nearby who is a witness to what you do. Or you believe in God and God sees all.
On and on and on regarding all of the different variables there might possible be once it all stops being just a “thought experiment”.
For example…
What changes here of course is your own involvement. It’s more than just throwing a switch, it’s you personally causing the death of another. As though this makes it more challenging for ethicists. Also, the more quickly you have to decide the more it takes it all closer to a “gut reaction” rather than a “thought through” reaction.
But either way, in my view, it still all comes down largely to dasein. Some will do one thing, others another thing. Why? Is it because someone is [philosophically] wiser than another? Or because given the existential trajectory of the life they lived, they are just more likely to choose one behavior over another?
A Solution to the Trolley Problem
Rick Coste says the solution depends upon what we’ll realistically allow.
Let’s stop right there.
Why is the reality of organ failure a moral problem in the first place? After all, if we lived in a society where the healthy organs of those who died were automatically available to be used for others, we would probably have more organs then we’d know what to do with. Why should a citizen have to agree to donate his or her organs before they can be used to help others survive? What kind of a twisted, dysfunctional morality is that?
Forget being a “registered donor”. The way it should work is that organs are always available for transplants unless someone specifically demands that his or hers not be.
Unless I am misunderstanding the way it all works now.
Same thing as above re the trolly. Wouldn’t it depend on your own personal relationship to the man with the sprained ankle? Hate him enough and you might demand that his organs be harvested to save someone that you love. And if you can save four others, so much the better. As long as you are convinced the man with the sprained ankle doesn’t deserve to live anyway.
Watch this film: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … s#p2367738
It deals specially with this sort of healthcare “trade off”.
What the above provided example doesn’t factor in is a world where every time you went to a hospital you were at risk of being killed. And what of a child? Who would ever send their child to a hospital if the doctors could consider harvesting their organs?
This would do huge psychological damage and hurt the morale of society. To practice utilitarianism means considering the psychological welfare of the population. We value happiness. We should factor this into our decision making.
Misfortune strikes us - events beyond our control. What generally people disapprove of, is avoidable events that cause damage. No one can be reasonably expected to stop the earthquake. People can be reasonably expected to stop the fire that was left to ravage the town. If we let the fire ravage the town, it is considered an injustice - a failure to show regard to welfare of the population.
We don’t approve of injustice. Killing a healthy person for the sake of another is considered an injustice. They don’t deserve to be murdered - they have a right to life. A society that supports injustice undermines trust in the system, which is a fundamental component holding society together. Why cooperate with such a system?
[There’s also a copout answer to the situation: Ask the dying patients to draw straws, and harvest the organs of the loser. It’s consensual and innocent, healthy person isn’t obligated to carry the burden of another’s misfortune.]