Absolutism vs Relativism

[arnisador]

2. Are you asking why people committ crimes?

The question is, If this is a self-evident truth...why is it that so many have failed to act on it? Why do so many fail to see what is so obvious to you? Are they blind...or is the situation more complicated than you allow?

If it's an absolute, wouldn't you expect it to be more widely followed? The current state of affairs is consistent with relativism...less so with your position. That's the point.

 

[Makalakumu]

1. It doesn't have to be written down anywhere, it doesn't have to exist anywhere. It is an absolute that doesn't need support of existence to be seen.

If one claims that something is absolute and external to the structures of society and structure, then one is saying that something exists. If something exists then there must be proof of its existence...otherwise its just another myth or social construction.

Where is any absolute? Where is gravity?

Well, lets see, we can measure gravity directly and we can write down a set of laws that will describe gravity everywhere in the universe. If absolute morality exists in the same way that gravity does, then one should be able to test it and write down a set of laws and show that it exists everywhere in the universe. Thus far, everywhere in the universe that we can see, one can see gravity working. This is not the case in regards to universal morality. In fact, the opposite is true.

The standard exists in our abilities to evolve and the fact that our species is mutable means that we can change. However, that simple fact no more exludes absolutes as it does relativism. Change does not mean total change.

Actually, the fact that our species changes and that our societies change and that our ideas change exclude any posability of an absolute. The change is directionless in any sense of moral quality. The changes we are talking about are reactionary to the environment.

Also, because a society changes doesn't mean what was left behind is either right or wrong. Those are simply not the determining factors. The standard is within our inherant need to evolve.

There is no such thing as a need to evolve. Evolution is reactionary to environmental changes. Evolution happens or it doesn't...and then extinction happens.

If rape is not ultimately wrong, explain the need to evolve to a point of rejecting rape? On a biological level, it is heavily supported and extremely usefull for evolution of our species. If not raping someone is more usefull in our evolution then it must be wrong and is being evolved out. But that wouldn't fit with a relative view that rape is not wrong and is completely ok and acceptable in simply another culture. Why would we evolve past rape is rape is actually acceptable within a different group of people?

Firstly, the so-called biological level that you are talking about is loaded with assumptions...number one being that the biologic level means that people are swinging in the trees and grunting. However, any society is a biologic level. There is no separation. With that being said, depending on the circumstances presented by the environment and local cultural structure, can be very advantagous for males to dominate women. Rape is but one tool that a male would use to make a female submit. In this society, rape is not wrong. This is applicable in many agrarian societies.

Secondly, physical and structural circumstances can change and thus make rape maladaptive. In modern societies, the value of a man's strength is diminished and the roles of men and women meld. Thus, treating women equally becomes more advantagous. Societies that treat their women equally will be more productive...better able to compete.

This process is not determined by any greater sense of right or wrong. It is simply a matter of circumstance.

2. Are you asking why people committ crimes?

No, I am wondering why, if an absolute morality exists beyond the bounds of culture, why all cultures do not subscribe to this morality. The fact that they don't indicates that absolute morality does not exist.

You can look through history and find people who have allways followed this standard....

No you can't. One can see that cultures are evolving, but there is no moral direction to this evolution.

you can also find people who have not followed this standard. Does either one prove anything in this discussion?

Yes, but you don't want to see it.

Is right or correct or "good" only so because its followed? Is bad or wrong only so because its shuned?

The answer is yes to both questions unless you can somehow show that absolute morality exists.

No, slavery was wrong, so we changed....if it was right, why the change?

Slavery still exists in parts of the world where it provides advantages in a society. Slavery in this part of the world became "wrong" after it no longer was advantageous for our society to hold slaves. In other parts of the world it is right, in our corner of the world it is wrong.

Lets get back to the victims rights. The victim of rape certainly does not accept the rape, so how do we progress and ignore her (or his) voice? The argument about the death penalty is moot here as it is an understanding of violating human rights for a specific reason and with cause and a purpose. Right or wrong is not the question here, the question is about murder. The one being put to death would have violated the human rights of an individual and thus according to our societal laws, we are then going to violate their's. I dont think anyone who supports the death penalty looks at is as not killing.

Wow, just wow. You just contradicted and refuted yourself...again.

If we were to really embrace relativism, our culture accepts capital punishment, so its has to be right.

It doesn't have to be right at all. Culture's change. Ours will too. The disagreement over the "morality" of the death penalty is evidence of a lack of any real standard.

3. Nothing happens. I'm not saying its wrong because the wrong action is follwed by something...or anything. Its simply wrong, regardless of follwing action, belief, or acceptance. Wrong isn't simply "wrong" because it contains punishment. Consequence doesnt determined the correctness or usefulness of action. Are crimes only cirmes when followed by punishment? Are people only criminals when caught and tried and found guilty? Or is committing the crime still wrong regardless of them "getting away with it"?

The only thing that determines what is "right" and "wrong" are the rules of the society. You have done nothing to show how something can be wrong outside of those rules. Further, you have not shown how this wrong could apply everywhere and to anyone. That is the bar if you are going to claim that there is such a thing as absolute morality.

So all that makes things wrong is the learning others need to see it as so?

Yes.

Does a mother need to learn to feed her baby?

As a father of two children and a husband of a woman who breastfed both children, I can catagorically say that a woman must learn how to feed her baby. There is much more involved then simply putting the boob in the babies mouth...

Is feeding your baby wrong is some peple do not feed their babys? Your saying rape can be ok if a culure accepts it, and its only wrong because of our learned disgust for it....following that logic, wouldnt it only be right in the other culture because of their learned acceptance of it?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

So learned behavior is all that seperates right from wrong, good from bad, ok from not ok? Understanding only affects the one doing the understanding, it doesn't change the truth. Either rape is wrong or rape is right. The ability or purposefull following of said right or wrong doesn't change the truth of it.

What is this truth that you are talking about? Is this another word for absolute morality? Are you claiming that rape is universally wrong? Just because you dress it up in another word doesn't mean that you can somehow slip by any standards of proof. If you claim that this is truth and that it is wrong regardless of culture, then you have got somehow who how it is wrong regardless of culture and you've got to be able to demonstrate in every culture how it is wrong regardless of culture. Any exceptions disprove your hypothesis.

Yet again, I'm not talking about morality.

Yes you are. If you say something is right or wrong, that is morality.

Morality is the accepted set of rules by which a group chooses to live. Morailty changes with culture. However, truth does not. Regardless of the groups acceptance of rape, or its label of "moral" or "immoral" the act of raping another human being is bad...wrong.

If truth does not change, then please show how it does not change.

Step outside your own box of understanding and usage of the word "wrong" Not wrong as in looked upon with disgust from other members of the society, but bad in that it should not be performed.

In some cultures, rape should be performed. It is expected and it is part of the social framework. It evolved as a structure of that culture and other peices of that culture depend on its performance.

There is a universal standard, that that is human rights. These are not relative as you say for that would mean slavery was never wrong. In which case Ray Jenkins was just out of his mind with the reparations argument eh? Or maybe we could discredit him by saying he was an absolutist.

Human rights are relative. Look at what is defined as human rights between the US and Saudi Arabia. Who is more right?

Slavery was either wrong then and still wrong, or right then and still right. If its wrong now, why was it not wrong then? If it wasn't wrong then, why has it been destroyed?

Slavery can be both right and wrong at any given time. The only thing that determines whether it is wrong is the rules of the society...which are based on the physical and structural circumstances. BTW - slavery has not been destroyed. Not in this country and not throughout the world. If it is advantagous for a society to own slaves then it will not be wrong to do so.

