'Can Science answer Moral questions

[TheStatutoryApe]

People only claim relativism when they have come to the realization that their position is indefensible yet they continue to want to maintain it.

If you think that absolutism is "bad" and relativism is superior, how are you being relativistic?

The reality of power is that moral choices are defensible or indefensible based on reason and that people have the power to hold each other accountable to reasonability and other standards.

The problem for me comes when people decide to hold others accountable to standards without holding those standards accountable to reason. I.e. "that's just the way it is." If you can reasonably defend your morality and choices, others should be able to reasonably validate or invalidate your reasons. If they can't, they should not exercise power in your life.

I pretty much agree with Joe. The only clarification I would make, and I think that Joe has more or less said the same thing, is that I see "Relativism" not as an ethical system but as a mode of analyzing ethical systems. "Absolutism", "Realism", ect are all similarly modes of analyzing ethical systems. The primary difference is that absolutism, realism, and utilitarianism all claim the ability to know or discover objective ethical/moral truths.

I do not say that relativism is ethically superior since I do not see relativism, or any of the others, as ethical systems. I am of the opinion that the logic of the relativist perspective on ethical systems is more sound. In the post you responded to I was not claiming that there is anything ethically "bad" about Absolutism, et al, only that the appeal of these perspectives all seem the same; they promise ethical superiority.

As for the defensibility issue I am quite capable of making logical arguments for my ethical positions based on my personal values. I may even attempt to persuade others that I see have similar personal values to consider my positions as preferable. I may also allow myself to be persuaded that my positions are not so preferable. At the end of the day though I realize that my ethical beliefs are based on subjective values and there is no reason that anyone else ought or must see them as being "True".

 

[brainstorm]

No, I'm not. Truth is: an accurate description of the current context. In this case, I can talk accurately about my experience, experience is subjective. I'm not claiming its objective.

I do find it amusing how you keep telling me what my position is.

I'm just analyzing what you give me to analyze. Now I'm seeing that you view context as somehow factual. In what sense can context be factual, iyo? Can you give an example. I used to study cultural-studies context-orientation and I found it heuristically valuable but empirically vague. At present I would guess that you view context as some kind of "social fact" in the Durkheimian sense, which to me means nothing more than there are patterns of social power exercised to attempt domination/coercion in favor of certain knowledge or thought patterns over others. It sort of implies that conformity is the basis of all knowledge and truth, which is troubling to me. I believe that humans are capable of negotiating knowledge, truth, and culture in ways and for reasons other than conformity, so I consider context-authoritarianism limited at best and ethically irresponsible at worst.

Agreement doesn't make something objective. We can agree on all kinds of things. And you can define 'truth' in all different kinds of ways.

No, I agree. We can both be wrong and agree with each other. Truth is produced through reason and other forms of power. I no longer believe that truth exists outside the exercise of power to establish it.

I'm sure the 'religious nut' doesn't think of himself as a religious nut. There is nothing objective about that description. It is my assesment based on my experience.

Your experience as a secular-nut?

Empiricism is the epistemological view that knowledge is derived from experience.
Relativism is all about experience.

I would say that empiricism is not so much about subjective experience as it is about sensory experience. I have come to an empirical approach to subjectivity by thinking of inner-experiences as events that can be perceived and witnessed. The easiest example is that you can witness yourself having a thought without evaluating the truth-value or anything else about the thought. It is simply observable in the form in which it emerged.

To claim the experiences are relative because they are experiences is problematic. You're moving from observing experience empirically to making a claim about it based on assumptions or inferences. What it comes down to is this: For you to claim that relativism is valid, you have to recognize some basis for validating it. Until you recognize that basis as itself relative, you're not really practicing relativism; only asserting it within a non-relativistic frame of mind.

LOL. That's because there is nothing objectively superior about relativism, that would be entirely self-contradictory. Its is merely useful in certain contexts.

"Useful" is a status. Utility is a virtue. If you were truly relativistic, why would you value relativism for being useful? Why wouldn't you prefer universalism because it's an empty and useless concept, for example?

Something being universal, and demostrating it is universal, are different things.

As I said, you could only ever demonstrate something as being universal if it was possible for you to have access to unlimited contexts. Since you don't, universalism is a "tentative proposition" that leaves itself open for falsification. If I claim that it is universal that people attempt to debunk truth-claims, my claim can only be sustained until I recognize a case in which someone sufficiently resists debunking any truth-claim for their entire lives or whatever criteria is operationalized to define "never debunks truth-claims." As soon as the experimental subject attempts to debunk a truth-claim, my universalist hypothesis stands and remains a tentative-proposition for yet another round of testing.

Huh?
I think you just deconstructed yourself.

