Given "spending is irrelevant"/fiat money, why not give every poor person 30K?

[Gumby]

Doodle. Everyone is telling you to figure it out on your own time. Take a hint.

[Pointedstick]

Doodle. Everyone is telling you to figure it out on your own time. Take a hint.

+1

[doodle]

That's fine, maybe this isn't the right forum to discuss moral relativism and metaphysical libertarianism. 

In the rule of time and place.....maybe I got the place wrong.

[RuralEngineer]

At the risk of wasting my time, I'll try one last time.

Meta-ethical moral relativism is more a way of thinking than an actionable viewpoint. It means that while I think I'm right and I have my own morality, everyone else thinks they're right with a different morality. I would still act to prevent the torture of a baby, but moral relativism helps prevent me from trying to impose my morality on everyone in all instances because there is no objective standard.

An example, I think whaling unless out of necessity is wrong. However, I'm unwilling to use force to prevent it because I have no objective standard to draw from, it's just how I feel. If a nation were threatening whales with extinction however, I might consider it. Moral relativism makes me think about whether I really feel strongly enough that something is so immoral as to warrant action. An example of what it's trying to prevent is the dogmatic moral code of some religions where everything is controlled down to diet and clothing using the justification that it is the only moral way of living.

In practical terms, it's not a means to get a homogeneous morality in a given society. I use it to try and justify focusing only on what I feel is very important.

[doodle]

TennPaGa,

You are right. Unfortunately, maybe my humor didn't communicate well through the format. I was just joking because I was so exhausted....I have a bit of an absurdist streak. If you had been sitting in a room with me, I would have followed it with a wink and a hearty laugh.

These are very tough issues, no doubt. These are issues that cut at the core of who we are and what we are doing here. These are some of the biggest puzzling questions that humans can discuss. In reality these aren't debates, where there is a winner and a loser because there might not even be an answer. Yet, humans are forced to confront these issues and because we live together as social creatures we must work them out for ourselves and also collectively. The world is not like this forum. I can't just turn off the world and walk away. This is a fundamental flaw with libertarianism in my view. It simplifies the complexity and web of life and tries to arbitrarily compartimentalize things. We are dealing with a much more complex organism I think.

The particular speaker in the linked video below is a Christian (I am not...) but he makes a convincing argument about why moral relativism is wrong. I have no position on this yet. I'm in the process of thinking about all of this and bouncing all sorts of ideas around which although chaotic, often leads to clarity.

I think this is worth a watch RuralEngineer...íts six (10 minutes each) videos long but the first sets the stage for the line of reasoning he is going to take: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsGNsxcms-c

He gets more into the meat and bones of where I am disagreeing with RuralEngineer in second video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbdhC-fY0Sk

[MediumTex]

The particular speaker in the linked video below is a Christian (I am not...) but he makes a convincing argument about why moral relativism is wrong. I have no position on this yet. I'm in the process of thinking about all of this and bouncing all sorts of ideas around which although chaotic, often leads to clarity.

It seems like all morality is relative.  How can it not be?  To cite your baby torture example, the same government that you would have coercively prevent baby mistreatment routinely treats babies very poorly in other parts of the world through foreseeable collateral damage resulting from the use of advanced weaponry.

Another example involves strident anti-abortion believers who rarely advocate punishing women who have abortions in the exact same way that we punish premeditated murderers.  Isn't that a bit of moral relativism for someone who believes that a fetus is entitled to the same bundle of rights as a newborn baby?

The person who imagines they live in an objective reality that can be governed through an objective morality has often not thought deeply about the nature of subjectivity.

We know that there is an objective reality out there because we bump into it when we aren't looking where we are going.  However, to imagine that this objective reality can somehow be internalized to the point that you inhabit a completely objective mental space that can lead to objectively verifiable moral insights seems silly to me.

What is morality but a sense of right and wrong shaped by beliefs, which are shaped by subjective perceptions of reality?

I have never heard a person argue for some kind of objective morality who in the next breath didn't point out that HIS morality was the objectively correct one.

[RuralEngineer]

I checked it out, doesn't apply. He's arguing against normative moral relativity. I'm not going to explain the difference again.

I'm pro-life politically and it doesn't preclude me from believing in meta-ethical moral relativity. Once you figure out how that's possible, you'll not need to debate me on it. The fact that we're even discussing this means you believe in descriptive moral relativism. Frankly I'm baffled that this concept is so difficult to grasp.

[doodle]

I have never heard a person argue for some kind of objective morality who in the next breath didn't point out that HIS morality was the objectively correct one.