One person can't just think up something, convince others to agree, and then that suddenly becomes right or wrong.

Why not? People do it all of the time.

Why is it we think we are so important or powerful to make what is right and wrong.

What else is there besides us?

We didn't make gravity, we just simply found it. I dont see anything to prove otherwise with these human rights issues. Do you honestly believe we have created human rights out of our own collective intelect? Why do (almost) newborn twins cry when the other is spanked or removed, or fed, or held? Their cognitive reasoning comes from somewhere and they haven't been trained to know that the other baby may get something I wont get, its inherant. In fact I think its as inherant and biological as thinking. Why do we think? We didn't learn to think or reason, we learn to use those tools, but not to learn how to actually do it. To deny inherancy altogether is to deny personality. We each have our own personality which is a collection of experiences, but is also unique when we are born. This goes to show that all is not learned, so absolutes must exist at some level, what level is the discussion at hand.

No, it does not show that absolutes exist on any level. No adaptive trait is absolute. Everything is mutable. Everything changes. Even gravity and protons decay. Even if morality was genetic, which it isn't, mutations would change morality and thus negate any absolute standards.

I'm sorry, that is completely false. I agreed that a child growing up in any social group has a tendancy towards that behavior, but to say one should expect one if not all to perform said action is completely absurd and in my opinion a bit bigoted. Do we expect children from the inner city, say 5th ward in Houston to kill people and do drugs again and again? No, absolutely not, we simply cannot expect such things of people...thats called labeling and discrimination. Do children growing up in those surroundings see those actions and sometimes follow those actions, yes. Does every child, or "all" follow that course, most assuredly no. Research some of the most respected people in our history and society and see where they came from, you might be surprised.

Raping and murdering and killing in the 5th ward in Houston is not the norm. It is by and large the exception. However, in some cultures, rape is the norm. In those cultures, every male would learn to do it and it would be totally accepted. NOT doing it probably would be considered wrong.

However, even so, what in the world does it have to do with their actions being right or wrong? You offer no proof of right and wrong changing with the thoughts of a societies members.

Dude, open a history book. Read.

Again, this is not true. A child does not have to be taught to misrepresent symbols. Your right, many prominant psychologist have studied this, they seem to agree now as well.

Have you ever read any developmental psychology? Children need to be taught to lie.

The bottom line is that the definition of right and wrong while using reactions is faulty. Everyone will react differently to one action because of their cultural and social experiences.

If this is true, then why do societies exist at all? Most people react exactly as their societies dictate. If they don't...well that is why societies build prisons.

 

[7starmantis]

7starmantis,

The debate over how to define culture is ongoing within the Anthropological community. John H. Bodly, in his is textbook Cultural Anthropology, defines culture in the following way:

I think you misunderstand my argument. The definition of culture is really of no consequence in my point. See, I'm saying that culture, regardless of its definition isn't what decides right or wrong. There are inherent human rights that aren't removed by a certain culture's acceptance of them.

In the second last paragraph of your first post, you stated that rape is wrong because it violates the rights of human beings. In what context is the violation of rights incorrect? Do you view rights as something that's inherent or granted?

In the context of forced desire, or forced belief, or forced acceptance of another's will, belief system, or simply actions. I dont see anything that deters me from believing human rights to be inherant and inalienable.

You state that "Normals do not define right or wrong, thats insanity," which is one of your many Appeals to Ridicule. It would be more helpful if you actually refuted the claims being made using reasonable methods,

Actually I'm not basing my point on the absurdity of the post. Simply posting your belief of an arguments absurdity is not a logical fallacy. Lets address strawman, which is what you originally accused me of. That would require a false or misrepresentation of relativism by me. I've done nothing of the kind, I'm simply discussion the fact that simply because its popular doesn't means its right.
If we want to play the fallacy game, the idea that rights and wrong are determined by acceptance by groups of people is basically just a bandwagon fallacy. Its a Red Herring fallacy that says:
Idea X is popular
Therefore, idea X is correct.
Its basically Argumentum ad populum or Argumentum ad numerum. And its a fallacious argument.

Your belief in it appears to be absolute. But it isn't clear why this is absolutely wrong. You keep asserting that it's an absolute. When asked to justify this claim, however, you turn the question back on the questioner (e.g., "If rape is not ultimately wrong, explain[...]"). That's no argument.

Yet your more than willing to turn it on me, eh? :wink:
I have said my reasoning for why I believe it to be wrong. I believe there are inherent rights that are wrong to violate. I do agree that many things are relative and context does apply, but there are also some things that context only shadows or makes appear different. Rape is one of them. If there were only one man and one woman alone on the face of the earth (considering no humans live on any other planets) rape might seem acceptable to continue the human race. I think that is simply clouded judgement by the close danger of being wiped out. The context makes it seem ok, but I still think violating someones rights in that manner is wrong. I addressed the purposeful violating of rights as a punishment allready. Why is it wrong? I dont know that I can answer that, must the answer be accesable to make it truth? Must we know why gravity exists to understand its truth? I believe its wrong because it violates anothers rights...thats the bottom line.

7sm

 

[arnisador]

I dont know that I can answer that, must the answer be accesable to make it truth?

Well, philosophical positions are to be argued, not merely stated ("Answers without explanations are magic, not mathematics" as we say). Merely stating that something is right or wrong is more akin to religion. No one is disputing your right to hold that belief--just questioning the justification for such a strong and absolute claim. If your belief in its absoluteness--that all right-minded people should think like you in this regard--does not come from a source like the Bible, I think it's reasonable to ask why you say it's absolutely right, rather than just your own moral belief?

Anyway, we all agree on what the outcome should be as far as right vs. wrong here...it's just a matter of whether we attempt to justify that belief (remember this is a spin-off of the Saddam Hussein trial thread and the justification for international law), or not. As to only one man and one woman left on the planet, I have avoided such "philosopher's box" situations because I too don't think they'd be helpful here.

 

[Floating Egg]

I think you misunderstand my argument. The definition of culture is really of no consequence in my point. See, I'm saying that culture, regardless of its definition isn't what decides right or wrong. There are inherent human rights that aren't removed by a certain culture's acceptance of them. In the context of forced desire, or forced belief, or forced acceptance of another's will, belief system, or simply actions. I dont see anything that deters me from believing human rights to be inherant and inalienable.

I think the definition of culture is very important if you want to have a serious discussion about moral relativism. You have made many assertions in this thread, but since the burden lies with you, we're waiting patiently for your supporting evidence; it's not up to us to convince you that human rights are acquired.

Actually I'm not basing my point on the absurdity of the post.Simply posting your belief of an arguments absurdity is not a logical fallacy.

Yes it is, because your mockery is irrelevant. It is up to you to show that the argument is not valid by presenting your own non-fallacious argument.

Lets address strawman, which is what you originally accused me of. That would require a false or misrepresentation of relativism by me. I've done nothing of the kind, I'm simply discussion the fact that simply because its popular doesn't means its right.

You stated the following: "Thats the problem with relativism, you have to align yourself with whoever is winning to stay right." That is a straw man because you've misrepresented moral relativism so you can easily attack it.

If we want to play the fallacy game, the idea that rights and wrong are determined by acceptance by groups of people is basically just a bandwagon fallacy. Its a Red Herring fallacy that says:
Idea X is popular
Therefore, idea X is correct.
Its basically Argumentum ad populum or Argumentum ad numerum. And its a fallacious argument.

That is not correct; ad populum occurs when an argument is presented that is based on the irrelevant appeal to its popularity. Suggesting that morality is a function of culture is most certainly not fallacious.