How is that? I just explained it further in this post. Your operational definition of universalism invalidates any claim of universality on the basis that it is not possible to test universality in every possible context that would make up the "universal set." By your definition, it becomes impossible to even think universality as a constraint of material limitations of knowledge. That's nonsense, because it is empirically clear that IT IS possible to think universality despite the constraints of material limitations. Therefore, empirically, you have to recognize a basis for claiming universality other than absolute universality. I suggest tentative universality solves the problem by qualifying assertions of universality in the framework that they are always tentative propositions by virtue of not being able to be more.

 

[Nusc]

It seems to me that the primary issue is people who have a problem with the idea that their preferences and values are not based on objective fact. They seem to need some reason to feel that their opinion carries weight and is more "right" than others. In this way "realism" or "utilitarianism" does not seem so different from "absolutism"; their adherents all want some reason to believe that their ethical choices are in fact superior.

Isn't utilitarianism non-absolutist ?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Isn't utilitarianism non-absolutist ?

I am comparing them only in reference to a perceived (by me) goal, that being a form of ethical certainty or superiority.

 

[octelcogopod]

brainstorm why are you pushing some universal relativism on joe?
The fact that all moral and ethical values are created in the mind based on experience is undeniable.
There is a difference between an opinion and a fact.. You seem to claim we are pushing our moral values on you simply by saying no morals are better than any others, or better yet, you can decide on whatever moral values you want to.

The default non biased view is that all morals and values are created subjectively in the mind.. If you claim one shall not kill or similar, you are then breaking that default view and applying a moral principle unto others... And then the burden of proof is in your hand.
If you think it's absolutist to call this a default view, then tell me, how else are we supposed to do it?
I supposed we could blank out our minds and pretend we have no idea what anyone else is thinking, or how the world works.. We could drop all our knowledge and say "I have no idea"..

But that's not how the world works.. Saying that moral values are created subjectively is not an assumption, it's a fact.. Saying that killing is wrong however IS an assumption, at least in the absolutist sense.

 

[Nusc]

I am comparing them only in reference to a perceived (by me) goal, that being a form of ethical certainty or superiority.

Is there any literature on this?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If you think it's absolutist to call this a default view, then tell me, how else are we supposed to do it?

I noted earlier that I see relativism as not a mode of ethical judgment but rather of analyzing/perceiving ethical systems. One might conclude a possible meta-ethical judgment, that relativists suppose an ethical superiority in their perception and application of ethical systems, but I would counter that it is merely an objective evaluation of logical consistency from which one might then derive a personal ethical value judgment.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Is there any literature on this?

None that I am personally aware of. I am merely expressing it as an opinion based on my, perhaps limited, understanding of the philosophies. It would seem to me that the ultimate purpose of utilitarian ethics is to formulate ethical propositions that come as close to ethical certainty as practicably possible. Though it may shy from asserting any possibility of absolute certainty the goal would still seem to be a superior ethical system.

 

[Nusc]

None that I am personally aware of. I am merely expressing it as an opinion based on my, perhaps limited, understanding of the philosophies. It would seem to me that the ultimate purpose of utilitarian ethics is to formulate ethical propositions that come as close to ethical certainty as practicably possible. Though it may shy from asserting any possibility of absolute certainty the goal would still seem to be a superior ethical system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Moral absolutism and religion

Moral absolutism may be understood in a strictly secular context, as in many forms of deontological moral rationalism. However, many religions have morally absolutist positions as well, regarding their system of morality as deriving from the commands of a god. Therefore, they regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable. Many secular philosophies also take a morally absolutist stance, arguing that absolute laws of morality are inherent in the nature of human beings, the nature of life in general, or the universe itself. For example, someone who believes absolutely in nonviolence considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defense. For another example, under some religious moral absolutist beliefs, homosexual behavior is considered fundamentally wrong, even in a consensual relationship.

The historical character of religious belief is seen by some[2][Need quotation on talk to verify] as grounds for criticism of religious moral absolutism. On the other hand, the fact that some moral changes, such as from permitting slavery to prohibiting it,[3] apparently are "progress", is seen by others as evidence for absolutism, not necessarily religious. This can be a criticism of certain religions who abide by such rules.

Those posts above were actually irrelevant in this context. I should have put that in the OP - my bad.

 

[brainstorm]

brainstorm why are you pushing some universal relativism on joe?

To point out that he's not as relativist as he thinks. Claiming relativism while working from a certain ethnocentrism denies responsibility for your cultural standpoint. I happen to believe that different cultural standpoints can critique each other from the perspective of universalizing truth discourse. When people use relativism to defend a particular standpoint from accountability, they either have to prove their relativism or defend their claims/culture reasonably. What right does anyone have to defend their own culture against reason in the name of relativism if they are not themselves relativist?

The fact that all moral and ethical values are created in the mind based on experience is undeniable.
There is a difference between an opinion and a fact.. You seem to claim we are pushing our moral values on you simply by saying no morals are better than any others, or better yet, you can decide on whatever moral values you want to.

