|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "The Heresy of Modernism"
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Well, I was thinking more that... honestly, look, doesn't every era have its own characteristic vices and also virtues? Vices perhaps that are so endemic we have to make extra sure not to fall into them, but also we need to embrace the virtues at hand? That's what I meant about wheat and chaff.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Originally posted by Dafyd: quote:
One might say that the archetypically relativist position is, those fundamentalist Taliban over there can't be convinced using reason (relativism), therefore we have to bomb them until they are no longer a threat.
One might say that, but one would be seriously fucked up if one did.
If someone is a normative relativist, surely they are required to tolerate the behaviour of others since there is no absolute sense of right, wrong, good or bad.
Are you saying that normative relativists are absolutely required to tolerate the behaviour of others?
A relativist cannot believe intolerance is absolutely wrong. A consistent relativist therefore cannot believe relativism requires tolerance, since if relativism requires tolerance then the position-independent normative truth of 'tolerance is required' would follow from the position-independent truth of relativism, and a relativist believes there are no position-independent normative truths.
A relativist could be a pacifist. A relativist could be a nationalist. A relativist could believe that different civilizations or ideologies are locked in a life-and-death struggle for the survival of their culture and values, and that therefore all is fair in a struggle for survival.
Given what people have done in the name of nationalism and patriotism, the latter seems more likely.
quote:
From a moral perspective, there are no grounds for action against the Taliban. Indeed, the commonest complaint against relativistic morals is that they allow perceived evil to go about its business unchallenged.
The reason that's the commonest complaint is that most people who are against 'relativistic morals' are using 'relativistic' as a boo-word. And contrariwise, people who are for it are using it to mean 'warmy fuzzy liberal feelings'. Most people who talk about relativism don't think of something like nationalism (where right and wrong are relative to which nation you belong to).
Relativism is not nihilism. A relativist believes there are moral grounds for action which are true for the relativist. Relativism is simply the belief that normativity is not grounded in anything that is universally applicable to all human beings.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So, what's wrong with all of the above is that it leads to Cameron and Osborne stamping on a human face forever.
Anyone who trivializes totalitarianism by applying an Orwell quote about it to domestic party politics in a liberal democracy either knows nothing about totalitarianism, or else is a graduate from a course in Marxism-Leninism 101 in East Germany in the 1950s which taught that capitalism=fascism.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
![[Confused]](confused.gif) What's FUD? ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) surely not Elmer?
Spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt, an ancient disinformation tactic which was given this catchy modern name thanks to IBM and then Microsoft using it consciously to push competitors out of the market.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
(Note that I said direction, not that it's like that at this point.)
Yes, yes, important distinction.
So how long do you give it, then, until the US is indistinguishable from Nineteen Eighty-Four?
When's the "point"?
Six months? A year? Two years?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Let's see: hedonism is the belief that there are no goods beyond desire-satisfaction. Utilitarianism is the belief that all desires are qualitatively identical - the only essential difference between enjoying reading poetry or a novel, enjoying seeing the Taj Mahal, and enjoying eating chocolate is which one gives you more enjoyment.
Fine so far.
quote:
This is effectively the claim that money can serve as an effective measure of desire.
That's where you lose me. If the only essential difference between watching a sunset and eating chocolate is the amount of enjoyment they give to the individual, then why does money factor into it? For that matter, why does any independent "measure of desire" feature at all?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So, what's wrong with all of the above is that it leads to Cameron and Osborne stamping on a human face forever.
Anyone who trivializes totalitarianism by applying an Orwell quote about it to domestic party politics in a liberal democracy either knows nothing about totalitarianism, or else is a graduate from a course in Marxism-Leninism 101 in East Germany in the 1950s which taught that capitalism=fascism.
Only if they're left-wing. It's alright for someone like you to invoke Stalin while criticising left-wing politicians, or even centre-left politicians; or for you to compare criticism of right-wing politicians to government propaganda from 1950s East Germany.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
This is effectively the claim that money can serve as an effective measure of desire.
That's where you lose me. If the only essential difference between watching a sunset and eating chocolate is the amount of enjoyment they give to the individual, then why does money factor into it? For that matter, why does any independent "measure of desire" feature at all?
1. Ok - the only essential difference between one and the other is that the one desire is stronger or gives you more of the same satisfaction or utility.
2. If the only difference in desires is strength it could be possible to quantify the strength. (This is crucial for utilitarian ethics: the ethical thing to do is that which maximises the utility created - that obviously requires that you're able to add together the strength of different desires.)
3. The stronger a desire the more you're willing to pay for it. (Seems reasonable. If you're willing to pay more for pork sausages than you are for vegetarian sausages then you must want pork sausages more.)
4. The amount you're willing to pay for something is a direct measure of how much you desire it. (From the fact that prices operate according to linear arithmetic. If you pass up the pork sausages for cheaper vegetarian sausages and spend the extra money, or time, driving out to watch the sunset, you must value vegetarian sausages and sunset more than you value pork sausages.)
Does that spell out the reasoning a bit more clearly?
[ 17. July 2014, 11:34: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
1. Ok - the only essential difference between one and the other is that the one desire is stronger or gives you more of the same satisfaction or utility.
Yes.
quote:
2. If the only difference in desires is strength it could be possible to quantify the strength. (This is crucial for utilitarian ethics: the ethical thing to do is that which maximises the utility created - that obviously requires that you're able to add together the strength of different desires.)