 

[7starmantis]

If one claims that something is absolute and external to the structures of society and structure, then one is saying that something exists. If something exists then there must be proof of its existence...otherwise its just another myth or social construction.

So without proof of existance, said idea or "thing" doesn't exist. Ok, so by that logic when the majority believed the earth was flat, it truly was flat, and when we proved it as round, it suddenly mutated and become round. C'mon, I've read much better arguments from you than that! :wink:

Well, lets see, we can measure gravity directly and we can write down a set of laws that will describe gravity everywhere in the universe. If absolute morality exists in the same way that gravity does, then one should be able to test it and write down a set of laws and show that it exists everywhere in the universe. Thus far, everywhere in the universe that we can see, one can see gravity working. This is not the case in regards to universal morality. In fact, the opposite is true.

I'm not saying absolute morality exists in the same way as gravity. Dont twist my post to that extreme. What I'm saying is that the act of writing down or understanding isn't what makes existance. Things exist way before we learn them. Did fire only exist when man learned to "create" it? Before that time there was no fire? Again, it seems your grasping at straws. Prove me wrong, dont play aorund with me. If absolutes do not exist there must be some verifiable proof.

Actually, the fact that our species changes and that our societies change and that our ideas change exclude any posability of an absolute. The change is directionless in any sense of moral quality. The changes we are talking about are reactionary to the environment.

Again, I can't say it enough, I'm not talking about morality. Changes in society do not dictate existance. There are things which exist outside of our ability to prove them.

Firstly, the so-called biological level that you are talking about is loaded with assumptions...number one being that the biologic level means that people are swinging in the trees and grunting. However, any society is a biologic level. There is no separation. With that being said, depending on the circumstances presented by the environment and local cultural structure, can be very advantagous for males to dominate women. Rape is but one tool that a male would use to make a female submit. In this society, rape is not wrong. This is applicable in many agrarian societies.

Not at all, I think you read that assumption into my post. Advantageousness of an action or idea still does not imply correctness or being "right". I think the problem is your deffinition or "right" being what is accepted, while mine being regardless of whats excepted a standard that is correct. I also think I disagree that rape would be an effective tool for making women submit, forced aubmission is not always what it seems. That however is a different discussion. Regardless of its usefullness or advantageousness, the action may still violate the rights of someone and would then be universally wrong....even if not viewed as wrong by any human on the face of the earth.

Secondly, physical and structural circumstances can change and thus make rape maladaptive. In modern societies, the value of a man's strength is diminished and the roles of men and women meld. Thus, treating women equally becomes more advantagous. Societies that treat their women equally will be more productive...better able to compete.

Again, maladaptive doesn't mean wrong and advantageous doesnt mean right. Maybe being better able to compete is good, but does that mean that the violation of women before was good simply because it created an adventageous situation for those violating them?

No, I am wondering why, if an absolute morality exists beyond the bounds of culture, why all cultures do not subscribe to this morality. The fact that they don't indicates that absolute morality does not exist.

How can that be answered, or what does the answer prove? The fact that they dont subscribe to it only indicates that not everyone agrees. Agreement is also not a factor of existence. Everyone will never act the same way, regardless of right and wrong. Your question could be applied to criminals of our society as well. Why would they not subscribe to our laws? Is it because the laws are relative to their acceptance of them? They are still going to be punished which is what you have lain out as the evidence of "right" or "wrong".

No you can't. One can see that cultures are evolving, but there is no moral direction to this evolution.

You seriously telling me history does not contain cultures that have adheared to rape being wrong? Through the course of history, you can't find a line of cultures who refused rape as wrong? C'mon, maybe your the one who needs to do some reading in the history books. Moral direction isn't the point, evolving out of disadvantageous actions is. Wrong could be classified as having a characteristic which allows for your extinction, so evolving past it would be proof of its "wrongness". However, reagardless of proof violating a womans right to intimacy is wrong, regardless of the evolution surrounding it. If its not, why is there no evidence to prove it?

Yes, but you don't want to see it.

Instead of assuming my intent before your posting of material, try posting it and just seeing what happens. If you have some answer to what the history of pepole following the ideas of rape as wrong or right prove to what is right or wrong, please post it. Or are you just attmepting to get some reactionary postings?

The answer is yes to both questions unless you can somehow show that absolute morality exists.

What does absolute morality have to do with right being so because its followed and wrong being so because its shuned?

Slavery still exists in parts of the world where it provides advantages in a society. Slavery in this part of the world became "wrong" after it no longer was advantageous for our society to hold slaves. In other parts of the world it is right, in our corner of the world it is wrong.

So slavery, the violation of people rights, was right when america followed that trend? And it is still right today as long as your outside america looking in? Explain how salvery was no longer advantageous. Its still very adventageous even in our culture....so that makes it right again, yes? The problem is your offering absolute relativism....which in itself is a contradiction.

Wow, just wow. You just contradicted and refuted yourself...again.

Care to explain how I contradictied myself or are you still just trying to make your point by shock and initial reactions?

It doesn't have to be right at all. Culture's change. Ours will too. The disagreement over the "morality" of the death penalty is evidence of a lack of any real standard.

Its evidence of nothing except individualism. Which is something you can't accept as it would flaw your "majority makes the rights" argument. How does the disagreement of any idea prove that a standard doesn't exist? So because you and I disagree about how to best defend agaisnt a knife attack that means there is no standard of how not to get cut? Strip away all the different techniques, and there exists a standard of what is bottom line as far as right or wrong. Morals have nothin to do with it.

The only thing that determines what is "right" and "wrong" are the rules of the society. You have done nothing to show how something can be wrong outside of those rules. Further, you have not shown how this wrong could apply everywhere and to anyone. That is the bar if you are going to claim that there is such a thing as absolute morality.

Nope, I didn't claim that so that bar can be proven by someone else.

As a father of two children and a husband of a woman who breastfed both children, I can catagorically say that a woman must learn how to feed her baby. There is much more involved then simply putting the boob in the babies mouth...

My point was not learning how to feed but if to feed.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

So if our culture accepts it as wrong, its wrong. If at the same time another culture accepts is as right, its right. If I then move from another seperate culture can I travel between the two and rape at will without being right or wrong? Those are the kinds of issue you must deal with if relativism is absolute as you have offered.

If truth does not change, then please show how it does not change.

Well that means we must look at what "show" means...proof.
As I see it there are a few questions to ask about the existence of something:

1. Does it really exist or not? "To be or not to be, that is the question."
2. If it does exist, do we know that it exists? A thing can obviously exist without our knowing it.
3. If we know that it exists, can we be certain of this knowledge? Our knowledge might be true but uncertain; it might be "right opinion."
4. If it is certain, is there a logical proof, a demonstration of why we have a right to be certain? There may be some certainties that are not logically demonstrable (e.g. my own existence, or the law of non-contradiction).
5. If there is a proof, is it a scientific one in the modern sense of 'scientific'? Is it publicly verifiable by formal logic and/or empirical observation? There may be other valid kinds of proof besides proofs by the scientific method.

I think the 5th point is important when addressing right or wrong. I think it depends on what kinds of proof you will accept. It cannot be proved like a theorem in Euclidean geometry; nor can it be observed, like a virus. For the existence of truth or "right" is not on the one hand a logical tautology: its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, as a Euclidean theorem does. On the other hand, it cannot be empirically proved or disproved (at least outside of some culture) simply because our deffinitoins are comprised of our own beliefs.