When you say that "no morals are better than any others," you're misrepresenting your own beliefs, because if you differentiate opinion from fact, you make a moral distinction between calling fact opinion and denying subjectivity in factuality. If my moral and ethical values are to regard facts and opinions as stylistic distinctions, you are incapable of respecting my values/culture, because you simply think I'm wrong. It would therefore be hypocritical of you to claim relative moral values and then judge mine as wrong. That's why you have to take responsibility for your ethnocentrism, instead of claiming to be relativist and stating objective "facts" as if universal truth was not claims-making from your own perspective.

The default non biased view is that all morals and values are created subjectively in the mind.. If you claim one shall not kill or similar, you are then breaking that default view and applying a moral principle unto others... And then the burden of proof is in your hand.
If you think it's absolutist to call this a default view, then tell me, how else are we supposed to do it?

You don't have to view morals and values as anything more than subjective to apply power to their defense. If someone, or multiple people, decide subjectively that killing is wrong, they can simply claim sovereignty over a given territory or certain people and enforce their morality by force. You can claim that this is wrong, but to do so you have to claim that your truth of right and wrong applies to them. It's not a question of proof but power.

I supposed we could blank out our minds and pretend we have no idea what anyone else is thinking, or how the world works.. We could drop all our knowledge and say "I have no idea"..

What does it matter what anyone else is thinking? If they are wrong, then they're wrong, right? Or is truth a majoritarian privilege?

But that's not how the world works.. Saying that moral values are created subjectively is not an assumption, it's a fact.. Saying that killing is wrong however IS an assumption, at least in the absolutist sense.

Moral values are created subjectively but contested through multiple discourses of power. Claiming that your morality prohibits killing won't stop someone else from killing you if their morality allows it, or if they simply disregard their moral prohibition. Therefore, if you're going to accept that someone is going to kill you or someone else on the basis of their own moral/ethical values, why wouldn't you accept that you or anyone else has the right to a morality/ethic in which they push their values on other people? At least moral paternalism can be discussed, unlike killing (and intimidation by violence) which is what people generally exercise in protection of their right to cultural freedom.

I'm basically for reduction of violence, and if arguing against cultural relativism in favor of cultural accountability to universal reason reduces violence, I will assert its cultural superiority to cultural relativism. If you are truly a cultural relativist, then you will support my right to do that.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Moral values are created subjectively but contested through multiple discourses of power. Claiming that your morality prohibits killing won't stop someone else from killing you if their morality allows it, or if they simply disregard their moral prohibition. Therefore, if you're going to accept that someone is going to kill you or someone else on the basis of their own moral/ethical values, why wouldn't you accept that you or anyone else has the right to a morality/ethic in which they push their values on other people? At least moral paternalism can be discussed, unlike killing (and intimidation by violence) which is what people generally exercise in protection of their right to cultural freedom.

This seems to invoke the old "murderer/self defense" argument which is a false dichotomy. The logic seems to run something like "If you except all ethical propositions as equally valid then you must allow the person who wishes to kill you to do so because defending yourself would necessitate invalidating the ethical proposition that this person has the right to kill you." This fails, though, to take the logic to its fullest conclusion, that being "If all ethical propositions are equally valid then the proposition that I have the right to defend myself is equal in validity to the proposition that the murderer has the right to kill me."

The argument disingenuously purports to deconstruct relativism based on relativist logic when in fact it cuts in and uses objectivist logic for its final conclusion. It bases the conclusion on the principle that two mutually exclusive propositions may not be simultaneously valid but this principle only holds true if we are considering objective validity. Relativist logic states that the objective validity of any ethical proposition is exactly zero. If we consider the validity of any ethical proposition as subjective only the mutual exclusion principle does not apply and the dichotomy disappears.

 

[JoeDawg]

Now I'm seeing that you view context as somehow factual.

Every fact, has a context. We can group similar facts together and create rules, or generalizations. We can also call these facts, but they are not 'universal'. They exist within a context.

An apple falls on Newton's head.
Apples fall.
Objects move according to a law of gravity.
Gravity describes how mass curves spacetime.

All follow from the context of Newton who is a conscious human being residing on earth. This is not to say that 'existence' is all in Newton's head, but knowledge of existense is.

These are observations of what is. Any discussion of morals, goes beyond that, and deals with counterfactuals and future events.

Truth is about the correspondence, between knowledge and observation. If you can't observe the universe as a whole, you can't have knowledge that corresponds to the universe as a whole. No universals.
There can certainly be facts about societies and one's place in society.

It sort of implies that conformity is the basis of all knowledge and truth, which is troubling to me.

We don't create knowledge as individuals, if that is what you mean.

Your experience as a secular-nut?

I like to think of myself more as a cashew.

I would say that empiricism is not so much about subjective experience as it is about sensory experience.

All sensory experience is subjective. But individuals can share similar subjective experiences.

It is simply observable in the form in which it emerged.

Modern neuroscience disagrees, the thoughts we have are heavily filtered and constructed, separating a thought from the process of thinking, would be highly problematic.

