I think the whole objectivity/subjectivity issue is mostly a moot point, as with quite a lot of what is supposedly a big deal in philosophy (e.g. the idea of "free will").
Here is my position: The validity of a given course of action depends on the person undertaking it and the situation it is being undertaken in (indeed, the person is just a subset of the situation); in that sense, it is subjective. However, I would say that the relative validity of that course of action for that person is independent of any observer with full knowledge of the situation. In that sense, it would be objective.
Consequently, I hold that as we continue to gain knowledge as a species and as individuals, our morality improves in an objective sense.
Pragmatically, we all consider certain choices to be better than others. It is this sense of right and wrong that really matters in everyday life. So, the actual question we should care about is "how should we determine the best choice to make in any given situation?" That is precisely the kind of morality we should care about, and it is an idea that is heavily tied in with the concept of rationality.
Listen, I'm not saying that there is an objective scheme of morality that lies waiting to be discovered in bits and pieces throughout time. I am saying that I have a strong suspicion that there are some things that are absolutely wrong, like slavery (American style slavery, zehaeva. Greco-Roman slavery was a cakewalk compared to that. Greco-Roman slavery was more like indentured servitude. You could eventually work your way out of it. Your kid wasn't destined yo be a slave all his life just because you were a slave for a few years. They didn't know shit about slavery.), or maybe female circumcision. My opinion of loopy-schoopy relativism on this point is that it's just laziness. If your answer to everything is that it's alright depending on what culture you're in if some culture, somewhere, even in the distant past, condoned or tolerated it, you don't have to think too hard about it, do you?
I'm much more inclined to subscribe to the view of the dude in Andrew's videos. If some culture cuts out the eyes of every third child, it doesn't mean that that practice is right for that culture. It means that that particular culture is fucking wrong about that particular practice.
There are similar things on the positive end that I am inclined to consider absolute, such as proper child rearing. If some culture exists where they don't give as shit about their kids, or they eat their kids, or some fucked up shit, that doesn't mean it's right for that culture. It means that culture is fucked up.
Why don't people have the simple fucking courage to say that? What's more important, morality or the protection of the feelings of every little fucked up culture? Can we just say that there are some culture that are win and some that are fail? Can we just start there?
I'm sorry. I haven't had my fucking coffee yet, so fuck you. Oh, don't get mad. I'm sure that some culture exists where "fuck you" is a cheerful morning greeting, so I haven't said anything fucking wrong. Fuck.
My opinion of loopy-schoopy relativism on this point is that it's just laziness. If your answer to everything is that it's alright depending on what culture you're in if some culture, somewhere, even in the distant past, condoned or tolerated it, you don't have to think too hard about it, do you?
Moral relativism of this kind is indeed bullshit and in fact a dangerous belief, but I don't think anyone in this thread was directly espousing that position.
I don't think so; I think Joe was responding to other comments in the thread. Also, I used the wrong term, and have corrected my comment; "moral relativism" is what I meant to use, "cultural relativism" seems to a term for a different concept. There are also apparently several different categories of moral relativism, as described in the Wikipedia article.
Can we just say that there are some culture that are win and some that are fail? Can we just start there?
Sure we can. In fact, I wholeheartedly espouse this plan. Some cultures are just better than others. The US is better than Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.
But you also need to understand the mutable nature of morality. Think about it like this. What if we one day decide that our own morality isn't as good as some other morality? We should be able to change that! But if you cling to the idea that morality is a thing that really exists, and not a thing that we simply define, then you'll have all sorts of people resisting that change in morality. There are tons of people who believe something like "morality is and always will be X," because they believe that it can be an immutable thing.
So if we all abandon the notion that morals exist, we'll be able to adapt our morals more readily as our world changes. But you have to act as if your morals are actually true, even though you just made that shit up. I call it "dynamic objective morality;" we can actively change what is actually true from a morality standpoint.
But you also need to understand the mutable nature of morality. Think about it like this. What if we one day decide that our own morality isn't as good as some other morality? We should be able to change that!
I contend that if we decide our own morality isn't as good, we will have already changed our morality in doing so.
But if you cling to the idea that morality is a thing that really exists, and not a thing that we simply define, then you'll have all sorts of people resisting that change in morality. There are tons of people who believe something like "morality is and always will be X," because they believe that it can be an immutable thing.
Reality as we know it is an immutable thing, but that does not prevent us from being wrong about it, and, more importantly, readjusting our understanding of it in the face of new evidence.
So if we all abandon the notion that morals exist, we'll be able to adapt our morals more readily as our world changes.
How can we have morals if they don't exist? ^_~
But you have to act as if your morals are actually true, even though you just made that shit up. I call it "dynamic objective morality;" we can actively change what is actually true from a morality standpoint.
I think it's better to see it as improving our understanding of what is true rather than actually changing it. As long as you understand that you can be wrong about any and all of your beliefs, which any rational person should, you will not prevent adaptation.
