Anti-intellectualism

[Whaleboy]

actually premises are contained rather easily. it is simply saying that given enuff information that the answer becomes definite.

The is-ought gap. The problem there is that it always requires a degree of individual emotivism, or perhaps a leap of faith (and room for logical holes), in order to make the jump from "is" statements to "ought" statements. This was best covered on another thread. Put simply, the gap to ought, using reason, will tend to infinitesimally small was the number of "is" statements included, but one will never reach it. As such, we have to rely on "for all intents and purposes" and the fact that we in the present do not know everything".

However, that's ok. There is no such thing as a view that logic inherently supports more, since the funny thing about logic is that it can support and refute to an equal degree any position. Its cute like that. It does reduce the debate to a form of "intellectual masturbation", but that suits me just fine, since I use it as a form of comparison, as opposed to a competition.

for an example lets say cultural relativism which comes from different things thatn what might be termed "universal attributes" of a certain act. and includes cultural proclivities. cultural relativism still fails to be relativism because being placed inside a certain culture w/ its specific premises there comes out a definitive answer.

But within a context. Cultural relativism goes within a human context, and says murder within culture A is wrong whereas murder within culture B is right. Remember my fractal comment?

lets say u live in a tribe in some weird place and the tradition is to kill the first born child if it is a girl. cultural relativism would have that if u dont kill the child then u r WRONG. immoral. unfortunately this is not what most relativists hold onto as their version of relativism.

I am talking about descriptive relativism in the examples and meta-ethical relativism generally. You are referring to classical cultural relativism, which no-one, least of all me, takes seriously, because it is not internally consistent. Well done for recognising that.

relativism holds that the answer to the question exists outside the phrasing of the question. and thusly everything is more or less useless.

Ultimately useless, outside of context. Within context, it does not effect everyday life (for the most part).

Shouldn't we start talking about anti-intellectualism?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


The is-ought gap. The problem there is that it always requires a degree of individual emotivism, or perhaps a leap of faith (and room for logical holes), in order to make the jump from "is" statements to "ought" statements. This was best covered on another thread. Put simply, the gap to ought, using reason, will tend to infinitesimally small was the number of "is" statements included, but one will never reach it. As such, we have to rely on "for all intents and purposes" and the fact that we in the present do not know everything".

However, that's ok. There is no such thing as a view that logic inherently supports more, since the funny thing about logic is that it can support and refute to an equal degree any position. Its cute like that. It does reduce the debate to a form of "intellectual masturbation", but that suits me just fine, since I use it as a form of comparison, as opposed to a competition.



But within a context. Cultural relativism goes within a human context, and says murder within culture A is wrong whereas murder within culture B is right. Remember my fractal comment?



I am talking about descriptive relativism in the examples and meta-ethical relativism generally. You are referring to classical cultural relativism, which no-one, least of all me, takes seriously, because it is not internally consistent. Well done for recognising that.



Ultimately useless, outside of context. Within context, it does not effect everyday life (for the most part).

context is no the discerning thing u think it is. it merely adds to the list of things u must know before making a decision. quite easy as nearly every person on the planet believes killing is right sometimes. they just require context, this context is not arbitrary. it is purposeful and necessary so the idea of using "context" to forward relativism is a joke.


ur other absurdity the "ought gap" is crap. one the mere incorporation of pragmatism annhilates it. and two like again. we needn't know everything to discern if something is moral. ppl generally have lists of things they feel they have to know to make a decision. these lists do not in practice, nor are required in theory to extend unendingly.


and u still have the problem of how u have a morality when u r forced to pick between things which u have defined as undistinguishable. context wont work. some hint of faery magic next? pure fancy? flip a coin?

a relativist can not pick a morality because he can not discern between the ones available.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Egotistical would mean self-obsessed, as opposed to selfish. If you want me to attempt to demolish the notion of altruism, I will gladly, but on another thread. Put simply, we are all self-obsessed. There is a clear difference between being concerned with oneself and thinking oneself is superior.