Correct including the person arguing for moral relativity! 

Look, I'm not trolling and I dont think I'm crazy. I double checked with my brother (a Phd in cultural anthropology...who confronts different types of moralities alot in his research) to see if I was making a totally off base argument here and this is his response....(he's busy, which is why it is so short).

short answer- i think moral relativism is a self-contradicting concept. The idea of a 'moral' presupposes some sort of standard.

This is the same argument that the fellow in the videos I attached is making.

It is a bit of a conundrum...like how quantum physics says matter is both a particle and a wave.

It seems like all morality is relative.  How can it not be?  To cite your baby torture example, the same government that you would have coercively prevent baby mistreatment routinely treats babies very poorly in other parts of the world through foreseeable collateral damage resulting from the use of advanced weaponry.

I think you could argue (the guy in the video does) that something becomes coercive only when there is no morality.

The only true option in a morally relativistic world is to keep your mouth shut and say absolutely nothing. If someone is being beaten and raped next to you and you intervene you are imposing your standard of morality on that person and you are violating the tenents of your belief. I don't see how the world can function like this.

[doodle]

RuralEngineer,

I'm going to give it more thought and read about it again, but frankly I think the difference is largerly semantical and one of aribitrary degrees.

[RuralEngineer]

Now you're posting arguments that could be used to undermine any form of relativity. How can beauty be relative when it presupposes some kind of standard?

If you can't understand the idea being debated, then debate is pointless.

[doodle]

Now you're posting arguments that could be used to undermine any form of relativity. How can beauty be relative when it presupposes some kind of standard?

If you can't understand the idea being debated, then debate is pointless.

Earlier in this monster thread we got into beauty a bit. I seemed to come from a more "relativistic" standpoint. Ironically, the moral relativists here seemed to be coming from a more "absolutist" frame of reference. Now, lets try not to get personal. I'm trying to keep my ego out of this  After all, this isn't about winning or losing...its about getting closer to the truth. I need to go back and spend some time with the normative and meta-ethical moral relativity...I have to sit down with it and give it a good thinking through.

Beauty is a hard mathematical fact.  It is all about ratios and symmetry:

Nature is beautiful, yet it is all wiggly.

Hardly. Nature is full of symmetry, complimentary colors and golden numbers. They aren't accidental. Even birds and bees need to be enticed by specific wavelengths and symmetries. Peacocks, roses, snowflakes, tree frogs, etc all have these sorts of qualities.

[Gumby]

Earlier in this monster thread we got into beauty a bit. I seemed to come from a more "relativistic" standpoint. Ironically, the moral relativists here seemed to be coming from a more "absolutist" frame of reference. Now, lets try not to get personal. I'm trying to keep my ego out of this  After all, this isn't about winning or losing...its about getting closer to the truth.

When we say you are "trolling," this what we mean — egging us on to follow you into a never-ending debate about whatever pops into your head next. First it's consumerism, then it's beauty, then it's relativism. Now we are searching for the "truth"? Trolling is often defined as a barrage of "extraneous, or off- topic messages" which there seems to be no end of coming from you. Again, I'm not trying to be rude. Rather, I'm explaining what we mean when we call you a "troll" (which you call "metal gymnastics")

Please stop. We are not going to feed these meandering conversations anymore — it's a waste of everyone's time.

Turn off the computer, do your own research, and figure it out on your own time (please).

[RuralEngineer]

I was referring more to things like art than notions of beauty that are tied to reproduction. That's a function of genetics to at least some degree. Even there though, beauty isn't consistent across closely related species like hummingbirds. Unless someone cares to attempt to establish an objective standard for beauty, its relativity is proven by the fact that humans disagree about what is beautiful. The why doesn't matter.

My statement that we can't have meaningful debate until you understand my position is factual, not a personal attack.

[doodle]

RuralE,

I'm reading and thinking it might take me a day or two.

This website talks about normative ethics and meta ethics. Is this what you are saying that I am not understanding? If so, I will proceed on this path.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCC ... ethics.htm

[RuralEngineer]

Close. The description of meta-ethics appears consistent with what I've been saying. However, your link uses normative ethics to describe the language used to discuss moral positions, good or bad, general or specific. The Wikipedia entry on moral relativism's definition of normative moral relativism is what I've been using. This is the position that not only is morality relative, all morals are equally valid.

[doodle]

Before I start, let me quote this from wikipedia just so we recognize that this debate is nothing new.