If right or wrong cannot be proved scientifically, is it then intellectually irresponsible to accept it? Only if you assume that it is intellectually irresponsible to accept anything that cannot be proved scientifically. But that premise is self-contradictory (and therefore intellectually irresponsible)! You cannot scientifically prove that the only acceptable proofs are scientific proofs. You cannot prove logically or empirically that only logical or empirical proofs are acceptable as proofs. You cannot prove it logically because its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, and you cannot prove it empirically because neither a proof nor the criterion of acceptability are empirical entities. Thus scientism (the premise that only scientific proofs count as proofs) is not scientific; it is a dogma of faith, a religion. So what proof do you seek? What conclusive evidence exists to disprove this absolute aside from a lack of evidence for said idea?

In some cultures, rape should be performed. It is expected and it is part of the social framework. It evolved as a structure of that culture and other peices of that culture depend on its performance.

Could you show us what cultures these are?

Human rights are relative. Look at what is defined as human rights between the US and Saudi Arabia. Who is more right?

Who cares, does whoever is more right make the other one more wrong? Wrong or right is not dependant on who accepts it or who accepts more of it. I'm not trying to determine which culture is right, but show that regardless of who does what, right and wrong do exist.

Slavery can be both right and wrong at any given time. The only thing that determines whether it is wrong is the rules of the society...which are based on the physical and structural circumstances. BTW - slavery has not been destroyed. Not in this country and not throughout the world. If it is advantagous for a society to own slaves then it will not be wrong to do so.

Tell that to the families of former black or native american slaves. They might not agree.

Why not? People do it all of the time.

The fact that people accept soemthig as right becasue they want to doesn't prove that right is actually relative to what they want it to be.

Raping and murdering and killing in the 5th ward in Houston is not the norm. It is by and large the exception. However, in some cultures, rape is the norm. In those cultures, every male would learn to do it and it would be totally accepted. NOT doing it probably would be considered wrong.

Um, not when I lived there. Your posts drip of absolutism while you support relativism. In a culture where rape is the norm every male (first absolute) would learn to do it and it would be totally acceptable (second absolute). Your attacking my absolutes with absolutes of your own....:idunno:

Dude, open a history book. Read.

This is your proof? I've had better. :wink:

If this is true, then why do societies exist at all? Most people react exactly as their societies dictate. If they don't...well that is why societies build prisons.

What? Are you and I in the same society? How then could we be reacting so differently?

7sm

PS: This is a great discussion.

 

[7starmantis]

You have made many assertions in this thread, but since the burden lies with you, we're waiting patiently for your supporting evidence; it's not up to us to convince you that human rights are acquired.

Yes it is, because your mockery is irrelevant. It is up to you to show that the argument is not valid by presenting your own non-fallacious argument.

You stated the following: "Thats the problem with relativism, you have to align yourself with whoever is winning to stay right." That is a straw man because you've misrepresented moral relativism so you can easily attack it.

In my opinion this is the lazy appraoch. Its really not up to me either. This is a discussion, those who want to sit back and read are welcome to, but those who want to discuss should do so honestly. If there is no proof thats ok, but dont just sit back and say I have to be the one to provide proof.

As a note, I have not mocked anything nor have I misrepresented anything. I have simply replyed to the relativism posted here. Again, if you have somethi other than attacking my posts rather than my points, I'm more than willing to read it.

7sm

 

[Floating Egg]

So without proof of existance, said idea or "thing" doesn't exist. Ok, so by that logic when the majority believed the earth was flat, it truly was flat, and when we proved it as round, it suddenly mutated and become round. C'mon, I've read much better arguments from you than that!

If there is no evidence for a given belief, why should I believe it? Are you suggesting that we should accept the truth of your proposition until we can prove otherwise?

I'm not saying absolute morality exists in the same way as gravity. Dont twist my post to that extreme. What I'm saying is that the act of writing down or understanding isn't what makes existance. Things exist way before we learn them. Did fire only exist when man learned to "create" it? Before that time there was no fire? Again, it seems your grasping at straws. Prove me wrong, dont play aorund with me. If absolutes do not exist there must be some verifiable proof.

While there may be a valid argument for absolutism, you are not presenting it. Your claims are spurious, and your only recourse is to shift the burden of proof.

 

[heretic888]

If one claims that something is absolute and external to the structures of society and structure, then one is saying that something exists. If something exists then there must be proof of its existence...otherwise its just another myth or social construction.

Indeed. In philosophy, this is referred to as an Appeal To Belief.

The basic idea here is that one does not need to provide evidence or proof for one's position, because one's very belief in said position is taken to adequate proof in and of itself. This is, of course, fallacious reasoning in that it essentially bases its premises on circular logic.

Well, lets see, we can measure gravity directly and we can write down a set of laws that will describe gravity everywhere in the universe.

Actually, there is considerable debate among physicists as to whether gravity is an actual physical law or not. In any event, gravity is not an 'absolute' in the same way that moral absolutism is being used here, as even the existence of physical laws are dependent on a set of parameters inherent to the physical cosmos.

I am inclined to believe that both moral absolutism and empirical absolutism rest heavily on the Myth of the Given.

Actually, the fact that our species changes and that our societies change and that our ideas change exclude any posability of an absolute. The change is directionless in any sense of moral quality. The changes we are talking about are reactionary to the environment.

I would argue against the idea that evolutionary change (whether biological or cultural) is entirely nondirectional. Please reference the citations to Baldwinian (and, sometimes, neo-Lamarckian) evolutionary principles that I have made in previous discussions. The principal issue being, of course, that the relation between organism and environment is not a one-way system --- the environment doesn't dump information onto a population without any kind of reaction on the population's part. Rather, it is a two-way system, a reciprocal exchange between environment and population, so that the two mutually change with one another. Nowhere is this more evident than with human beings (re: the Flynn Effect).

Thus, the importance of learning in the course of a population's evolution.

Outside of evolutionary theory, of course, a number of philosophers and psychologists also argue against the idea of random, nondirectional progression as pertains to our species, especially in regards to moral development. Philosophers such as George Hegel, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Sri Aurobindo, Jean Gebser, Jurgen Habermas, and Ken Wilber suddenly come to mind. And, in psychology, we have James Mark Baldwin, Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan, Clare Graves, Jane Loevinger, Susanne Cook-Greuter, and Howard Gardner, among others.

Put bluntly, the notion that our cognitive, ego, or moral development is entirely nondirectional is simply not accepted by the bulk of developmental psychologists today.

No, I am wondering why, if an absolute morality exists beyond the bounds of culture, why all cultures do not subscribe to this morality. The fact that they don't indicates that absolute morality does not exist.

I would argue that pretty much all forms of moral absolutism are subtle attempts to make the standards and values of one's culture (or subculture) into some sort of universal standard. It is a veiled form of ethnocentrism.

Have you ever read any developmental psychology? Children need to be taught to lie.

Correct.

Willingly manipulating the perceptions of another necessarily requires that one possesses a modicum of non-egoic perspectivism, which is most assuredly not present in any strong form until about age 2 or so.

While this is somewhat of a universal development to all healthy children, it would be incorrect to say they are 'born' with such abilities. Rather, they develop naturally over time (within a species-typical environment, that is), as do many of our later and more advanced cognitive abilities.

Laterz.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I find what sgtmac_46 has written very interesting. I am familiar with the work of William James but though I know of Zen and..., I have never read it. The problem arises, however, that Osama bin Laden is surely confident that he is acting from the highest, most evolved social consciousness, to bring about a better world...how can we agree on what is a more 'evolved' morality? I fear we'll just do what every culture has always done, which is to declare that they are civilized and those who came before were barbarians. As a model of what has happened, I see some value in it, but as a way to decide if we are right and others are wrong...I don't see how it helps. Can it tell me whether we or Europe are right on the death penalty issue?