Are you telling me that people who are obsessed with themselves are not selfish, and do not think they are superior to others?

[Kramerman]

i dont understand why some of you all are having difficulty with moral relativism. simply put, just becuase there are no absolute morals does not mean you cant have a personal set of morals, or a societal set of morals that you think is best for you. clear and simple.

[Drogue]

Self-obsessed does not have to mean either selfish or feel superior:

Self-obsessed means they are obsessed about the effect something has to them.
Selfish means they always try to do what's best for them.
Feeling superior means they think they are better than others.

Someone can be obsessed with themselves, in that they care about the effect something has on them, but not selfish. Someone who is always concerned with doing good, but with the way doing good makes them feel, is self-obsessed and unselfish.

Someone can be either self-obsessed, or selfish, or both, and believe they are not superior to others. A person who is obsessed with doing well, who does everything he can to do well, even at the expense of others, but who believes that he does not meet the standard required, is self-obsessed and selfish, but does not feel they are superior to others.

There may be a correlation, but there is a direct difference between self-obsessed, selfish and feeling superior.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kramerman
i dont understand why some of you all are having difficulty with moral relativism. simply put, just becuase there are no absolute morals does not mean you cant have a personal set of morals, or a societal set of morals that you think is best for you. clear and simple.

Well put

[Whaleboy]

context is no the discerning thing u think it is. it merely adds to the list of things u must know before making a decision. quite easy as nearly every person on the planet believes killing is right sometimes. they just require context, this context is not arbitrary. it is purposeful and necessary so the idea of using "context" to forward relativism is a joke.

You must have a pretty lame idea of context then!

ur other absurdity the "ought gap" is crap.

Not my absurdity. Humes . And if you think you are going to solve over two centuries of intense philosophical debate with a form of regurgitated and frankly illogical cognitivism, killing all notions of non-cognitivism, I laugh at you .

We are talking about ontology here, rushing in with an ad hoc'd deontological notion of "common sense". Incidentally, since that is a collection of prejudices and predispositions, you pretty much prove my point!

and u still have the problem of how u have a morality when u r forced to pick between things which u have defined as undistinguishable. context wont work. some hint of faery magic next? pure fancy? flip a coin?

a relativist can not pick a morality because he can not discern between the ones available.

Strawman. A relativist has likes and dislikes the same as anyone else. Choosing between two things is no harder for a relativist than anyone else. The relativist only has to make the intellectual distinction that his rejected choice is objectively and ultimately no more inferior than another. Please read my previous posts, and you would get that.

Are you telling me that people who are obsessed with themselves are not selfish, and do not think they are superior to others?

If you are saying that they are, that is a gross generalisation since we are all self obsessed, and we are not all selfish (in the familial sense) or think we are superior. Also what Drogue said .

I dont understand why some of you all are having difficulty with moral relativism. simply put, just becuase there are no absolute morals does not mean you cant have a personal set of morals, or a societal set of morals that you think is best for you. clear and simple.

Well said

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Kramerman
i dont understand why some of you all are having difficulty with moral relativism. simply put, just becuase there are no absolute morals does not mean you cant have a personal set of morals, or a societal set of morals that you think is best for you. clear and simple.

The fact that there are indeed several moral systems doesn't prove that they are all equally valid. It also doesn´t prove per se that there cannot be an absolute moral.

Edit: oh, and to relativism - I don´t think it is useless as such, after all I see it more as a kind of "tool" that reminds me that I'm not the source for absolute truth, so it forces me to consider other positions - but as a general philosophy I find it not helpful, because sometimes it is required that you make judgements you could not make if you follow relativism 100%. Whaleboy admitted it, when he said the "1st order" theory of relativism is "unworkable" in praxis.

To moral values: some think they are neither absolute or relative as such, but "social facts" or "social intitutions" which are constructed intersubjectively. So according to this theory (which is not classical cognitivist) they are not totally relative.

[Whaleboy]

The fact that there are indeed several moral systems doesn't prove that they are all equally valid. It also doesn´t prove per se that there cannot be an absolute moral.