Moral relativism has been espoused, criticized, and debated for thousands of years, from ancient Greece and India down to the present day, in diverse fields including philosophy, science, and religion.

Here is what I've got so far.

Moral-relativism seems to be divided into three areas:

1. Descriptive moral relativism:
It is the observation that different cultures have different moral standards. Descriptive relativists do not necessarily advocate the tolerance of all behavior in light of such disagreement.

- (I agree  ....no problem so far)

2. Meta-ethical moral relativism:
The belief that not only do people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good," "bad," "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all; rather, they are relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people. Given the same set of facts, some societies or individuals will have a fundamental disagreement about what one ought to do (based on societal or individual norms). What's more, they argue that one cannot adjudicate these disagreements using some independent standard of evaluation — the standard will always be societal or personal.

- (I don't think I agree with this....I think that there might be such a thing as "good" and "bad". I'm working outside of logic out the moment. I feel this in my bones. Also the fact that disagreements can't be easily adjudicated seems like a problematic philosophy for a society to realistically live under....back to my baby torturing hypothetical.)

3. Normative moral relativism:
The belief not only in the meta-ethical thesis, but that it has normative implications on what we ought to do. Normative moral relativism argues that meta-ethical relativism implies that we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.

Most philosophers do not agree, partially because of the challenges of arriving at an "ought" from relativistic premises. Meta-ethical relativism seems to eliminate the normative relativist's ability to make prescriptive claims. In other words, normative relativism may find it difficult to make a statement like "we think it is moral to tolerate behaviour" without always adding "other people think intolerance of certain behaviours is moral".

(You can see how this position gets twisted up in self contradiction. Meta-ethical relativism seems to eliminate the normative relativist's ability to make prescriptive claims. Which gets me back to the problem with meta-ethical moral relativism, the tenets  of which are violated the minute you open your mouth to disagree with someone. Both these positions sounds like chaos and nonsense to me.)

Now I think the criticism of these positions below is important to understand... Before one adopts this position, one must realize that one is essentially advocating for nihilism. That is fine and good if it really is your position. I just find it hard to believe that someone could watch an atrocity happen in front of their eyes, and do nothing on account of the fact that their philosophical position doesn't allow them to judge that atrocity as good or bad. The moment they interject themselves in this atrocity, they are rejecting their philosophy.

Many critics, including Ibn Warraq and Eddie Tabash, have suggested that meta-ethical relativists essentially take themselves out of any discussion of normative morality, since they seem to be rejecting an assumption of such discussions: the premise that there are right and wrong answers that can be discovered through reason. Practically speaking, such critics will argue that meta-ethical relativism may amount to Moral nihilism, or else incoherence.

These critics argue specifically that the moral relativists reduce the extent of their input in normative moral discussions to either rejecting the very having of the discussion, or else deeming both disagreeing parties to be correct. For instance, the moral relativist can only appeal to personal preference to object to the practice of murder or torture by individuals for hedonistic pleasure. This accusation that relativists reject widely held terms of discourse is similar to arguments used against other "discussion-stoppers" like some forms of solipsism or the rejection of induction.

[RuralEngineer]

2. Meta-ethical moral relativism:
The belief that not only do people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good," "bad," "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all; rather, they are relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people. Given the same set of facts, some societies or individuals will have a fundamental disagreement about what one ought to do (based on societal or individual norms). What's more, they argue that one cannot adjudicate these disagreements using some independent standard of evaluation — the standard will always be societal or personal.

- (I don't think I agree with this....I think that there might be such a thing as "good" and "bad". I'm working outside of logic out the moment. I feel this in my bones. Also the fact that disagreements can't be easily adjudicated seems like a problematic philosophy for a society to realistically live under....back to my baby torturing hypothetical.)

A much better post now that we're discussing the same thing.

Having said that, I'm not interested in discussing normative moral relativism.  I'm not a proponent, I don't feel it needs defending.

So, here you are literally saying that you don't agree with a statement and then go on to support its point.  You "feel" there are such things as good and bad, but you can't support that logically without relying on subjective societal or personal standards.  You agree that different cultures exposed to the same facts arrive at different conclusions and appear to acknowledge the lack of an objective standard to adjudicate those arguments.  This is exactly what meta-ethics is about.  It doesn't deal with action or inaction, simply the acknowledgement that we don't have a basis for determining morality without using subjective reasoning.

If you believe you can provide a logical and reasoned argument for why a particular moral stance (baby torture, murder, whatever) is moral/immoral without using any subjective societal or personal assumptions, I encourage you to do so.