But it's only possible to quantify the strength at the level of the individual. Just because one person highly rates something doesn't mean everyone will.
quote:
3. The stronger a desire the more you're willing to pay for it. (Seems reasonable. If you're willing to pay more for pork sausages than you are for vegetarian sausages then you must want pork sausages more.)
Yes, but again only at the level of the individual. You can't extrapolate from that that certain things are objectively more valuable than others.
quote:
4. The amount you're willing to pay for something is a direct measure of how much you desire it. (From the fact that prices operate according to linear arithmetic. If you pass up the pork sausages for cheaper vegetarian sausages and spend the extra money, or time, driving out to watch the sunset, you must value vegetarian sausages and sunset more than you value pork sausages.)
True, but only because you've added in "drive out to see" as a key part of "sunset". Not everything is amenable to economic valuation, and sunsets can be enjoyed without spendign a penny.
quote:
Does that spell out the reasoning a bit more clearly?
In a way, but it also reveals your presuppositions. Not least that everything we enjoy has to be paid for.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: Not least that everything we enjoy has to be paid for.
The way I see things moving, I fear that this will become more and more true in the future.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
2. If the only difference in desires is strength it could be possible to quantify the strength. (This is crucial for utilitarian ethics: the ethical thing to do is that which maximises the utility created - that obviously requires that you're able to add together the strength of different desires.)
But it's only possible to quantify the strength at the level of the individual. Just because one person highly rates something doesn't mean everyone will.
Of course. Why do you think that is an objection?
quote:
quote:
3. The stronger a desire the more you're willing to pay for it. (Seems reasonable. If you're willing to pay more for pork sausages than you are for vegetarian sausages then you must want pork sausages more.)
Yes, but again only at the level of the individual. You can't extrapolate from that that certain things are objectively more valuable than others.
Again - of course. That is the whole bloody point. We are presupposing positivism: and positivism denies that there is any objective value beyond what people are willing to pay for things. That's the point of free market economics. You can't say that potatoes are objectively worth such and such. You can't say Tesco are paying too little to the farmer if the prices are so low that the farmer can't make a profit, as long as the farmer has no other way to make a living; you can't say Tesco are charging too much as long as enough people buy the potatoes for Tesco to make a profit. That is the point. There is no room here for objective value beyond what people actually charge and what people actually pay.
quote:
quote:
4. The amount you're willing to pay for something is a direct measure of how much you desire it. (From the fact that prices operate according to linear arithmetic. If you pass up the pork sausages for cheaper vegetarian sausages and spend the extra money, or time, driving out to watch the sunset, you must value vegetarian sausages and sunset more than you value pork sausages.)
True, but only because you've added in "drive out to see" as a key part of "sunset". Not everything is amenable to economic valuation, and sunsets can be enjoyed without spendign a penny.
On a positivist utilitarian framework, the reason that sunsets can be enjoyed without spending a penny is supply-side rather than demand-side. When a sunset comes along, the supply heavily outweighs demand to the point that the price is pushed down to zero. However, one can still, in this framework, measure the desire to see a sunset by considering what other activities one forgoes in order to do so.
quote:
quote:
Does that spell out the reasoning a bit more clearly?
In a way, but it also reveals your presuppositions. Not least that everything we enjoy has to be paid for.
They're not my presuppositions. I am neither a utilitarian nor a positivist nor a hedonist. They are however the presuppositions of the theory of free market capitalism. According to neoclassical economists, if you excluded government interference by planning departments, the value of a sunset would be set at the premium you get on apartments and houses that are high enough to see enough of the western sky.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
We are presupposing positivism: and positivism denies that there is any objective value beyond what people are willing to pay for things.
See, I was thinking that it denies any objective value at all.
quote:
On a positivist utilitarian framework, the reason that sunsets can be enjoyed without spending a penny is supply-side rather than demand-side. When a sunset comes along, the supply heavily outweighs demand to the point that the price is pushed down to zero.
That's nonsense, because it assumes that if sunsets were rare we'd have to pay to enjoy them. That can be disproved merely by pointing to solar eclipses - they are extremely rare, and yet when one comes along it costs absolutely nothing to enjoy the spectacle.
Where price comes in to the equation here is purely and simply when one's desire to enjoy an activity requires someone else to provide or facilitate that activity. Of course, that person may well choose to give their effort for nothing on the grounds that they themselves enjoy doing it (or are otherwise motivated) - as seen in the many activities that are provided solely by volunteers at no cost to the user. But when they would not freely choose to do so, they must be compensated to a sufficient degree that they will choose to provide the activity that gives you enjoyment in return.
But - and this is a key point - the cost of their facilitation of your enjoyment is not directly related to the level of enjoyment you gain from doing the activity, or indeed to the activity itself. It is rather a measure of their willingness to facilitate it in the first place.
[ 17. July 2014, 13:45: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
We are presupposing positivism: and positivism denies that there is any objective value beyond what people are willing to pay for things.
See, I was thinking that it denies any objective value at all.
Beyond in the sense of 'underlying', not in the sense of 'other than'. I agree that positivism denies any objective value. Although positivism does say that what people are willing to pay for something is an objective fact.
quote:
quote:
On a positivist utilitarian framework, the reason that sunsets can be enjoyed without spending a penny is supply-side rather than demand-side. When a sunset comes along, the supply heavily outweighs demand to the point that the price is pushed down to zero.
That's nonsense, because it assumes that if sunsets were rare we'd have to pay to enjoy them. That can be disproved merely by pointing to solar eclipses - they are extremely rare, and yet when one comes along it costs absolutely nothing to enjoy the spectacle.