For you to claim that relativism is valid, you have to recognize some basis for validating it. Until you recognize that basis as itself relative

Of course it is, I'm the subject, it is an experience I have, therefore it is a subjective experience. In fact, I can't even conceive of an experience that is not subjective.

If you were truly relativistic, why would you value relativism for being useful?

Because I choose to. You seem to equate relativism with randomness, it is not about assigning random value to things, its about context. Within the context of my subjective experience certain things have value. I don't claim they have objective, or absolute value.

As I said, you could only ever demonstrate something as being universal if it was possible for you to have access to unlimited contexts. Since you don't, universalism is a "tentative proposition" that leaves itself open for falsification.

I have no problem with methodological naturalism, but that has nothing to do with universals. I have no access to unlimited contexts, so I think you are abusing falsification. Falsification is only useful if you can 'practically' falsify something.

my universalist hypothesis stands and remains a tentative-proposition for yet another round of testing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot"

That's nonsense, because it is empirically clear that IT IS possible to think universality despite the constraints of material limitations.

It is possible to generalize from observations. Universals are a different thing.

 

[brainstorm]

This seems to invoke the old "murderer/self defense" argument which is a false dichotomy. The logic seems to run something like "If you except all ethical propositions as equally valid then you must allow the person who wishes to kill you to do so because defending yourself would necessitate invalidating the ethical proposition that this person has the right to kill you." This fails, though, to take the logic to its fullest conclusion, that being "If all ethical propositions are equally valid then the proposition that I have the right to defend myself is equal in validity to the proposition that the murderer has the right to kill me."

The argument disingenuously purports to deconstruct relativism based on relativist logic when in fact it cuts in and uses objectivist logic for its final conclusion. It bases the conclusion on the principle that two mutually exclusive propositions may not be simultaneously valid but this principle only holds true if we are considering objective validity. Relativist logic states that the objective validity of any ethical proposition is exactly zero. If we consider the validity of any ethical proposition as subjective only the mutual exclusion principle does not apply and the dichotomy disappears.

You're correct that your relativism allows you to take an ethical position that allows you to commit violence (physical or cultural) toward others regardless of your recognition of cultural difference. So cultural relativism is to you not a moral basis for respect but merely a recognition on the way to colonization and ethnocentric domination?

Where I think you fall short of strong relativism is that you negate the possibility of objective validity. Absolute relativism allows you to construct objective validity from your subjective, culturally-specific position. This is possible because strong relativism should not recognize any such thing as a possibility of objective validity. So from the perspective of strong relativism, objective validity and objectivism generally were never anything more or less than another relative cultural expression.

Where relativism fails, imo, is when truth-power is exercised by making claims of one position's validity versus another's. At point, the invalidated position can simply claim cultural relativism and maintain its own truth according to its own culture - but what happens if the critic continues to assert invalidation? At that point there is conflict to deal with, which requires the cultural relativist either resort to some form of repressive violence to avoid responding to the criticism OR it has to engage in a reasonable defense through appeal to universal reason. When a cultural standpoint is willing to engage in repression or violence to silence critique, I favor the use of violence in favor of universal reason because at least with universal reason, cultures have a chance to defend their legitimacy verses others, while in total cultural relativism no culture can respond to critique EXCEPT through repressive violence toward difference.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You're correct that your relativism allows you to take an ethical position that allows you to commit violence (physical or cultural) toward others regardless of your recognition of cultural difference. So cultural relativism is to you not a moral basis for respect but merely a recognition on the way to colonization and ethnocentric domination?

Where I think you fall short of strong relativism is that you negate the possibility of objective validity. Absolute relativism allows you to construct objective validity from your subjective, culturally-specific position. This is possible because strong relativism should not recognize any such thing as a possibility of objective validity. So from the perspective of strong relativism, objective validity and objectivism generally were never anything more or less than another relative cultural expression.

I am not actually a cultural relativist. You might say that I subscribe to an ethically relativist individualism. I do not believe that intellectual abstractions such as "culture" can be held ethically accountable, only individuals, so it would seem meaningless to frame my perceptions around "culture".
Perhaps my arguments regarding historical interpretation of the constitution in another thread have led you to believe I am a cultural relativist?

 

[brainstorm]

I am not actually a cultural relativist. You might say that I subscribe to an ethically relativist individualism. I do not believe that intellectual abstractions such as "culture" can be held ethically accountable, only individuals, so it would seem meaningless to frame my perceptions around "culture".
Perhaps my arguments regarding historical interpretation of the constitution in another thread have led you to believe I am a cultural relativist?

Regardless of whether you focus on all culture or just ethical culture, your relativism seems to presume that you have the right to avoid other people holding you accountable to their ethics. The problem with that is how can you claim them pushing their ethics on you is unethical without having your own ethics to claim that?

If I consider it ethical to intervene in the unethical behavior of others, how are you going to assert that it is actually unethical to intervene, if you don't allow yourself to hold others accountable to your ethics?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Regardless of whether you focus on all culture or just ethical culture, your relativism seems to presume that you have the right to avoid other people holding you accountable to their ethics. The problem with that is how can you claim them pushing their ethics on you is unethical without having your own ethics to claim that?