[doodle]

It doesn't deal with action or inaction, simply the acknowledgement that we don't have a basis for determining morality without using subjective reasoning.

The difference between meta-ethical moral relativism and normative moral relativism seems to be that in normative moral you open your mouth and say something. In meta-ethical moral relativism you seem kind of paralyzed.

If you believe you can provide a logical and reasoned argument for why a particular moral stance (baby torture, murder, whatever) is moral/immoral without using any subjective societal or personal assumptions, I encourage you to do so.

I will give this some more thought. According to my brother's later answer, below...we might be approaching this issue incorrectly. Nevertheless, your position seems to subscribe that if a baby is senselessly being tortured and is killed within another cultures household within our country, there is nothing that we can do....because if we act to judge this act as right or wrong we violate the tenets of meta-ethical moral relativism. Do you really subscribe to that belief....I mean realistically?

This from brother (cultural anthropology Phd...still rather young though  )

This discussion of morals reminds me of some material about ethics that we've been discussing in the course that I teach. I think for this purpose, we can equate the terms 'morals' and 'ethics'. One of the major divides in approaches to ethics is between consequentialist and deontological systems of ethics. Consequentialist ethics judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the results (utilitarianism is the best example of such an approach). Deontological ethics judges the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the action's conformity to a code of 'right' action vs. 'wrong' action.

I think that part of the confusion in your conversation is that Moral Relativism (to my mind at least) isn't in the same category of concepts as Consequentialism or Deontology. Rather than an approach to ethics, it is rather the absence of ethics. After all, ethics is a series of tacitly-agreed upon codes about right and wrong thoughts, words and actions. The moment this all becomes 'relative', is the moment when an ethic ceases to exist regarding that particular thought, word or action AT LEAST AT THE LEVEL OF THE SOCIAL UNIT YOU ARE DISCUSSING. For example, there may be an ethic against eating pork within a particular household. This ethic might extend farther into the community of Muslims. However, this ethic ceases to exist at the level of the United States (country).

[RuralEngineer]

Now I think the criticism of these positions below is important to understand... Before one adopts this position, one must realize that one is essentially advocating for nihilism. That is fine and good if it really is your position. I just find it hard to believe that someone could watch an atrocity happen in front of their eyes, and do nothing on account of the fact that their philosophical position doesn't allow them to judge that atrocity as good or bad. The moment they interject themselves in this atrocity, they are rejecting their philosophy.

Many critics, including Ibn Warraq and Eddie Tabash, have suggested that meta-ethical relativists essentially take themselves out of any discussion of normative morality, since they seem to be rejecting an assumption of such discussions: the premise that there are right and wrong answers that can be discovered through reason. Practically speaking, such critics will argue that meta-ethical relativism may amount to Moral nihilism, or else incoherence.

These critics argue specifically that the moral relativists reduce the extent of their input in normative moral discussions to either rejecting the very having of the discussion, or else deeming both disagreeing parties to be correct. For instance, the moral relativist can only appeal to personal preference to object to the practice of murder or torture by individuals for hedonistic pleasure. This accusation that relativists reject widely held terms of discourse is similar to arguments used against other "discussion-stoppers" like some forms of solipsism or the rejection of induction.

I suppose you could stretch moral nihilism into fitting with meta-ethics.

Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived.

However, this has the same effect as the old "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound" question.  We believe it does, but it's unprovable.  Meta-ethics may argue that morality doesn't inherently exist, because that would imply an objective source of morality (the existence of a deity that determines good/bad for example).  As soon as people exist though, morality exists because it is the human interpretation of right and wrong.  One could make the argument that a human raised in isolation may never develop these concepts, but that isn't a situation that isn't particularly meaningful.

Nothing in meta-ethics prevents someone from forming their own opinions and disagreeing with others about morality.  In fact it's a required position of the theory, that everyone has a personal morality.  It also doesn't contain an action component.  I'm free to interject myself in any situation I want and prevent anything I see as an atrocity, should I choose to do so.  I do it, however, with the understanding that my reason for doing so is my personal sense of morality and not an adherence to an objective universal moral code.

The critics mentioned seem to be conflating meta-ethical and normative moral relativism as you have been.  I can participate in a moral discussion and determine my opponent is wrong in his beliefs based solely on my personal experiences and not invoking an objective moral standard.  There's nothing contradictory about that.

[RuralEngineer]

Nevertheless, your position seems to subscribe that if a baby is senselessly being tortured and is killed within another cultures household within our country, there is nothing that we can do....because if we act to judge this act as right or wrong we violate the tenets of meta-ethical moral relativism. Do you really subscribe to that belief....I mean realistically?