When one comes along everyone who wants to see one can do so.
quote:
Where price comes in to the equation here is purely and simply when one's desire to enjoy an activity requires someone else to provide or facilitate that activity.
At a first approximation. At a second approximation, one has to factor in opportunity cost (I can't watch a sunset if I want to earn money indoors at the relevant time). In addition, other people's ability to restrict my access to a good increases the price. If somebody buys a plot of land with a waterfall on it, and charges money to see that waterfall, then I have to pay to see even though I don't need that person to provide the waterfall.
quote:
Of course, that person may well choose to give their effort for nothing on the grounds that they themselves enjoy doing it (or are otherwise motivated) - as seen in the many activities that are provided solely by volunteers at no cost to the user.
A utilitarian has to suppose that volunteering is giving them a measurable amount of enjoyment. The volunteer could have spent their time earning money at some other activity. So the enjoyment they get from the activity is equal to or greater than whatever they could have spent the money they could have otherwise earned on.
But arguably volunteering is a behaviour that doesn't really fit into free market capitalist theory.
quote:
But when they would not freely choose to do so, they must be compensated to a sufficient degree that they will choose to provide the activity that gives you enjoyment in return.
But - and this is a key point - the cost of their facilitation of your enjoyment is not directly related to the level of enjoyment you gain from doing the activity, or indeed to the activity itself. It is rather a measure of their willingness to facilitate it in the first place.
The cost of their facilitation is affected by demand as well as by supply. You charge for your services not what you're willing to charge but what the market will bear. If demand outstrips supply you can charge more for your services. If supply outstrips demand then people have to charge less than they'd like to receive, or find some other line of work. That is why street sweepers get paid less money than professional footballers, even though I'm sure most people would be more willing to be a professional footballer.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: That can be disproved merely by pointing to solar eclipses - they are extremely rare, and yet when one comes along it costs absolutely nothing to enjoy the spectacle.
Eclipses are rare in the sense that they don't happen often. They aren't rare in the sense that only a few people can have them. It's the latter meaning of rarity that matters for economics.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Are you saying that normative relativists are absolutely required to tolerate the behaviour of others?
Nope. I'm saying they have a serious problem when it comes to deciding whether to do do stuff like tolerating or not tolerating. When I said "...advocating actually doing anything at all from that position requires wriggling up ones own fundament at least a couple of times" it was for precisely the reasons you lay out here:
quote:
A relativist cannot believe intolerance is absolutely wrong. A consistent relativist therefore cannot believe relativism requires tolerance, since if relativism requires tolerance then the position-independent normative truth of 'tolerance is required' would follow from the position-independent truth of relativism, and a relativist believes there are no position-independent normative truths.
quote:
A relativist could be a pacifist. A relativist could be a nationalist. A relativist could believe that different civilizations or ideologies are locked in a life-and-death struggle for the survival of their culture and values, and that therefore all is fair in a struggle for survival.
Given what people have done in the name of nationalism and patriotism, the latter seems more likely
This is just muddled. Someone might see that different civilizations or ideologies are locked in a life-and-death struggle for the survival of their culture and values and there is nothing to choose between them because relativism. They might believe relativism is a component of an adequate description of the world. But normatively speaking, a relativist can't find any justification in getting involved in the struggle without making some compromises or without ignoring the moral dimension completely. Nationalism and patriotism require a belief that one's own in-group is superior to those foreign bastards which an out and out relativist can't have without considerable cognitive dissonance.
Your Taliban bombing archetype is way off. The archetype is nearer to the hand wringing helplessness of the wimpy liberal who can't decide how to react to honour killing.
[ 17. July 2014, 22:16: Message edited by: Grokesx ]
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
So how long do you give it, then, until the US is indistinguishable from Nineteen Eighty-Four?
I don't think there's a timetable for it. And happily, I don't think Orwell's depiction of absolute universal mind control are quite possible in the real world either.
Re the main thrust of the thread... I haven't seen anything clear enough about "modernism" (as a monolithic philosophy) to be refutable or supportable here. I really think it's better to argue against, say, positivism and the like.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So, what's wrong with all of the above is that it leads to Cameron and Osborne stamping on a human face forever.
Anyone who trivializes totalitarianism by applying an Orwell quote about it to domestic party politics in a liberal democracy either knows nothing about totalitarianism, or else is a graduate from a course in Marxism-Leninism 101 in East Germany in the 1950s which taught that capitalism=fascism.
So the correct punishment for someone who writes a hyperbolic sentence that "trivializes totalitarianism" is ... to be compared to a communist apparatchik?
Hmmm...
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So, what's wrong with all of the above is that it leads to Cameron and Osborne stamping on a human face forever.
Anyone who trivializes totalitarianism by applying an Orwell quote about it to domestic party politics in a liberal democracy either knows nothing about totalitarianism, or else is a graduate from a course in Marxism-Leninism 101 in East Germany in the 1950s which taught that capitalism=fascism.
Only if they're left-wing. It's alright for someone like you to invoke Stalin while criticising left-wing politicians, or even centre-left politicians; or for you to compare criticism of right-wing politicians to government propaganda from 1950s East Germany.
The point is that you made the comment in the context of criticizing capitalism and the Conservative Party.
It would be just as silly and melodramatic for someone to invoke Orwell and the spectre of 1984 while criticizing equally mainstream elements such as the welfare state and the Labour Party.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The point is that you made the comment in the context of criticizing capitalism and the Conservative Party.