If I consider it ethical to intervene in the unethical behavior of others, how are you going to assert that it is actually unethical to intervene, if you don't allow yourself to hold others accountable to your ethics?

I do not perceive "rights" as objective "Truths", therefore I do not perceive myself, or anyone else, as being possessed of any "right" to avoid accountability. As well accountability (in my perception) is merely the objective circumstance of consequences (consequences which include other persons perceptions of your actions and their resulting choice of action) and, beyond that, perhaps the accountability that one holds themselves to.

As far as the ethics of intervention vs non-intervention it has nothing to do with relativism. Relativism does not feature any ethical proscriptions or prescriptions. As I pointed out in a previous post, while those who subscribe to relativism may derive meta-ethical propositions from the philosophy these are not inherent in the philosophy itself.

 

[brainstorm]

I do not perceive "rights" as objective "Truths", therefore I do not perceive myself, or anyone else, as being possessed of any "right" to avoid accountability. As well accountability (in my perception) is merely the objective circumstance of consequences (consequences which include other persons perceptions of your actions and their resulting choice of action) and, beyond that, perhaps the accountability that one holds themselves to.

As far as the ethics of intervention vs non-intervention it has nothing to do with relativism. Relativism does not feature any ethical proscriptions or prescriptions. As I pointed out in a previous post, while those who subscribe to relativism may derive meta-ethical propositions from the philosophy these are not inherent in the philosophy itself.

Your empirical approach to culture and subjectivity is very lucid. I guess if you define relativism the way you are, you are right. The problem is that, you're also right, that relativism is often conflated with an ethical stance of mutual respect for cultural autonomy and avoidance of critical engagement by reference to the claim that contesting something relative to one cultural context with something derived from another is unreasonable and logically impossible.

That may be a reasonable argument in some cases, but there's no generalizable incommensurability. Culture-commensurability is a question of applying (truth-)power. I don't know what the separatists of this world are going to do if you succeed in taking away cultural relativism as a basis for them legitimating conflict-avoidance, though. They may be provoked into striking like a snake whose rock has been taken away leaving them exposed to the light of day. (sorry if that is too harsh-sounding an analogy)

 

[JoeDawg]

I don't know what the separatists of this world are going to do if you succeed in taking away cultural relativism as a basis for them legitimating conflict-avoidance, though.

Cultural relativism really has nothing to do with whether one takes political action or not, its about the difficulties inherent in 'understanding' another culture, due to one's own cultural prejudices. Many would argue that its important to understand a culture before you try and change it, but whether one seeks change is a different question.

Cultural imperialism is the desire to impose one's cultural norms on another culture. And whether one is for and/or against it, and under what circumstances, all is perfectly within the scope of relativism.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Is this question really any different than asking if science can answer what is beautiful? What is more beautiful than something else. Can science answer which one of Shakespeare's works is the best, or if they are good at all?

 

[magpies]

What do you mean by answer? So far the only thing science has answered imo is that science is interesting. Every thing changes with time even science stuff like theories to why the universe began. Like think of it what if humanity did make it to an live past an eon the big bang theory would be gone from the popular view by then even if it was just because all scientists were bored with it.

 

[brainstorm]

Cultural relativism really has nothing to do with whether one takes political action or not, its about the difficulties inherent in 'understanding' another culture, due to one's own cultural prejudices. Many would argue that its important to understand a culture before you try and change it, but whether one seeks change is a different question.

Cultural imperialism is the desire to impose one's cultural norms on another culture. And whether one is for and/or against it, and under what circumstances, all is perfectly within the scope of relativism.

The term "cultural imperialism" has a pejorative tone, and it is often used to decry one imperialist culture while denouncing another. This is what happened as a result of the discourse about "globalization." Global Anglo-American culture was/is decried as "cultural imperialism" in defense of national cultures, but people forgot that nationalism was the a form of cultural imperialism in the first place.

The fact is that all culture spreads. Children learn culture by it spreading from their parents, school teachers, peers, etc. Individuals do self-determine their own culture, but they do so in dialogue with hegemonic forces.

The real kicker comes from asking how it is possible for people to identify two cultural practices or values as being part of the same or different cultures. This is the issue of cultural identity. If I tell my child that in our family we eat asparagus to celebrate birthdays and we wear open toed shoes with socks, why are those two cultural practices part of "the same culture?" Maybe we are a multi-ethnic family and the shoe-thing is derived from one ethnicity and the birthday asparagus from another. Drawing boundaries between cultural identities is itself a cultural practice.

You say it is important to understand culture before trying to change it, but how many people do you think understand even their own culture? In reality, the transmission, practice, and adaptation/modification of culture happens pretty subconsciously. Taking an approach to culture that is 1) conscious of the culture and its identity and 2) orthodox in the sense of understanding it and resisting change is highly disciplined, and nevertheless a form of appropriation/adaptation of culture to specific circumstances and needs.