The sociobiology or evolutionary psychology approach explains why we do what we do, but not whether what we do is 'right' unless one adopts the axiom that what is 'natural' is necessarily moral. (It also sheds some light on the 'are children born knowing how to lie' issue.) I find it very useful when thinking of these issues, but as Richard Dawkins says, we betray our genes' desires every time we use contraception. We can't take evolved instincts and patterns of behaviour as a full guide. What has evolved was adaptive, presumably--or in some cases, a side-effect of some other adaptation--but is adapative the same as right?

I think the key questions were well put here:

Yes, that is correct. Osama Bin Laden is serving a social ideal, that is, he is seeking to uphold the social laws of Islam. However, as he is in conflict with what is an intellectual level of government, i.e. representative democracy, constitutional government, secularism, etc, he represents the less moral position. bin Laden's position IS moral in conflict with biological quality, but is LESS moral in conflict with intellectual quality.

Can you describe a method for deciding whether or not it was right to exxecute S.T. Williams? Europe and the U.S. disagree. Thinking of William James, whom you mentioned, brings to mind C.S. Peirce...what method would make our ideas clear, and our arguments compelling, in this case?

There must be a method, a set of axioms, a calculus...or how can we decide what is right and what is wrong?

Well, in the interest of intellectual honesty, I believe that executing Mr. Williams was justified in the interest of maintaining social order against biological quality (which Tookie certainly represented).

Pirsig argued, rather compellingly, that upholding law and order was a moral right. As incarceration, at least, is necessary to control biological quality, it is a necessary good. However, he argued that the death penalty, as it extinguishes intellectual quality (extinquishing Tookies contribution to the intellectual discourse, for example) it falls under the Social quality versus Intellectual quality issue, and hence, is immoral.

So, from that perspective, the Europeans are correct that the death penalty may be immoral, from an intellectual quality versus social quality debate. What we have to do, however, is decide if it is truly intellectual quality versus social, or social versus biological.

I would say that incarceration is social versus biological, death penalty is social versus intellectual (though, I still cling to the notion that I support the death penalty, I may be morally wrong on this issue).

That is Pirsig's position, and he may be, in effect, correct.....though, I still am no sorry that Tookie is no longer with us.

I also might note another area where this would yield some in put. In the nature of free speech. Social quality seeks to restrict individual freedoms in the name of maintaining the social order. The natural inclination of the representatives of social order is to squelch free speech they find dangerous to the social order. For example, persecuting those who espouse contrary political views.

This falls under the Intellectual quality versus Social quality, intellectual quality (i.e. intellectual debate) is of greater moral quality, so the social orders attempt to forcefully stiffle dissent by social forces is immoral. Therefore, free speech is an absolute moral good, no matter how 'dangerous' the argued intellectual idea is.

However, many try to apply this to pornography, for example. Pornography represents biological quality. As such it does not represent intellectual quality. Therefore, society has a moral right to repress biological quality for societies good. Though we may decide most pornography is allowable because it is harmless, it is not inviolate as intellectual quality and is, therefore, not immune to social control is society so deems.

Often, those defending intellectual quality don't make a distinction between causes that represent intellectual quality and those that represent biological quality. That is why they find themselve in the dubious distinction of defending criminals against social forces, because they are unable to see the distinction.

 

[Floating Egg]

In my opinion this is the lazy appraoch. Its really not up to me either.

How is it a lazy approach?

This is a discussion, those who want to sit back and read are welcome to, but those who want to discuss should do so honestly.

What is dishonest about my approach to this discussion?

If there is no proof thats ok, but dont just sit back and say I have to be the one to provide proof.

Testing arguments for validity is an important strategy in argumentation. In this case, I am refuting your claims on logical grounds.

As a note, I have not mocked anything nor have I misrepresented anything. I have simply replyed to the relativism posted here. Again, if you have somethi other than attacking my posts rather than my points, I'm more than willing to read it.

You don't consider your use of the word insanity in reference to an opposing argument a form of mockery? You took upnorthkyosa's argument for a cultural basis of morality and drew the conclusion that relativists align themselves with whoever is winning to stay right. You would not define that as a straw man?

 

[sgtmac_46]

The biggest problem I have with using this approach is the lack of any explanation as why this framework makes any judgement on right and wrong. The fact that we are social creatures and that we have common social framework is nothing but a vessel. Masses of humans still decide what to put in that vessel. And usually the stuff that goes into the framework is stuff that is better adapted to the context of the environment and surrounding cultural structures. If one wants to make the argument that things that are better adapted to this context could be classified as good, I'm all ears.

Just as an individual is nothing but a vessel for a mass of cells. But you will agree that we have become far more than just a mass of individual cells. At some point a construct takes on a purpose of it's own. Individual cells evolved in to complex organisms, first, for an adaptive purpose. However, eventually that complex organism became an end unto itself. Complex organisms evolved societies to help gain an individual advantage. Societies, however, eventually evolved beyond those original ends to become an end unto themselves. We developed complex intellectual ideas, first and foremost, to gain an advantage in the environment. However, what started as only a means to gain a tangible immediate advantage, evolved in to intellectual quality as a means in itself.

Though, there will be countless attempts to explain this, it is irrefutable that those things that we have evolved, originally, as adaptations, have taken on a meaning and purpose far beyond themselves. We did not evolve science, originally, to explore the beginnings of the universe. There were for more mundane and practical purposes. But even you will conceed that this has become an important purpose of science. Why? Because you know, instinctively, that this is a greater moral good, even if you don't label it that.


Scientists may try to say that no system is any moral than another, but by the scientists very actions he conceeds that he believes that intellectual quality is a more moral phenomenon. As Pirsig put it, If he tries to say that his belief in the matter is irrelavent, and he tries to seperate his moral views from the equation he is committing a form of intellectual schizophrenia by seperating himself from the subject.

He acknowledges, by his actions, that he believes that intellectual quality is a greater good. He pursues intellectual quality over social and biological quality and asserts, even if he doesn't label it such, that he represents the GREATER good. If not, he would not be pursuing those ends. If he tries to dodge the issue by saying that he is simply following his social conditioning, he is, in effect, being dishonest, as he STILL acknowledges that his social conditioning is a greater good.

The biggest difference between biological evolution and cultural is that biological evolution follows Darwinian principles. Cultural follows Darwinian and Lamarckian principles. Ideas within a culture that help a culture succeed within its given context grow, while ideas that are maladaptive, die away. This is not natural selection.

No, it is not natural selection in the Darwinian sense. Complex systems contributing to ever greater complex systems (for example, the individual cells within our bodies contributing to ever greater complex systems, resulting in a whole organism capable of contemplating it's existence, contributing to even greater groups of complex systems debating the meaning of developed theories of complex organisms) create different levels of rules. That is my point, as best as I can make it.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The question is, If this is a self-evident truth...why is it that so many have failed to act on it? Why do so many fail to see what is so obvious to you? Are they blind...or is the situation more complicated than you allow?

If it's an absolute, wouldn't you expect it to be more widely followed? The current state of affairs is consistent with relativism...less so with your position. That's the point.

Using the MOQ application of moral decisions, we would conclude that crime, per se, is an expression of biological quality. Those who commit crime are said to be displaying biological quality over social quality. As an individual biological being, expressing biological quality, there is nothing wrong with doing anything in a larger system to gain an advantage. Lying, stealing, raping, assaulting, murdering, are all tools of gaining an advantage in a biological system.

The ultimate good of a biological system is survival and reproduction, anything that gives an advantage in that competition is considered absolutely good.