It would be just as silly and melodramatic for someone to invoke Orwell and the spectre of 1984 while criticizing equally mainstream elements such as the welfare state and the Labour Party.
Do you remember the first argument we had on this site? Do you remember what you did in it?
I do.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
A relativist could be a pacifist. A relativist could be a nationalist. A relativist could believe that different civilizations or ideologies are locked in a life-and-death struggle for the survival of their culture and values, and that therefore all is fair in a struggle for survival.
Given what people have done in the name of nationalism and patriotism, the latter seems more likely
This is just muddled. Someone might see that different civilizations or ideologies are locked in a life-and-death struggle for the survival of their culture and values and there is nothing to choose between them because relativism. They might believe relativism is a component of an adequate description of the world.
Nihilist: there are no normative truths.
Relativist: there are normative truths that hold for some people (relative to culture or that person's private moral commitments or that persons' family), but no normative truths that hold universally.
Universalist: there are normative truths that hold universally.
So a relativist believes that there are moral statements that are true for the relativist and people like the relativist. So, a relativist nationalist thinks, 'the English, the English, the English are best,' is true for the English. It's not true for the Germans. But if the relativist is English then the relativist thinks 'the English are best' is true for the relativist. The English relativist would agree that 'the Germans are best' is true for a German relativist. But that's irrelevant to an English relativist.
Relativists agree that there is nothing to choose between them for somebody who belongs to no country whatever. But as nobody belongs to no country, that does not matter.
(Contrast Einstein's relativity. Distance and time and matter are relative to the frame of reference the speaker is in. But that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as distance and time and matter. It just means that there are no truths about time and matter that are independent of frame of reference.)
quote:
But normatively speaking, a relativist can't find any justification in getting involved in the struggle without making some compromises or without ignoring the moral dimension completely.
Now, this is muddled.
"Normatively speaking" - from which point of view? The relativist's culture, or absolutely? It must be relativist's culture, since a relativist cannot speak normatively from an absolute point of view.
"Can't find any justification" - from which point of view? The relativist's culture, or absolutely? The relativist's culture gives plenty of justification, so this must be from the absolute point of view. But no justification is required from the absolute point of view.
"Without making some compromises" - from which point of view? From the absolute point of view, there's nothing to compromise. From the relativists' culture point of view no compromises are made.
"ignoring the moral dimension completely" - this must be from the point of view of the relativist's culture. From the absolute point of view, there is no moral dimension to ignore. But the moral dimension of the relativist's culture says it's the duty of the relativist to get involved in the struggle.
quote:
Nationalism and patriotism require a belief that one's own in-group is superior to those foreign bastards which an out and out relativist can't have without considerable cognitive dissonance.
Not true. An out-and-out relativist believes '"my own in-group is superior" is true for the members of my own in-group', and not true for members of other in-groups. Since the relativist is a member of their own in-group, they believe it's true for them.
[ 18. July 2014, 13:15: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
So a relativist believes that there are moral statements that are true for the relativist and people like the relativist. So, a relativist nationalist thinks, 'the English, the English, the English are best,' is true for the English. It's not true for the Germans. But if the relativist is English then the relativist thinks 'the English are best' is true for the relativist. The English relativist would agree that 'the Germans are best' is true for a German relativist. But that's irrelevant to an English relativist.
But relativists have to accept that there is nothing to choose between the English and the Germans. They needs the ability, at least in the safety of their armchair to accept that when they say the "English are best" they are making no sense, since to them, good, bad, better or worse have no meaning in the context of inter-cultural relations. If they have some ethical or moral disagreement with the Germans, they must accept that there is no way to adjudicate it that applies to both parties.
In practice, given all this the tortured logical bollocks, the upshot is that normative relativists tend to think we should tolerate the bad behaviour of other cultures rather than bomb the fuck out of them.
quote:
Not true. An out-and-out relativist believes '"my own in-group is superior" is true for the members of my own in-group',
Again, no they don't, since they deny the very idea of moral superiority.
We could go on forever without getting anywhere. Partly because there has been no culture ever consisting solely of relativists, and it is a rare relativist indeed that is relativist about everything.
And, there is only one thing to be said for moral relativism, and that is it is probably preferable to have a bunch of civilisations living side by side who by and large think the others are deserving of being left in peace, rather than a bunch who think the others are all moral reprobates who need a good dose of bombing simply because they have a different way of life and a different flag.
[ 18. July 2014, 23:36: Message edited by: Grokesx ]
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I'm not sure I've ever met an actual relativist over the age of 18--at least as defined by the anti-relativist crowd, who seem to me to be frantically attacking straw men with pitchforks and torches. But most of what I might have to say about that has been said better by Clifford Geertz in his excellent essay "Anti-Anti-Relativism" which, amazingly, is available for free online as a pdf.
Returning to the matter of the OP, I do think there is a central organizing principle to "modernism," which is pretty clearly signified in the term itself, whether used in the laudatory or condemnatory senses: it's the idea of progress. That is, the belief that human understanding naturally changes over time, and that this is a good thing, leading to greater knowledge, technical skill, and prosperity, but also to superior moral insight, more refined manners, more sophisticated and sublime art, etc. Positivism and all the other facets of modernism seem to me to be subordinate to this (or means to that end). Post-modernism continues the idea of the necessity of change, but not the idea that it necessarily involves things getting better--they're just different.