Occams razor on its own shows that they are all equally valid, and yes, as to absolutes, it relies on assumptions both ways. However, since the burden of proof is on the side that believes absolutes to exist, and thus far they have failed, non-absolutism is the safer bet .

I can provide you with a cosmological argument too, as to why there can be no absolutes, and even the infinities we know of in four dimensions are not so in more than that (which have been shown to exist). However, I don't want to spam this thread any further, so pm or email me BB if you want 2 continue this.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
However, I don't want to spam this thread any further, so pm or email me BB if you want 2 continue this.

When people cannot spam their own threads anymore poly is clearly going downhill....

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Kramerman
i dont understand why some of you all are having difficulty with moral relativism. simply put, just becuase there are no absolute morals does not mean you cant have a personal set of morals, or a societal set of morals that you think is best for you. clear and simple.

HOW do u discern this set? if everything to pick from is defined as undistinguishable then how does one make the choice? they just do? thats awfully lame approach.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Strawman. A relativist has likes and dislikes the same as anyone else. Choosing between two things is no harder for a relativist than anyone else. The relativist only has to make the intellectual distinction that his rejected choice is objectively and ultimately no more inferior than another. Please read my previous posts, and you would get that.

u have no validation for ever choosing. non-relativists feel validated in their choices, as their choices spring from principles they believe to be true. u however have no such principles. and the complete laffability of saying that ppl's morals are based on "likes and dislikes." is pretty demeaning to anyone who has a real moral code.

and again, u have no method of choosing ur moral system. every choice laid before u is of equal uselessness.

[Whaleboy]

HOW do u discern this set? if everything to pick from is defined as undistinguishable then how does one make the choice? they just do? thats awfully lame approach.

No, not everything is indistinguishable, that is clearly false. However, there is no inherent property of validity. One of course can forge an idealistic relativism where all is homogenous and nothing until we interpret it, but that's not what we're talking about here, in terms of meta-ethical and moral relativism. Let me use the analogy I have used before, though not on this thread I think. You have two mountains, one taller than the other. An observer has to decide which he likes better. Instantly, he recognises one as taller than another (that is one level of interpretation that we all take for granted, but is only the realms of cognetive relativism). He likes taller mountains. Which does he decide to be his favourite? He does not consider the shorter inferior however, thus he is a relativist in this instance.

u have no validation for ever choosing. non-relativists feel validated in their choices, as their choices spring from principles they believe to be true. u however have no such principles. and the complete laffability of saying that ppl's morals are based on "likes and dislikes." is pretty demeaning to anyone who has a real moral code.

The basis for choosing is individual disposition, not some belief in something they cannot logically know, i.e. a moral absolute. I'm sorry if it demeans you, but it is a consequence of relativism that morality does not exist in a coherent or objective form beyond each individual. Put simply, it does not exist as anything more than an extension of an individuals emotional disposition.

and again, u have no method of choosing ur moral system. every choice laid before u is of equal uselessness.

What did I previously say? Have I not made my point clear that you come back with the same criticism thuogh it has been addressed?

[Ben Kenobi]

He likes taller mountains.

Whaleboy:

I see you are still stuck on the difference between substance and preference claims. There is a real difference between saying, it is wrong to drink and drive, and between stating, I do not like to drink and drive.

[Whaleboy]

I see you are still stuck on the difference between substance and preference claims. There is a real difference between saying, it is wrong to drink and drive, and between stating, I do not like to drink and drive.

I assume is-ought in that instance. For example, "I consider it wrong to drink and drive" does not mean "therefore, others ought not to drink and drive".