I agree that it's worth figuring out what something is good for before rejecting it or modifying it, but some form of cultural imperialism is always present. Even children learning language and culture for the first time resist on the basis of their own ethnocentrism as babies. It's called whining or throwing a temper tantrum. They are basically saying, "eating vegetables is an inferior culture to eating whatever I feel like, and it is my culture as a baby to whine and cry until I get what I want."

 

[Freeman Dyson]

What do you mean by answer? So far the only thing science has answered imo is that science is interesting. Every thing changes with time even science stuff like theories to why the universe began. Like think of it what if humanity did make it to an live past an eon the big bang theory would be gone from the popular view by then even if it was just because all scientists were bored with it.

Well science has been successful and accurate enough to quantifiably improve the conditions of the human race. It has spectacular practical value and is the bedrock of human progress. It is more than just "interesting".

I mean can science tell us which to prefer? Yes, but only when based on accuracy. It can tell us to prefer The Big Bang because it is closer to the natural evidence. It is closer to what is. It doesn't tell us to prefer it for any other reason. So with morality, what are we testing the accuracy of? What makes one moral theory more accurate than another? What falsifies one and makes the other the law? How is any theory of morality falsified at all?

 

[brainstorm]

Well science has been successful and accurate enough to quantifiably improve the conditions of the human race. It has spectacular practical value and is the bedrock of human progress. It is more than just "interesting".

I mean can science tell us which to prefer? Yes, but only when based on accuracy. It can tell us to prefer The Big Bang because it is closer to the natural evidence. It is closer to what is. It doesn't tell us to prefer it for any other reason. So with morality, what are we testing the accuracy of? What makes one moral theory more accurate than another? What falsifies one and makes the other the law? How is any theory of morality falsified at all?

If you have a conscience, you should have the experience that when you do something bad, you feel guilty. If you learn to study your conscience and heed its warnings, you can avoid guilty feelings.

I think that theologians and saints are people who studied their consciences intensively and tried to teach what they learned to others in the hope of helping them to lead happier and more guilt free lives. I think they also studied how people harm each other and tried to teach people how to harm others less.

You could say that this is a subjective art, but the fact is that these people did/do the best they can because part of their conscience is the calling to help others by sharing what they have discovered. It may not be an exact science, but by learning from one person's reflections, another person makes gains and then builds onto these by going further and sharing what they learn. The result is an evolving discourse which, while potentially flawed for any number of reasons, also holds the potential to improve people's lives and help them treat each other better.

Ethical/moral beliefs can be falsified the same way any scientific proposition can. You simply deduce a specific proposition or hypothesis and test it. If theft is a sin, you can test it by studying how it is expected to harm others and why it does or doesn't have the predicted effect. You can also look at the effect stealing has on the thief. Does stealing make someone happier or not? Why and why not? Are the benefits worth the consequences? etc.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If you have a conscience, you should have the experience that when you do something bad, you feel guilty. If you learn to study your conscience and heed its warnings, you can avoid guilty feelings.

I have lately been watching the old episodes of the show 24. Its mostly a rather ridiculous show but perhaps one of its more worthwhile aspects is the constant question "What is the right thing to do?" Its quite likely that many ethical decisions will leave a person feeling guilty no matter what they choose and a person merely attempting to avoid guilt may make a poor decision or simply find themselves unable to make one.

One might also consider that what we feel guilty about may often be what we have in some fashion or another been programmed to feel guilty about. I am perhaps not the pinnacle of mental fitness but I have often felt guilty about things that perhaps I ought not have.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

If you have a conscience, you should have the experience that when you do something bad, you feel guilty. If you learn to study your conscience and heed its warnings, you can avoid guilty feelings.

I think that theologians and saints are people who studied their consciences intensively and tried to teach what they learned to others in the hope of helping them to lead happier and more guilt free lives. I think they also studied how people harm each other and tried to teach people how to harm others less.

You could say that this is a subjective art, but the fact is that these people did/do the best they can because part of their conscience is the calling to help others by sharing what they have discovered. It may not be an exact science, but by learning from one person's reflections, another person makes gains and then builds onto these by going further and sharing what they learn. The result is an evolving discourse which, while potentially flawed for any number of reasons, also holds the potential to improve people's lives and help them treat each other better.

Ethical/moral beliefs can be falsified the same way any scientific proposition can. You simply deduce a specific proposition or hypothesis and test it. If theft is a sin, you can test it by studying how it is expected to harm others and why it does or doesn't have the predicted effect. You can also look at the effect stealing has on the thief. Does stealing make someone happier or not? Why and why not? Are the benefits worth the consequences? etc.

But you can't answer the question that precedes it. Why is theft a sin? Falsify that. I agree that science could guide us to a society to minimize theft. But we don't want it to be too accurate. If we really wanted to minimize theft we could just have some kind of curfew and massive police presence. So it isn't about accuracy. Other things are more important and take precedence over accuracy. Weird notions like freedom and dignity.