I give up.  I've explicitly stated this is not the case multiple times.  At this point it's not worth debating because I can't seem to get you to even understand my position so we could debate whether or not you agree about it.

Best of luck and no, your brother is in the same confused boat as you.

[doodle]

I'm sorry RuralE,

There are ALOT of critics out there that seem to disagree with your particular philosophy...which seems to be meta-ethical relativism under certain circumstances....until it no longer applies. I'm not sure really what that means. These are not easy topics for sure, but our interpretations and answers to questions like the one that started this thread are based on particular world views or philosophies that we have. All we are trying to do is analyze and define these world views / philosophies in a logical way.

The best approach to discussion (although I struggle with it greatly) is to entirely remove yourself from the argument. In other words, you remove your ego from the process. The minute you discuss something from the perspective of trying to validate something for Egoic reasons, you lose objectivity and it gets frustrating. I know! I have lost my temper many times in this thread and have to keep reminding myself of this again and again.

My brother is a cultural anthropologist at one of the top universities in the Southeast.  He just spent the last 3 years living among indigenous South Pacific Islanders and studying their particular cultural practices. He spends his days teaching this stuff. He seems to to think your position a bit nonsensical. I myself am trying my best to understand it because MediumTex seems to ascribe to this "moral relativism" as well and so I'm wondering if it is a particular belief system that undergirds libertarianism. In all honesty I don't see how this philosophy is put into practice without violating its own tenets. In addition it sounds a bit nihilistic to me, which I find pretty dark.

I'm going to look into what Chomsky says regarding this "relativism" as he is a libertarian (although his definition of that word might differ from yours) I know that he is opposed generally to any sort of interference and meddling in international affairs and seems to prefer a hands off foreign policy. I assume he might share this same philosophical view...or something close to it?

[RuralEngineer]

It's not ego.  I'm not frustrated that you don't agree with me.  I think the vast majority of people probably do believe in an objective moral authority, likely from a religious source.  Having a minority position doesn't bother me at all.  I'm frustrated because you (and apparently your brother) are incapable of comprehending my position.  That's why you keep making assertions as to my theoretical behavior that simply aren't true.

[doodle]

On a funny note, I've got to run to a rules committee meeting for HOA to decide on a problematic tenet at this moment. I wonder what philosophical principles I should apply to this situation. I think the guy who is causing all the infractions that haven't allowed his next door neighbor to sleep in over month is going to push for the "meta-ethical moral relativistic approach! LOL

[MediumTex]

doodle,

I have a moral code that I believe to be true and I believe that anyone who adopted it would have a happier life as a result.

Those are my beliefs and they inform what I do.

However, I have no illusions about anyone else subscribing to my moral code just because I decided to pronounce that it was a universal moral code.

Given the fact that each human being is filtering reality in his own idiosyncratic way, I must respect these differences in perception, including differences in attitudes toward what is right and what is wrong.  The alternative is becoming delusional about my own beliefs and imagining that I have tapped into something that is binding on everyone.

When faced with a baby being tortured, I would certainly take any action I could to prevent it, but it wouldn't be because I felt that I was a representative of a superior morality, because that belief would be irrelevant to anyone but me who didn't share that set of beliefs.

To me, recognizing that everyone is in a slightly different place when it comes to these things allows me to more effectively persuade someone that my point of view is correct, not because of any objective basis, but simply because they find my reasoning for arriving at that point of view persuasive.

Imagine if you went into a car dealership and asked the salesman why you should buy the car he was selling and he said: "Well, you're free to buy any car you want, but if you don't buy mine prior to the day you die you will spend eternity in hellish agony."  If I was presented with this pitch I might ask the salesman if he could maybe just go over some of the features with me rather than trying to convince me that his cars represented some kind of absolute standard of correct automobiles.

It's not that I am trying to create a rationale for an "anything goes" morality.  It's actually just the opposite--I find that a really useful moral code is something that guides your actions toward better outcomes as a result of a deeper understanding of your own beliefs.

Harry Browne put it like this: Morality should not be what you do regardless of the consequences; rather, morality should be what you do because of the consequences.  If an action gives you bad consequences, what is the point of doing it?  If an action gives you good consequences, then why wouldn't you do it?  It's building a code around these simple cause and effect relationships that adds up to a system of morality that is actually useful.

[MachineGhost]

In a cold, uncaring, violent universe where death and consumption is commonplace, how the hell can morality NOT be relative?