[Ben Kenobi]

Why this difference, Whaleboy? It is patently useless to say that it is wrong for you to drink and drive, but perfectly fine for others to go and do so.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


No, not everything is indistinguishable, that is clearly false. However, there is no inherent property of validity. One of course can forge an idealistic relativism where all is homogenous and nothing until we interpret it, but that's not what we're talking about here, in terms of meta-ethical and moral relativism. Let me use the analogy I have used before, though not on this thread I think. You have two mountains, one taller than the other. An observer has to decide which he likes better. Instantly, he recognises one as taller than another (that is one level of interpretation that we all take for granted, but is only the realms of cognetive relativism). He likes taller mountains. Which does he decide to be his favourite? He does not consider the shorter inferior however, thus he is a relativist in this instance.



The basis for choosing is individual disposition, not some belief in something they cannot logically know, i.e. a moral absolute. I'm sorry if it demeans you, but it is a consequence of relativism that morality does not exist in a coherent or objective form beyond each individual. Put simply, it does not exist as anything more than an extension of an individuals emotional disposition.



What did I previously say? Have I not made my point clear that you come back with the same criticism thuogh it has been addressed?

well yes unfortunately none of ur retorts have blown my skirt up. first u compare morality to benign choices. favorite color, etc. this is a good trick but it is also lacking in gumption.

and of course the famous "we are all ignorant so lets just not do anything." this is the most impressively unimpressive argument I've ever heard(mind u not just from you). it gets thrown around a lot, theologans like it. basically the idea that a lack of certainty is a demand for inaction or creates an inability to decide.

[Whaleboy]

Why this difference, Whaleboy? It is patently useless to say that it is wrong for you to drink and drive, but perfectly fine for others to go and do so.

Not at all. Rather, I may think it wrong but not that it "ought" to be wrong. The fact that I choose not to does not preclude their choice to do so, though of course you complicate matters by introducing laws and stuff within a sociological context. As far as I'm concerned your example is merely me as an individual and them.

well yes unfortunately none of ur retorts have blown my skirt up. first u compare morality to benign choices. favorite color, etc. this is a good trick but it is also lacking in gumption.

Please explain, that statement says nothing. I do compare morality to benign choices. You think it something more? Please enlighten me!

and of course the famous "we are all ignorant so lets just not do anything." this is the most impressively unimpressive argument I've ever heard(mind u not just from you). it gets thrown around a lot, theologans like it. basically the idea that a lack of certainty is a demand for inaction or creates an inability to decide.

Where did I make that argument. "We're all ignorant so let's not do anything?" How is that, in any way a representation of my position. This should be good...

Lack of information, or a subjective perspective is not a reason for a subjective to act in some way. It merely stops them from acting with logical validity in a context in which they are not objective (one is objective unto onself of course). For example, relativism tells me to take more seriously in a court the judges view, as opposed to the plaintiffs. The latter would seek vigilante action, the former would seek a reasonable conclusion.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Drogue

In his posts maybe, but IMHO you have misunderstood what he was trying to do.

Apparently that happens a lot

[Whaleboy]

Apparently that happens a lot

With 4/5 people on this thread... all of which seem to be adopting the same position opposed to me... hmmm

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy



Lack of information, or a subjective perspective is not a reason for a subjective to act in some way. It merely stops them from acting with logical validity in a context in which they are not objective (one is objective unto onself of course). For example, relativism tells me to take more seriously in a court the judges view, as opposed to the plaintiffs. The latter would seek vigilante action, the former would seek a reasonable conclusion.

u must have some unknown type of relativism if ur taking one view over another? is this the new non relativist relativism?

and logic is perfectly capable of operating w/in uncertainties. it merely requires an asessment of the uncertainties that one is facing. so to say that the presence of an uncertainty removes all logical validity is silly.

[Ben Kenobi]

I may think it wrong but not that it "ought" to be wrong.

Very Clintonesque.

At least you choose a longer word than "is".

[Whaleboy]

u must have some unknown type of relativism if ur taking one view over another? is this the new non relativist relativism?

Nope, descriptive and meta-ethical relativism -> cognetive relativism is what I use. Not all relativism is represented by normative relativism, which few take seriously, least of all me.

and logic is perfectly capable of operating w/in uncertainties. it merely requires an asessment of the uncertainties that one is facing. so to say that the presence of an uncertainty removes all logical validity is silly.