The contrary tendency, what we might call traditionalism, whether Christian, Confucian, or whatever ("anti-modernism" casts it in wholly reactionary terms, and though that is indeed a large part of it it's not the whole thing), tends to see changes in understanding as decline from a Golden Age in which eternal truths were universally recognized as such (and children respected and obeyed their parents, the trains ran on time, and you could get a decent cup of coffee for two bits).
Traditionalists have, since the 16th century, grudgingly--and it was grudgingly, in large part--acknowledged the idea of progress in science and technology (with some last-ditch resistance in areas that seem to directly implicate human nature or religion and morality, such as evolution and scientific understandings of gender and sexuality).
The idea of modernism as heresy seems to arise from horror at the idea that one can have progress in spiritual understanding, or in moral thinking and behavior (beyond a firmer adherence to received truths). The modernist Christian would say that we (the Church) can grow into a broader and deeper understanding of God, while the traditionalist would insist that this is at best an illusion and that all we can do (or should try to do) is to preserve what has been handed down. This has implications for different conceptions of authority (modernism is implicitly democratic while traditionalism is implicitly monarchical) and epistemology (empiricist vs. rationalist).
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I don't! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) His name makes me think of Al Stewart's song "The Ghost of Charlotte Corday" from his excellent Famous Last Words album, though. If you hear a step upon the stair tonight...
Paisano!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Timothy the Obscure wrote:
Returning to the matter of the OP, I do think there is a central organizing principle to "modernism," which is pretty clearly signified in the term itself, whether used in the laudatory or condemnatory senses: it's the idea of progress. That is, the belief that human understanding naturally changes over time, and that this is a good thing, leading to greater knowledge, technical skill, and prosperity, but also to superior moral insight, more refined manners, more sophisticated and sublime art, etc. Positivism and all the other facets of modernism seem to me to be subordinate to this (or means to that end). Post-modernism continues the idea of the necessity of change, but not the idea that it necessarily involves things getting better--they're just different.
This idea of progress seems quite common among Gnu atheists, and I suppose they envisage the fading away of religion as a sign of human progress!
Good post, by the way. It's striking how many postmodern thinkers have got interested in Christianity again, for example, Gianni Vattimo, Derrida, and Zizek, although the latter seems quite abusive about postmodernism and relativism, and states, 'today we believe more than ever'. But Zizek's real target is 'hyper-capitalism'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
I'm not sure I've ever met an actual relativist over the age of 18--at least as defined by the anti-relativist crowd, who seem to me to be frantically attacking straw men with pitchforks and torches. But most of what I might have to say about that has been said better by Clifford Geertz in his excellent essay "Anti-Anti-Relativism" which, amazingly, is available for free online as a pdf.
Thank you for the link - very interesting. I'm pretty sure out and out relativists don't really exist either and not only because of the logical knots it entails. More that our actual behaviour is hardly influenced at all by proclaimed adherence to a particular ethical stance. But Dafyd's idea of the archetype relativist position was sufficiently strange to warrant comment.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I was just thinking that people are not at all consistent. They may proclaim some kind of relativist position in one area, and then contradict it in another or at another time. I suppose that many people exhibit a patchwork of relativist and absolutist views. If you want consistency, Angel Delight is your best bet.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
TtO, what a superb article. Damn why have I come to all this 40 years too late? Ah well, everything is redeemed. Not just everyone. No relativism there!
I wonder what absolute truths we are the worse for being invincibly ignorant of? Heterosexual marriage for life except if the marriage was bogus in the first place as revealed by some change in a partner years down the line apart from being a lying, whoring, treacherous, feckless, gambling, drinking, child and spouse abusing bastard? Bread and wine are and are not the body and blood of Jesus? Jesus' Mum was conceived without something called original sin? Quo Vadis isn't a self-serving patriarchal, placist myth? Or that we are not Orthodox even if everything we believe is which it can't be because we're not Orthodox?
I think I'll change my sig at the next amnesty to The Happy Heretic.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
, I do think there is a central organizing principle to "modernism," which is pretty clearly signified in the term itself, whether used in the laudatory or condemnatory senses: it's the idea of progress. That is, the belief that human understanding naturally changes over time, and that this is a good thing, leading to greater knowledge, technical skill, and prosperity, but also to superior moral insight...
...Post-modernism continues the idea of the necessity of change, but not the idea that it necessarily involves things getting better--they're just different.
The contrary tendency, what we might call traditionalism, whether Christian, Confucian, or whatever ("anti-modernism" casts it in wholly reactionary terms, and though that is indeed a large part of it it's not the whole thing), tends to see changes in understanding as decline...
...The idea of modernism as heresy seems to arise from horror at the idea that one can have progress in spiritual understanding, or in moral thinking and behavior (beyond a firmer adherence to received truths).
This seems to approach the essence of it. Three ways of looking at the history of the church:
Traditionalist / authoritarian-conservative = the Church declared that transubstantiation (to take a random example) is the answer, and therefore it is the answer that we must believe and pass on to the next generation.
Modernist / progressive = the Church declared that transubstantiation is the answer, but philosophy has moved on since then and now we know better
Postmodern / relativist = the Church declared that transubstantiation is the answer, but that was in another time and culture; here and now our culture takes a different view which is an equally-valid way of looking at it.
And the thing is that all three models or approaches have something to be said for them. Most people will have experienced areas of life (connected with science and technology) where there has been real advance, real progress. And areas of life (connected with foreign travel) where they have experienced a different culture that is overall neither better nor worse but just different. And areas of life (connected with personal relationships or achievement) where something good has been gained or won, that needs to be defended or upheld against subsequent mood swings or doubts.