Your talk of the natural good in our hearts reminds me of religions. There is no "good" and people aren't born with it. What feels good is an appeal to nature fallacy.

 

[JoeDawg]

The term "cultural imperialism" has a pejorative tone,

That is largely because it is descriptive, and most people don't like it when others do it to them.

Global Anglo-American culture was/is decried as "cultural imperialism" in defense of national cultures, but people forgot that nationalism was the a form of cultural imperialism in the first place.

I never specified it was one culture's issue. So I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend poor anglo-america. China, Russia, France and Germany... to name a few, all have a long history of cultural imperialism. Its nothing new.
But the fact others have done it, doesn't then justify Anglo-america doing it.
Your entire argument is based on poor logic.
You see, this is the real problem with your 'analysis' of my arguments, you don't read what I write, you read into what I write.

The fact is that all culture spreads.

Now you're being obtuse.
Cultural Imperialism generally refers to spreading one's own culture, using some type of force, at the expense of some one else.

Drawing boundaries between cultural identities is itself a cultural practice.

So what? The fact some cultural practices are complex doesn't mean there aren't more simple ones. There are many easily identifiable traditions and culture specific practices from many cultures.

You say it is important to understand culture before trying to change it, but how many people do you think understand even their own culture?

No, that is not what I said. And until you start reading what I wrote instead of trying to foist arguments on me, we're done here.

 

[brainstorm]

I have lately been watching the old episodes of the show 24. Its mostly a rather ridiculous show but perhaps one of its more worthwhile aspects is the constant question "What is the right thing to do?" Its quite likely that many ethical decisions will leave a person feeling guilty no matter what they choose and a person merely attempting to avoid guilt may make a poor decision or simply find themselves unable to make one.

One might also consider that what we feel guilty about may often be what we have in some fashion or another been programmed to feel guilty about. I am perhaps not the pinnacle of mental fitness but I have often felt guilty about things that perhaps I ought not have.

Part of becoming a scientist involves learning to approach questions of knowledge systematically and interest-free. In studying and developing ethics, this can mean becoming aware of one's "programming" in order to reflect consciously and systematically about it. At that point, one may conclude that learned morality and ethical prescriptions are unethical or ethical for other reasons than first thought. I have come to believe that morality and ethical notions that are accepted as programmatic, without reflection, are not ultimately an ethical route to choosing ones ethics. They can be a basis for reflection and reasoning, but to eschew reasonable consideration on the basis of dogma is not ethically responsible, imo.

But you can't answer the question that precedes it. Why is theft a sin? Falsify that. I agree that science could guide us to a society to minimize theft. But we don't want it to be too accurate. If we really wanted to minimize theft we could just have some kind of curfew and massive police presence. So it isn't about accuracy. Other things are more important and take precedence over accuracy. Weird notions like freedom and dignity.

You have to reason and operationalize the notion of "sin" to be able to answer why anything would or wouldn't be a sin, and in what sense. One way of looking at sin is anything that harms oneself or others. Does theft harm others? Does it harm oneself and one's sense of dignity? You can say that dignity is subjective and arbitary, but it may have something to do with the inherent ability to identify with others and empathize with things that happen to oneself. This is why "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a handy general formula for ethical reflection. The theory of karma, that what you do to others will happen to you, makes it even more concrete.

Your talk of the natural good in our hearts reminds me of religions. There is no "good" and people aren't born with it. What feels good is an appeal to nature fallacy.

People are born from a warm womb where they are completely cared for in terms of nutrients and protection. From that point they try to interact with mommy and others in a way that reproduces that state of bliss. People automatically worship and emulate power, and they recognize power in the ability to create happiness.

That is largely because it is descriptive, and most people don't like it when others do it to them.

I never specified it was one culture's issue. So I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend poor anglo-america. China, Russia, France and Germany... to name a few, all have a long history of cultural imperialism. Its nothing new.
But the fact others have done it, doesn't then justify Anglo-america doing it.
Your entire argument is based on poor logic.
You see, this is the real problem with your 'analysis' of my arguments, you don't read what I write, you read into what I write.

The idea that one's individual culture is a determined subsidiary of a group culture is a fiction. Individuals interact with each other to acquire and develop their own culture through emulation and individuation. Identifying group patterns is an analytic exercise which can be useful to self-determining one's culture, ethics, and morality - but it can also be detrimental in that ones conscience and personal authority may be rejected in favor of group conformity. If everyone was jumping off a cliff, does that mean it's good to?

Now you're being obtuse.
Cultural Imperialism generally refers to spreading one's own culture, using some type of force, at the expense of some one else.

I'm questioning assumptions about "cultural imperialism" because they're questionable and misleading.

So what? The fact some cultural practices are complex doesn't mean there aren't more simple ones. There are many easily identifiable traditions and culture specific practices from many cultures.