No, you misunderstand. One can still act logically within oneself, but to claim ones view to be absolute (the definition of objective logical validity), one requires it to be based upon absolute premises and total knowledge, which is of course impossible. Any notion of moral truth is based upon tautologies. Seems fairly easy to comprehend to me.

At least you choose a longer word than "is".

Not that hard to understand

[Ben Kenobi]

With 4/5 people on this thread... all of which seem to be adopting the same position opposed to me...

The words make sense, the problem is how you put them together.

How does it make any sense to say that you believe something is wrong, but not that it ought to be wrong?

Are you saying your conscience is flawed?

[Whaleboy]

How does it make any sense to say that you believe something is wrong, but not that it ought to be wrong?

To put it another way. I believe something is wrong, but that is not a sufficient condition to it thus being wrong objectively. Of course, I have the right to purport it as such, but as a relativist, I do not, and furthermore recognise this situation.

Are you saying your conscience is flawed?

Yep!! Very much so. And until you can prove that my thread about me being the next Jesus wasn't as ridiculous as I dearly wanted it to be, that will remain so!

[Ben Kenobi]

Very much so. And until you can prove that my thread about me being the next Jesus wasn't as ridiculous as I dearly wanted it to be, that will remain so!

Own goal.

Your own statement here argues against you. Christ was sinless. You are not. You admit your conscience is flawed, but that presupposes an objective morality with which one can evaluate your conscience.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


To put it another way. I believe something is wrong, but that is not a sufficient condition to it thus being wrong objectively.

Is fine as theoretical point, but then you cannot justify why everyone in a society should follow the same rules. You cannot justify a law that declares murder illegal, because even when a majority decides that it hates murder, others could still say they do like it, and those who hate it have no basis to outlaw it. You'd make "justice" totally meaningless.

And it isn't so good when a theory fails in praxis.

[Whaleboy]

Your own statement here argues against you. Christ was sinless. You are not. You admit your conscience is flawed, but that presupposes an objective morality with which one can evaluate your conscience.

*cough*Mary Magdalane*cough*

I am joking of course

that presupposes an objective morality with which one can evaluate your conscience.

No. A flaw does not imply something that is not flawwed from which to view it as flawed. We do that from each other, but though I cannot see it, I know it must necessarily be flawwed, otherwise I would in fact be God. See, either relativism is true, or I am God. That, my friend, is philosophy jk.

[Whaleboy]

Is fine as theoretical point, but then you cannot justify why everyone in a society should follow the same rules. You cannot justify a law that declares murder illegal, because even when a majority decides that it hates murder, others could still say they do like it, and those who hate it have no basis to outlaw it. You'd make "justice" totally meaningless.

And it isn't so good when a theory fails in praxis.

A very good point, which is why meta-ethical relativism leads to moral relativism, which in turn leads to ideas such as sociological relativism (like the Mill Limit), where one can say you can influence, but not inhibit another subjective point of view, otherwise in the context of a society, you'd end up with chaos. In other words, "all is good in theory, but come on, you can't impose upon another, you cant kill people, that's wrong within the context of this society", and as such, you have that limit or apex. It all fits together doesnt it?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Nope, descriptive and meta-ethical relativism -> cognetive relativism is what I use. Not all relativism is represented by normative relativism, which few take seriously, least of all me.



No, you misunderstand. One can still act logically within oneself, but to claim ones view to be absolute (the definition of objective logical validity), one requires it to be based upon absolute premises and total knowledge, which is of course impossible. Any notion of moral truth is based upon tautologies. Seems fairly easy to comprehend to me.



Not that hard to understand

I dont think I've even used the word absolute. much less made it part of a subject in a post of mine?

at any rate if u mean that we can not be ridiculously absolutely positively certain that our way is the bestest of the bestest evar. than I agree. BUT if u think that implies that no ways can be distinguished logically or on other merits besides some persons weird emotional response.

than yah, no.