None of the three is adequate as a Rule of Life - the whole person uses all three modes as appropriate.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
So a relativist believes that there are moral statements that are true for the relativist and people like the relativist. So, a relativist nationalist thinks, 'the English, the English, the English are best,' is true for the English. It's not true for the Germans. But if the relativist is English then the relativist thinks 'the English are best' is true for the relativist. The English relativist would agree that 'the Germans are best' is true for a German relativist. But that's irrelevant to an English relativist.
But relativists have to accept that there is nothing to choose between the English and the Germans. They needs the ability, at least in the safety of their armchair to accept that when they say the "English are best" they are making no sense, since to them, good, bad, better or worse have no meaning in the context of inter-cultural relations. If they have some ethical or moral disagreement with the Germans, they must accept that there is no way to adjudicate it that applies to both parties.
This isn't true. They have two ways to adjudicate it - a German way, and an English way. It is true that they have no way that both parties will accept. But the idea that you don't have any way to adjudicate the dispute unless both parties accept that way of adjudicating it depends on universalist premises. A relativist does not believe in universalist premises.(*)
The fact that the Germans accept a different standard from the English does not mean that moral judgements relative to the English standard are false for the English. Any judgement made according to the English standard is true for the English. This is irrespective of whether that judgement includes people who don't accept that standard. (A rapist may not agree with our moral standards about consent, but that doesn't stop us imposing our moral standards on them if we get the chance.) If 'The English are better than the Germans' is true by the English standard, then it is true for the English, even if the Germans don't accept the standard and therefore it isn't true for the Germans.
quote:
In practice, given all this the tortured logical bollocks, the upshot is that normative relativists tend to think we should tolerate the bad behaviour of other cultures rather than bomb the fuck out of them.
(Better tortured logical bollocks than illogical bollocks.)
If they think we ought not to bomb the fuck out of other cultures, because there is no way to judge between cultures, then they're not relativists. If they think they can argue the case for that, then they accept at least one moral universal (i.e. tolerate other cultures and don't bomb the fuck out of them), and therefore they are not a relativist.
(A relativist can certainly think that we ought not to bomb the fuck out of other cultures because our culture thinks we ought not to. But our culture seems generally to think there are circumstances under which it is alright.)
A relativist believes eating children is wrong for a person if and only if that person's culture believes eating people is wrong.
A relativist believes incest is wrong for a person if and only if that person's culture believes incest is wrong.
A relativist believes bombing the fuck out of other cultures is wrong for a person if and only if that person's culture believes bombing the fuck out of other cultures is wrong.
quote:
quote:
Not true. An out-and-out relativist believes '"my own in-group is superior" is true for the members of my own in-group',
Again, no they don't, since they deny the very idea of moral superiority.
Wrong. They deny the very idea of culture-independent or absolute moral superiority. They deny moral superiority as it is understood by moral universalists. But they're perfectly happy to say that judgements of moral superiority by the standards of a particular culture are true for members of that particular culture. The whole point of being a relativist, rather than a nihilist, is that you don't think the inability to make universal moral judgements stops you from making any moral judgements.
quote:
And, there is only one thing to be said for moral relativism, and that is it is probably preferable to have a bunch of civilisations living side by side who by and large think the others are deserving of being left in peace, rather than a bunch who think the others are all moral reprobates who need a good dose of bombing simply because they have a different way of life and a different flag.
If moral relativists cannot think they have any grounds for judging that another culture deserves to be bombed, they equally cannot have any grounds for judging that another culture deserves to live in peace. "That culture deserves to live in peace" is just as much a moral judgement on the other culture as "that culture deserves not to live in peace".
Either the whole range of moral judgements are possible, or none are.
(*) Definition: a moral relativist believes that moral judgements are true or false relative to some standard (they aren't nihilists) but that the standard can be different from person to person (they aren't universalists).
For simplicitly, this discussion assumes that the standard is the person's culture or country.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
And the thing is that all three models or approaches have something to be said for them. Most people will have experienced areas of life (connected with science and technology) where there has been real advance, real progress. And areas of life (connected with foreign travel) where they have experienced a different culture that is overall neither better nor worse but just different. And areas of life (connected with personal relationships or achievement) where something good has been gained or won, that needs to be defended or upheld against subsequent mood swings or doubts.
None of the three is adequate as a Rule of Life - the whole person uses all three modes as appropriate.
That... makes sense to me.
Indeed, perhaps any one -ism of that type is, arguably, an especially "modern" kind of thing--in a sense, for example, Fundamentalism (of various kinds, Christian, Muslim, etc.) is itself kind of a modern phenomenon, and often an overreaction to contemporary things the people don't like.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I don't! His name makes me think of Al Stewart's song "The Ghost of Charlotte Corday" from his excellent Famous Last Words album, though. If you hear a step upon the stair tonight...
My Ship name is a tribute to two public-spirited women: Charlotte Corday, who stabbed Marat in his bath (don't know whether Al Stewart's song is about her), and Fanny Kaplan, who was imprisoned and flogged by the Romanovs, and executed by the Bolsheviks for trying to assassinate Lenin.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I don't! His name makes me think of Al Stewart's song "The Ghost of Charlotte Corday" from his excellent Famous Last Words album, though. If you hear a step upon the stair tonight...