However, when a more moral system comes along, a social system for example, the biological becomes immoral when in conflict with a more moral system. The social good becomes the absolute good.

As to why more people don't follow, that is because we are always in a state of transition. I would be willing to claim that more people follow the social order than at any time in the past. More and more we are becoming creatures of social and intellectual quality, and less biological quality.

However, as Pirsig put it (and yes, he is not the first to observe this) a social system that persecutes a Tookie Williams is moral, but one that persecutes a Galileo is immoral. Why? Both can be a threat to the social order. In fact, Galileo could be considered a GREATER threat to the social order.

But, Tookie, representing biological quality, is immoral in that competition. Galileo, representing intellectual quality, is a GREATER good. In fact, even if Galileo's conflict with the social order destroys the social order and replaces it with another, it is still a GREATER good.


This is why our conflict with Islamic fundamentalism is a moral conflict. We represent an intellectual system, a western secular constitutional democracy, versus a representative of social quality (even though it was at one time a moral good). In that conflict, Islamic fundamentalism is less moral.

In our former conflict with Communism, both ourselves and communism were two competing intellectual systems, therefore, the conflict was more morally complex. As communism, however, was applied using greater social controls over intellectual quality, it was ultimately less moral.

 

[sgtmac_46]

http://robertpirsig.org/Intro.htm

“The hardest thing for me to deal with since the publication of Lila has been the complete disbelief of many that quality is or can be anything real… The solution to this cultural resistance to the MOQ may come from the Orient where quality is a central reality. But there the problem is reversed. A famous Japanese Zen Master [Dainin Kategiri Roshi] who read ZMM told me he thought it was a nice book but he didn’t see anything unusual in it. He was quite puzzled at its success. Another Japanese tourist to America said, ‘This book is not interesting to Japanese people because we already know all of this.’ Schopenhauer said that truth is that short interval between the time an idea is a heresy and the time it is a platitude, but the MOQ has managed to be both a heresy and a platitude simultaneously, depending on which culture you view it from.” (Letter to Anthony McWatt, December 24th 1995)

Those interested in further research should read Robert Pirsigs two books, both in paperback,

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Lila: An Inquiry in to Morals.

I promise, agree or disagree with his conclusions, you won't be disappointed in reading these two books. ZAMM provides a groundwork, but the MOQ discussed in this morality discussion is mostly held within the pages of Lila. I'm amazed at how few people I find who have read ZAMM, and almost noone has read Lila. Check it out.

"He sees Western rationality as the primary cause of a contemporary mass nightmare of confusion and suffering for two reasons; one, Western philosophy has defined itself as the only means of understanding such things as the good, and two – at the same time this philosophical tradition, dominated by dualistic subject-object metaphysics, has failed to offer any satisfactory or useful conception of the good because it has always been forced to conclude that the good must be subjective and unreal. Thus, for Pirsig, Western rationalism has denied the individual's access to the good in their own experience, and furthermore, its own definitions, of the good are trivialising - the effect of this having been to create a huge vacuum in the individual's life."

http://robertpirsig.org/Pragmatism.htm

 

[Makalakumu]

So without proof of existance, said idea or "thing" doesn't exist. Ok, so by that logic when the majority believed the earth was flat, it truly was flat, and when we proved it as round, it suddenly mutated and become round. C'mon, I've read much better arguments from you than that! :wink:

Evidence was discovered that the earth was round, that is why it changed. Thus far, no evidence has been offered to support your belief that something can be right outside of the realm of cultural structures. Thus, your belief has no basis in reality.

I'm not saying absolute morality exists in the same way as gravity.

Then why did you compare it to gravity. You're backpeddling...

What I'm saying is that the act of writing down or understanding isn't what makes existance. Things exist way before we learn them. Did fire only exist when man learned to "create" it? Before that time there was no fire? Again, it seems your grasping at straws. Prove me wrong, dont play aorund with me. If absolutes do not exist there must be some verifiable proof.

One cannot prove a negative. One can only provide support for a positive assertion. I've provided support for my assertion that beliefs are relative and based on cultural structure, but you have not shown how something could transcend cultural structure to be universally wrong or universally right.

Again, I can't say it enough, I'm not talking about morality.

If you are talking about right or wrong, then you are talking about morality.

There are things which exist outside of our ability to prove them.

Like what? Why should be believe in something if there is no evidence for it?

Regardless of its usefullness or advantageousness, the action may still violate the rights of someone and would then be universally wrong....even if not viewed as wrong by any human on the face of the earth.

You have not shown how violating the rights of someone is universally wrong.

How can that be answered, or what does the answer prove? The fact that they dont subscribe to it only indicates that not everyone agrees. Agreement is also not a factor of existence. Everyone will never act the same way, regardless of right and wrong. Your question could be applied to criminals of our society as well. Why would they not subscribe to our laws? Is it because the laws are relative to their acceptance of them?

Most people obey most of the laws in society, do they not? If they didn't society wouldn't exist.

You seriously telling me history does not contain cultures that have adheared to rape being wrong? Through the course of history, you can't find a line of cultures who refused rape as wrong?

Nope. I'm saying that along side those cultures, other cultures had much more lax ideas regarding rape.

However, reagardless of proof violating a womans right to intimacy is wrong, regardless of the evolution surrounding it. If its not, why is there no evidence to prove it?

This is an appeal to belief...

What does absolute morality have to do with right being so because its followed and wrong being so because its shuned?

It shows that there is no absolute morality.

So slavery, the violation of people rights, was right when america followed that trend? And it is still right today as long as your outside america looking in?

Yes, the people who owned slaves considered it perfectly legal and moral. They even justified it with their Chrisitan faith.

Explain how salvery was no longer advantageous. Its still very adventageous even in our culture....so that makes it right again, yes?

Actually, its not advantageous for the same reasons its not advantageous to make women slaves. The bottom line is that slaves have no money to buy crap and have no power to participate. A large slave population would just be a drag on our society.

The problem is your offering absolute relativism....which in itself is a contradiction.

That isn't what I'm offering at all. See my discussion with sgtmac_46.

Its evidence of nothing except individualism. Which is something you can't accept as it would flaw your "majority makes the rights" argument. How does the disagreement of any idea prove that a standard doesn't exist? So because you and I disagree about how to best defend agaisnt a knife attack that means there is no standard of how not to get cut? Strip away all the different techniques, and there exists a standard of what is bottom line as far as right or wrong. Morals have nothin to do with it.

If you are talking about things that are right and wrong beyond the structures of a society, then morals have everything to do with it. If this standard exists, why is there so much disagreement?

Nope, I didn't claim that so that bar can be proven by someone else.

Yes, you claimed that very thing. You keep saying that somethings are wrong no matter what a societies rules are. This implies a universal moral standard...thus the bar is set.

So if our culture accepts it as wrong, its wrong. If at the same time another culture accepts is as right, its right. If I then move from another seperate culture can I travel between the two and rape at will without being right or wrong? Those are the kinds of issue you must deal with if relativism is absolute as you have offered.

People deal with that sort of thing all of the time. It's called a tax shelter. On a more serious note, pedastery may be illegal in the US, but there are some countries where one can travel and pedaster all one wants. If that isn't an example of moral relativism, then I don't know what is...

If it does exist, do we know that it exists? A thing can obviously exist without our knowing it.

This is true in hindsight, but until evidence is provided for something, no one should believe in that thing. Skepticism is a cure for charlatenry. If you claim that there is such a thing as a moral absolute, then there should be evidence for it...or no one should believe that such a thing exists.