Yes, but the practice of identifying various cultural practice under a common identity "umbrella" and exerting prescriptive expectations based on that is a culture unto itself. Individual cultural freedom is also a cultural practice done by every individual in some way or other regardless of ethnic or other cultural identity.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Part of becoming a scientist involves learning to approach questions of knowledge systematically and interest-free. In studying and developing ethics, this can mean becoming aware of one's "programming" in order to reflect consciously and systematically about it. At that point, one may conclude that learned morality and ethical prescriptions are unethical or ethical for other reasons than first thought. I have come to believe that morality and ethical notions that are accepted as programmatic, without reflection, are not ultimately an ethical route to choosing ones ethics. They can be a basis for reflection and reasoning, but to eschew reasonable consideration on the basis of dogma is not ethically responsible, imo.

"My heart is not a cold cauldron of proof." Bad Religion - Prove It

Pardon if quoting song lyrics seems rather sophomoric.
The possibility that our natural aversions to certain actions and circumstances is programmed really brings into question any idea that we can rely on "instinct" or "guilt" to pave the way for ethical understanding and decisions. Complete disregard for such feelings can also disconnect us from the "human condition" rendering ethics down to mere computation and seemingly forgetting the whole point. This is where I feel that relativism offers a practical solution if one actually abides the intellectual conditions of the philosophy rather than simply using it as a justification. In the stead of any comfort in "knowing" one is "right" or an axiomatic rule that one ought, on occasion, reconsider and revise their ethics based on new circumstances the relativists very perception of ethical propositions forces one to reflect on one's ethical opinions at every turn in the light of circumstance including a tentative legitimization of the ethical propositions of other individuals. In this way I ought not, though may still, fall prey to ethical hubris and the dismissal of propositions that I may have yet to consider.

 

[brainstorm]

"My heart is not a cold cauldron of proof." Bad Religion - Prove It

Pardon if quoting song lyrics seems rather sophomoric.
The possibility that our natural aversions to certain actions and circumstances is programmed really brings into question any idea that we can rely on "instinct" or "guilt" to pave the way for ethical understanding and decisions. Complete disregard for such feelings can also disconnect us from the "human condition" rendering ethics down to mere computation and seemingly forgetting the whole point. This is where I feel that relativism offers a practical solution if one actually abides the intellectual conditions of the philosophy rather than simply using it as a justification. In the stead of any comfort in "knowing" one is "right" or an axiomatic rule that one ought, on occasion, reconsider and revise their ethics based on new circumstances the relativists very perception of ethical propositions forces one to reflect on one's ethical opinions at every turn in the light of circumstance including a tentative legitimization of the ethical propositions of other individuals. In this way I ought not, though may still, fall prey to ethical hubris and the dismissal of propositions that I may have yet to consider.

If this is all part of your personal path of ethical discovery, then it is. My ethics just tell me that I should note that if, for whatever reason, you fail to listen to your conscience, you could fall prey to guilt and sorrow at some point in the future, regardless of how reasonable it may be to do so.

A safer path that doesn't completely eschew relativistic inquiry would be to reflect on and know your own conscience in a way that allows you to apply and adapt it in your exploratory process of researching and comparing different cultures of morality and ethics to each other and to those "programmed" into your own conscience.

You never know, there may be a way for you to become master of your own programming without betraying your own good faith to your conscience in the process.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If this is all part of your personal path of ethical discovery, then it is. My ethics just tell me that I should note that if, for whatever reason, you fail to listen to your conscience, you could fall prey to guilt and sorrow at some point in the future, regardless of how reasonable it may be to do so.

A safer path that doesn't completely eschew relativistic inquiry would be to reflect on and know your own conscience in a way that allows you to apply and adapt it in your exploratory process of researching and comparing different cultures of morality and ethics to each other and to those "programmed" into your own conscience.

You never know, there may be a way for you to become master of your own programming without betraying your own good faith to your conscience in the process.

This is more or less my reason for the quotation.
"My heart is not a cold cauldron of proof."
I am possessed of feelings and opinions, and I may well act on them, but I am sorry that I can not offer you any proof of their righteousness much less their mere existence.

I am not sure if you may or may not enjoy punk rock and may very well be skeptical of any philosophical merit in punk rock lyrics but to expand...
"Hit the road in wander mode, inquire along the way
Savoir faire in full despair while living day-to-day
My heart is not a cold cauldron of proof
I don't ever need to prove myself to you

Looking back I've off the tracks more times than I recognize
Mistakes are another opportunity to refine
My heart is not a cold cauldron of proof
I don't ever need to prove myself to you

There's no such thing as hell
But you can make it if you try
There might come a day
when emotion can be quantified
But as of now there's no proof necessary
There's no proof necessary
it's only in your mind"
Bad Religion - Prove It (slightly abridged for repetitiousness)

Again I realize the likely perception of quoting song lyrics as part of an argument but I think that they rather aptly illustrate my point and opinion if in a metaphoric fashion.