My Ship name is a tribute to two public-spirited women: Charlotte Corday, who stabbed Marat in his bath (don't know whether Al Stewart's song is about her), and Fanny Kaplan, who was imprisoned and flogged by the Romanovs, and executed by the Bolsheviks for trying to assassinate Lenin.
If you ever want a middle name consider Violet Gibson who shot Mussolini and is buried a few hundred yards from where I write.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
In practice, given all this the tortured logical bollocks, the upshot is that normative relativists tend to think we should tolerate the bad behaviour of other cultures rather than bomb the fuck out of them.
(Better tortured logical bollocks than illogical bollocks.)
If they think we ought not to bomb the fuck out of other cultures, because there is no way to judge between cultures, then they're not relativists. If they think they can argue the case for that, then they accept at least one moral universal (i.e. tolerate other cultures and don't bomb the fuck out of them), and therefore they are not a relativist.
(A relativist can certainly think that we ought not to bomb the fuck out of other cultures because our culture thinks we ought not to. But our culture seems generally to think there are circumstances under which it is permissible
The difficulty for the relativist is that our culture says it's wrong to attack people unless you thereby prevent them doing something that's objectively evil. Something that you happen to dislike doesn't count.
War to save peaceful neighbouring state from being invaded (for example) is OK. War to protect the profits of US companies (for example) is not-OK. So says Western culture (*)
So the belief that there is no such distinction - that all morality is culture - implies the logically contradictory belief that our culture has got it wrong...
What one can believe without contradiction is that human nature is such that we tend to be biased in our judgments - too quick to assign things that belong in the "culturally disapproved" category to the "objectively evil" category.
But Western philosophy seems so full of these extreme positions ("everything is relative") when a truer statement would be something more like "lots of things turn out to be pretty much relative quite a lot of the time".
Best wishes,
Russ
* - I know that not everyone in every recent US government would agree. That's why there's a thread of anti-USgovt feeling in contemporary Western culture...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I don't! His name makes me think of Al Stewart's song "The Ghost of Charlotte Corday" from his excellent Famous Last Words album, though. If you hear a step upon the stair tonight...
My Ship name is a tribute to two public-spirited women: Charlotte Corday, who stabbed Marat in his bath (don't know whether Al Stewart's song is about her), and Fanny Kaplan, who was imprisoned and flogged by the Romanovs, and executed by the Bolsheviks for trying to assassinate Lenin.
If you ever want a middle name consider Violet Gibson who shot Mussolini and is buried a few hundred yards from where I write.
Next time there is a Hosts and Admins day can I respectfully petition the Powers That Be to rename him Harmodius Aristogeiton.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
But Dafyd's idea of the archetype relativist position was sufficiently strange to warrant comment.
The reason it's strange is that 'relativist' is used as a boo-word by conservatives, who don't care what the real implications are and then liberals say they're relativists, without thinking through the implications, on the principle that anything that shocks the conservatives that much must be a good thing.
But neither of them have actually thought it through.
On the other hand, if you do a philosophy course this stuff is basic first-year ethics.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The difficulty for the relativist is that our culture says it's wrong to attack people unless you thereby prevent them doing something that's objectively evil. Something that you happen to dislike doesn't count.
A lot of our culture thinks that you can't be moral unless you're objectively moral. The relativist thinks that's a mistake, based on confusing an erroneous meta-ethical position (moral universalism) with culture-dependent substantive ethical norms. For 'objectively moral' read 'moral' throughout. And for 'objectively wrong' read 'wrong' throughout.
A relativist would agree that in our culture we can't go to war over causes that we just happen to dislike. We do have to justify going to war by reasons that are valid in our culture. However, the argument that those people are a threat to us and our values, therefore we need to strike preemptively against them, does seem to be more widely accepted than we might like.
[the heresy of bad code]
[ 20. July 2014, 15:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
If moral relativists cannot think they have any grounds for judging that another culture deserves to be bombed, they equally cannot have any grounds for judging that another culture deserves to live in peace. "That culture deserves to live in peace" is just as much a moral judgement on the other culture as "that culture deserves not to live in peace".
Quite. "Deserve" is the wrong word. Moral relativists decline to judge on such issues because it is inconsistent to do so. They accept that any feeling of moral superiority they or their culture hold cannot cross cultural boundaries. In a Taliban bombing ballot, the moral relativist abstains. Besides, there are always moral objectivitists on hand to do the dirty work. As has been noted, out and out morally relativist individuals are rare, and morally relativist cultures unheard of.
quote:
On the other hand, if you do a philosophy course this stuff is basic first-year ethics.
And of course all the first year ethics text books state that the archetypal relativist position is "those fundamentalist Taliban over there can't be convinced using reason (relativism), therefore we have to bomb them until they are no longer a threat."
quote:
Either the whole range of moral judgements are possible, or none are.
I'm not a philosophy graduate or anything, unlike, I presume, your good self, but I imagine they get on to this stuff in the second year.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would think that this forum itself is an expression of postmodernism. It sets out to disturb, to ruffle feathers, to lift up fences, to see what's underneath them, to interrogate, and so on. AmIrite?
Nah. It's simply a place that gathers up the last of the worlds lefty oddballs, peace-first tossers and the odd lonely Marxist.
It's mainly a zoo of ageing hippies, economic illiterates and communists-who-still-believe. It's a harmless way to keep them together, and to keep them off the streets where they might get hurt.
And of course some people like me who like to poke them with sticks through the bars.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Next time there is a Hosts and Admins day can I respectfully petition the Powers That Be to rename him Harmodius Aristogeiton.