If right or wrong cannot be proved scientifically, is it then intellectually irresponsible to accept it? Only if you assume that it is intellectually irresponsible to accept anything that cannot be proved scientifically. But that premise is self-contradictory (and therefore intellectually irresponsible)! You cannot scientifically prove that the only acceptable proofs are scientific proofs. You cannot prove logically or empirically that only logical or empirical proofs are acceptable as proofs. You cannot prove it logically because its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, and you cannot prove it empirically because neither a proof nor the criterion of acceptability are empirical entities. Thus scientism (the premise that only scientific proofs count as proofs) is not scientific; it is a dogma of faith, a religion. So what proof do you seek? What conclusive evidence exists to disprove this absolute aside from a lack of evidence for said idea?

This is a circular argument if I've ever seen one. This argument assumes that scientific proofs are beliefs. They are not.

Could you show us what cultures these are?

Ours.

Who cares, does whoever is more right make the other one more wrong? Wrong or right is not dependant on who accepts it or who accepts more of it. I'm not trying to determine which culture is right, but show that regardless of who does what, right and wrong do exist.

And you claim that you aren't talking about morality...

Tell that to the families of former black or native american slaves. They might not agree.

I'm sure they wouldn't, but they are part of our culture are they not? They learned our cultural structures did they not? The fact that they do not agree does not provide any evidence toward a moral absolute, it only shows that they accept the popular view held by the masses of the society in which they belong.

Um, not when I lived there. Your posts drip of absolutism while you support relativism. In a culture where rape is the norm every male (first absolute) would learn to do it and it would be totally acceptable (second absolute). Your attacking my absolutes with absolutes of your own....:idunno:

Norms are not absolutes. Norms are based on numbers. Most people in this society follow most of the rules, or a society wouldn't exist. It is then perfectly reasonable to expect that most people in a society where rape is a norm would take part in that act.

 

[Makalakumu]

sgtmac_46

Here is a different view on how our intellect developed. I am pursuaded by his arguments.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/miller-mating.html

Sexual selection probably created our minds...in essence they are our peacocks tail.

 

[sgtmac_46]

sgtmac_46

Here is a different view on how our intellect developed. I am pursuaded by his arguments.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/miller-mating.html

Sexual selection probably created our minds...in essence they are our peacocks tail.

The theory discussed is why biological entities developed the first aspects of intellect. Social pressures further pushed the development of intellect, which are the pressures I illustrated for what became modern intellect. What this theory addresses is the first biological developments of what became intellect.

As such, it is Interesting theory. However, it doesn't lend much to the discussion at hand, except as a further indicator that social and intellectual quality were originally developed to improve biological quality (as I asserted). So, in essence, this isn't a different view at all. It does nothing to assail the assertion that social and intellectual quality have become an end unto themselves.

For example, how does the study of the origins of the universe assist in reproduction. If anything, it stands in the way. Therefore, intellect has evolved BEYOND mating. In fact, intellectual quality often comes in conflict with biological quality (mating). The pursuit of intellectual quality, viewed biologically, is an impediment to biological quality. Therefore, there must be some purpose for which it has become an end unto itself.

So those that utilize a biological level intellectual ability (i.e. a rockstar) get far 'more action' than those who operate on an intellectual level. That is beyond dispute, and fairly well contradicts the idea that, because something began as a development for a certain purpose, it remains such.

More importantly, how much 'action' did this study help the scientist get who conducted it? I'd venture a guess he'd have found more 'action' if he had gotten a guitar and played at a local club. So he disputes, in his behavior, his own findings ultimate applicability to understanding of what intellect BECAME (as opposed to what it was).

So, therefore, the reseacher acknowledges that intellectual quality is far more important biological quality.

Just as the original purpose of multi-celled organisms being different than as an end unto themselves, our minds have become an end, rather than a means to an end. As such, the original intent is an interesting study are relavent as a contrast of how original intent evolved as a mean unto itself.

I often find myself preferring the philosophers broad lens, to the scientists microscope. One gives knowledge, the other truth. Both are necessary, but only one grants perspective.

 

[heretic888]

After reading through stmac_46's posts, something dawned on me.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that what Pirsig labels as 'biological', 'social', and 'intellectual' levels of quality is more or less synonymous with the pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional levels of moral reasoning found in Kohlberg's developmental theory.

Or, if you prefer: egocentric, sociocentric, and worldcentric.

In that regard, I am in general agreement with both Pirsig and sgtmac_46, but I tend to find the explanations and elucidations given by developmental psychologists (such as Piaget, Kohlberg, or Graves) to be a bit more cogent and viable. That being said, I have read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance but have yet to read Lila.

As for the theory that human intelligence and language evolved as a form of sexual selection, there may indeed be some truth to this claim. However, it is problematic in that there lacks empirical proof to support such a claim, as well as the fact that there are several alternative theories that are being debated in evolutionary psychology. Perhaps the most popular of these, for example, is that intelligence and language evolved as social adaptations (in order to more efficaciously organize and coordinate interactions among large bodies of people), rather than pure sexual selections.

Laterz.

 

[sgtmac_46]

After reading through stmac_46's posts, something dawned on me.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that what Pirsig labels as 'biological', 'social', and 'intellectual' levels of quality is more or less synonymous with the pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional levels of moral reasoning found in Kohlberg's developmental theory.

Or, if you prefer: egocentric, sociocentric, and worldcentric.

In that regard, I am in general agreement with both Pirsig and sgtmac_46, but I tend to find the explanations and elucidations given by developmental psychologists (such as Piaget, Kohlberg, or Graves) to be a bit more cogent and viable. That being said, I have read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance but have yet to read Lila.

As for the theory that human intelligence and language evolved as a form of sexual selection, there may indeed be some truth to this claim. However, it is problematic in that there lacks empirical proof to support such a claim, as well as the fact that there are several alternative theories that are being debated in evolutionary psychology. Perhaps the most popular of these, for example, is that intelligence and language evolved as social adaptations (in order to more efficaciously organize and coordinate interactions among large bodies of people), rather than pure sexual selections.

Laterz.

My guess would be that all those explainations are correct, pieces of the puzzle if you will. That intellect developed initally, at least partially, on the biological level, to aid in mating, is not that far fetched.

That it further developed, because it granted those who successfully used it, an adaptive advantage, further drove it's development in the direction of giving social forces an advantage, also makes perfect sense.

That the two theories are, of necessity, contradictory, or that one is right, is only an indication of how different fields of scientific research tend to compartmentalize, as if THEIR field of research has a patent on understanding. That is a natural occurance of specialized areas of research. The more we specialize, the harder it is for us to understand the general.

Again, this is the problem with piece-meal research. I assert that it only grants snippets of truth. Given sciences continuing quest to create an even finer, specialized study of minutae, it takes someone other than a scientist to make ultimate meaning of scientific research.

For example, what does the fact intellect may have initially served the purpose of gaining a mating advantage really mean? Ultimately, nothing taking as an individual fact. However, when examined with the perspective of diverse fields of research, we can arrive at a sort of truth based on that knowledge.


That is why people come along, every so often, who lack advanced degrees in given fields, but with a general knowledge of a great many fields, and are able to give a perspective and insight that is well beyond the ability of someone who is extremly knowledgeable in a given field. It is also why those with an advanced background in a given field, someone who has spent their life researching that 'one part of the elephant' resents and ridicules anyone who suggests that what they are feeling is a part, not a whole. It offends their belief that the truth is found in a narrower and finer examination of the details.