Orsini Cadoudal von Stauffenberg has a nice ring to it.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The reason it's strange is that 'relativist' is used as a boo-word by conservatives, who don't care what the real implications are and then liberals say they're relativists, without thinking through the implications, on the principle that anything that shocks the conservatives that much must be a good thing.
Let's face it, in practice everyone, right across the spectrum, consciously or unconsciously, jumps between relativism and absolutism all the time as it suits us.
Often it's tangled up with other concepts such as "lesser of two evils" and "means justifying ends".
[ 20. July 2014, 21:40: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
in practice everyone, right across the spectrum, consciously or unconsciously, jumps between relativism and absolutism all the time as it suits us.
Or as it is merited. Some things are relative, some things are absolute, etc.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
If moral relativists cannot think they have any grounds for judging that another culture deserves to be bombed, they equally cannot have any grounds for judging that another culture deserves to live in peace. "That culture deserves to live in peace" is just as much a moral judgement on the other culture as "that culture deserves not to live in peace".
Quite. "Deserve" is the wrong word. Moral relativists decline to judge on such issues because it is inconsistent to do so. They accept that any feeling of moral superiority they or their culture hold cannot cross cultural boundaries. In a Taliban bombing ballot, the moral relativist abstains.
'Any feeling of moral superiority cannot cross cultural boundaries.' - the relativist holds that as stated that sentence is nonsense. For the relativist, that statement must mean 'According to the relativist's culture, any feeling of moral superiority they or their culture hold cannot cross cultural boundaries'. That might be true; it is far more likely to be false.
Where on relativist premises is the inconsistency? Spell it out logically.
Remember all normative premises with ethical implications must be prefaced with 'According to the relativist's culture...' or the relativist doesn't accept them. Assume that the standards of the relativist's culture allow for resorting to force if and only if reasoning won't work. (Relativism obviously predicts that reasoning with them won't work.)
quote:
As has been noted, out and out morally relativist individuals are rare, and morally relativist cultures unheard of.
If I'm right that nationalism is effectively a form of relativism, then there have been plenty of relativist cultures.
quote:
And of course all the first year ethics text books state that the archetypal relativist position is "those fundamentalist Taliban over there can't be convinced using reason (relativism), therefore we have to bomb them until they are no longer a threat."
It is somewhat depressing how many professional philosophers who espouse some form of relativism are eager to refute the idea that they cannot condemn other cultures. But they regularly do. And they're right: they have validly refuted the idea.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Let's face it, in practice everyone, right across the spectrum, consciously or unconsciously, jumps between relativism and absolutism all the time as it suits us.
Often it's tangled up with other concepts such as "lesser of two evils" and "means justifying ends".
One of the reasons for being rigourous about these things is to catch ourselves and other people when we or they rationalise like that.
Moral relativism, in the sense under discussion, has little to nothing to do with 'lesser of two evils' or 'means justifying ends'.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Where on relativist premises is the inconsistency? Spell it out logically.
Let's flesh this out. Here's an explanation of morality that a relativist might plausibly hold.
All human societies have to hold themselves together and regulate conflict, both explicitly and by subtly heading it off before it happens. So societies get together and agree to develop moral rules and values, and etiquette, and rituals to work off steam, and other customs to keep themselves going. But because humans are pretty flexible creatures, no two societies are going to hit on exactly the same set of rules. Any set of rules that keeps a society going is valid for that society. (It doesn't even matter if the rules are rationally inconsistent so long as they're consistent in practice.) Moral rules that apply in one society are true for the society that came up with them, but not true for other societies.
Now, any society is going to deal with outsiders. They have to defend themselves against outsiders that want to take their stuff. Some members of their society may want to take stuff from outsiders. They may want to trade with outsiders. They will need to defend themselves from outsiders in a more subtle sense: you don't want the outsider society undermining the rules that are keeping your society going. If your society passes all the property onto the eldest child, you don't want the second son saying, hang on, why don't we do like that society that distributes inheritance equally among all male children; and vice versa. You don't want people with lots of land and nobody to work it looking over at the society over there which practices slavery and getting ideas; and vice versa.
So clearly you need to have morals and rules and customs that govern interactions with outsiders. And you need to fend off outsider values that undermine your values. One efficient way of fending off outsider values is by judging them to be inferior to your values, by the standards of your society; that's efficient because you don't need any new standards then.
Now assuming that's all in place, what is irrational about it? Why can't a member of society who explains morality in that way use that morality to judge other cultures inferior?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dogwalker
Shipmate
# 14135
|
Posted
Isn't this whole argument like the emperor's new clothes?
I'd be perfectly willing to accept there are moral absolutes, if I could see an example.
Please express one useful morally absolute statement, accepted by all societies on earth, at all times, without exception.
Nothing I can think of* fits that simple criterion, so it seems to me that in reality we must be relativists.
(Now I'm probably going to get my head handed to me, but I've wanted to ask this for years.)
*Except, perhaps, "Might makes right."
--------------------
If God had meant for us to fly, he wouldn't have given us the railways. - Unknown
Posts: 155 | From: Milford, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
Please express one useful morally absolute statement, accepted by all societies on earth, at all times, without exception.
Nothing I can think of* fits that simple criterion, so it seems to me that in reality we must be relativists.
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't follow. A moral law being absolute doesn't hinge on whether everyone knows about it; and saying that "we" must be relativists as a result of that doesn't follow either.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