Also, heretic, the reason Kohlberg may seem so similar to Pirsig's theory is that they were both influenced by the work of John Dewey, and other pragmatists, such as William James, Charles Peirce, and others (as well as the works of Jean Piaget), And though Kohlberg put a finer and narrower point on it, as natural given his initial focus in the realm of psychology, a specialized rather than generalized area of study (which is the reason it appears more cogent and viable), they both are exploring aspects of an evident 'truth'.


It appears, as a general rule heretic, that you and I are in general agreement on the subject. Any disagreement would likely be the result of differences in your tendency toward specialized, detailed views of the researcher versus my more holistic interpretation, preferring as I do the generalized perspective of the philosophical.

 

[7starmantis]

Evidence was discovered that the earth was round, that is why it changed. Thus far, no evidence has been offered to support your belief that something can be right outside of the realm of cultural structures. Thus, your belief has no basis in reality.

Your ignoring the facts here. By your own logic, the earth must have been flat before said evidence was discovered. If it was indeed round, even before we discovered said evidence, then your argument falls apart.
Ok, I'll accept that, but the same can be said about your belief that there are no absolutes.

Then why did you compare it to gravity. You're backpeddling...

No, I'm clarifying. I didn't change what I said, I made it more clear so your misunderstanding of it could be fixed. Again, why must my ways of discussion prove my incorrectness? Oh, because no one has evidence to do that for them. :wink:

One cannot prove a negative. One can only provide support for a positive assertion. I've provided support for my assertion that beliefs are relative and based on cultural structure, but you have not shown how something could transcend cultural structure to be universally wrong or universally right.

Actually, negatives are quite easily proven. However, your "support" is lacking in that it doesn't provide evidence that your belief is more true or "right" than mine. As a point of fact, if its all relative, than I am actually correct about absolutes and you are correct about relativism. Hmm, guess we have nothing further to discuss, eh?

If you are talking about right or wrong, then you are talking about morality.

Only in accordance with your absolute deffinition and usage of the words.

Like what? Why should be believe in something if there is no evidence for it?

We can see that those who believed the earth was flat were wrong no?

You have not shown how violating the rights of someone is universally wrong.

How is it not universally wrong? Violating someones rights is absolutely allways rejected by the victim. The person whose rights are being violated allways or universally disagrees with the person violating them. Its a forced violation which makes it wrong.

Most people obey most of the laws in society, do they not? If they didn't society wouldn't exist.

Again, jumping over my point. I'll post it again....

Your question could be applied to criminals of our society as well. Why would they not subscribe to our laws? Is it because the laws are relative to their acceptance of them?

Nope. I'm saying that along side those cultures, other cultures had much more lax ideas regarding rape.

Um...thats exactly what I said that you disagreed with. Speaking of contradicting and backpeddling. I said that cultures have allways agreed that rape was wrong and cultures have allways agreed that rape was right....you disagreed. Now your agreeing? :idunno:

This is an appeal to belief...

How so? Why is it when asked for proof that effectively shows my beliefs as wrong, you only find semantic disagreements? Again, if all is relative we are both correct.

It shows that there is no absolute morality.

What? Would you care to explain how the idea that wrong is only so because its shuned; proves there are no absolutes?

Yes, the people who owned slaves considered it perfectly legal and moral. They even justified it with their Chrisitan faith.

Again, a skirting of the issue. I didn't ask if the people owningslaves thought it to be right...thats painfully obvious. I asked if it was right or wrong to own another human being? See, not right or wrong by todays standards or yesterdays standards, but right ever. Is it ever ok to own a human being....answer is no. Is it ever ok or right to rape a person...no. If you can show me evidentiary support of rape being ok or right, we will be done and I will concede.

Actually, its not advantageous for the same reasons its not advantageous to make women slaves. The bottom line is that slaves have no money to buy crap and have no power to participate. A large slave population would just be a drag on our society.

Actually by your own admission there are still slave owners today and its very adventageous for them. Which is it?

If you are talking about things that are right and wrong beyond the structures of a society, then morals have everything to do with it. If this standard exists, why is there so much disagreement?

And I'm appealing to belief? Disagreement disproves standards? How so?

Yes, you claimed that very thing. You keep saying that somethings are wrong no matter what a societies rules are. This implies a universal moral standard...thus the bar is set.

Nope, again read my post more carefully. I am not speaking of moral absolutes. Morality is mutable nad does change with society as you have said. Morality aside, there are still things that span time being ok and not ok. Rape is not ok by its very nature and deffinition. By your logic anything can be ok or right then yes?

People deal with that sort of thing all of the time. It's called a tax shelter. On a more serious note, pedastery may be illegal in the US, but there are some countries where one can travel and pedaster all one wants. If that isn't an example of moral relativism, then I don't know what is...

Again, what does that have to do with whether pedastery is right or wrong as a standard? Your right here, it is an example or moral relativism, but moral relativism is not what I'm discussing.
I feel like the boss on Joe Vs the Volcano, "I'm not arguing that with you".
I'm saying the standard exists outside of morality. Morality is created nad changed by the masses, human rights are not. The perception of how much human rights is acceptable may, but how can we say that the idea of human rights changes? Why is it throughout history cultures have allways shared to some degree human rights?

This is true in hindsight, but until evidence is provided for something, no one should believe in that thing. Skepticism is a cure for charlatenry. If you claim that there is such a thing as a moral absolute, then there should be evidence for it...or no one should believe that such a thing exists.

So Columbus was intelectually irresponsible for believing in a round earth without said evidence? Skepticism is a tool of both sides here. No one should have believed the earth to be round either....but the absolute exists that they were wrong. Thats just how it is.

This is a circular argument if I've ever seen one. This argument assumes that scientific proofs are beliefs. They are not.

Actually no, the argument does not. It simply shows that scientific proof is not the "end all be all" of existence. All I said was that scientism is not scientific and thus more liken to dogma or beliefs. Its actually quite accurate as shown by your respone to it.

Ours.

Really? This discribes our culture:

In some cultures, rape should be performed. It is expected and it is part of the social framework. It evolved as a structure of that culture and other peices of that culture depend on its performance.

So in our culture rape should be performed? Does your wife agree with you on this?

And you claim that you aren't talking about morality...

Nope. Morality is what is accepted. I'm talking about what we base our morality on.

I'm sure they wouldn't, but they are part of our culture are they not? They learned our cultural structures did they not? The fact that they do not agree does not provide any evidence toward a moral absolute, it only shows that they accept the popular view held by the masses of the society in which they belong.

Actually I was talking about those families in Africa, or in reservations which would most deffinitely not be in our culture. So the answer to your questions here is, No. It only shows that the popular view of the societies they belong to also somehow came to the same conclusion we did. Odd, eh? Why is that exactly?

Norms are not absolutes. Norms are based on numbers. Most people in this society follow most of the rules, or a society wouldn't exist. It is then perfectly reasonable to expect that most people in a society where rape is a norm would take part in that act.

Wow, another skirting of my point. I lived in 5th ward, I worked as a paramedic in that area as well...I can tell you that the "norm" in some areas there is most assuredly rape and murder. You just want to jump to a larger population to avoid my point.
You continue expecting people in cultures of crime to continue with lives of crime. I'll accept those who do not.

How is it a lazy approach?

What is dishonest about my approach to this discussion?

Lets stay on a discussion relatively close to the topic at hand.

You don't consider your use of the word insanity in reference to an opposing argument a form of mockery? You took upnorthkyosa's argument for a cultural basis of morality and drew the conclusion that relativists align themselves with whoever is winning to stay right. You would not define that as a straw man?

Nope. I didn't draw that conclusion, I stated my point and was not refuted. Again, nope.

7sm