But you also need to understand the mutable nature of morality. Think about it like this. What if we one day decide that our own morality isn't as good as some other morality? We should be able to change that! But if you cling to the idea that morality is a thing that really exists, and not a thing that we simply define, then you'll have all sorts of people resisting that change in morality. There are tons of people who believe something like "morality is and always will be X," because they believe that it can be an immutable thing.
So if we all abandon the notion that morals exist, we'll be able to adapt our morals more readily as our world changes. But you have to act as if your morals are actually true, even though you just made that shit up. I call it "dynamic objective morality;" we can actively change what is actually true from a morality standpoint.
I agree with a lot of that, and as I keep saying, I'm not espousing a complete system of absolute moral principles. Think of them more as a baseline. There are some things that should never be done and there are some things that should always be done to the best of one's ability, no matter what moral system you're working with. You can kvetch about, and fiddle with questions like should a person steal in order to feed a starving child, but when if the question is whether a person can poke put that same child's eyes for whatever reason, everyone should be able to say, "Absolutely not."
(American style slavery, zehaeva. Greco-Roman slavery was a cakewalk compared to that. Greco-Roman slavery was more like indentured servitude. You could eventually work your way out of it. Your kid wasn't destined yo be a slave all his life just because you were a slave for a few years. They didn't know shit about slavery.)
I am quite aware, I have been quite aware of this for nearly two decades of my life. I paid quite close attention to ancient history in high school and college. I did mention some of these things in my response post to you further up the thread.
I am not arguing that slavery of any sort is a good thing. But I am unwilling to say that in any sort of absolute sense however. I hold the personal belief that such things are an artifact of a bygone age and that getting rid of such institutions has helped to further humanity a great deal. I have read many arguments that slavery can be correlated to the lack of technological innovation for much of the past 4,000 years. The partial argument runs along the lines that it is easier to get a slave to do the menial tasks of life than to invent a machine to do such work for you. Dan Carlin made a good argument for this in his Hardcore History series.
I think the thing about cultural relativism is that if you are inside the culture you can not tell what is happening is really wrong. We can certainly say from outside, well yes of course that idea is wrong, what are you an idiot? But if you are insulated by that culture and have nothing to compare that to how can you make a good argument for what is happening is truly wrong? You are just a poor Aztec standing at the bottom of a step pyramid watching blood of human sacrifices flow down the smooth steps. To this Aztec these sacrifices are a necessary thing. The sun won't rise tomorrow with out them! Granted we can show them that they are being wasteful with that human life by demonstrating to them that the vast majority of their world view is faulty. But to him, before you show him such things, assuming that he doesn't outright dismiss you or murder you, those sacrifices are the right thing to do and it is completely unthinkable to not do them. We can step back and say "Well thats the wrong thing to do." but was there really any way for them to say the same?
I should note that I am not arguing that if they were around today that we should allow them to continue on their wasteful path. I would fully support getting into their lands and educating them properly about how the earth rotates and the arraignment of the planets and how we know these things. Just as I think that we should educate those in Africa and the Middle East about the terrible things that Female Circumcision brings about.
I think the thing about cultural relativism is that if you are inside the culture you can not tell what is happening is really wrong. We can certainly say from outside, well yes of course that idea is wrong, what are you an idiot? But if you are insulated by that culture and have nothing to compare that to how can you make a good argument for what is happening is truly wrong? You are just a poor Aztec standing at the bottom of a step pyramid watching blood of human sacrifices flow down the smooth steps. To this Aztec these sacrifices are a necessary thing. The sun won't rise tomorrow with out them!
All those Aztecs have to do is hold off on the sacrifices a single time and discover that the sun still rises.
All those Aztecs have to do is hold off on the sacrifices a single time and discover that the sun still rises.
For someone in that mind set that would be a serious leap of faith. It would be easy for us, but we weren't told that this is the way the world is since we were little children. It'd probably be akin to someone with an extreme germ phobia to sudden decide to eat raw meat out of a toilet. It's just not going to happen from within their system.
Sure we can. In fact, I wholeheartedly espouse this plan. Some cultures are just better than others. The US is better than Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.
I agree with this, because I am subjectively biased by the norms of my culture. It is not an objective statement, and could not be measured objectively because it is based on cultural values that are not inherent to nature.
All those Aztecs have to do is hold off on the sacrifices a single time and discover that the sun still rises.
For someone in that mind set that would be a serious leap of faith. It would be easy for us, but we weren't told that this is the way the world is since we were little children. It'd probably be akin to someone with an extreme germ phobia to sudden decide to eat raw meat out of a toilet. It's just not going to happen from within their system.
Yes, I understand how people can come to hold ridiculous beliefs. People can still believe in things like astrology despite the many advances of modern society; the Aztecs, at least, had a much better excuse. What we need to take from this is that we should never believe anything with absolute certainty, and that we should be willing to subject our beliefs to testing.
Though it would be very difficult to realise as an Aztec that what you were doing was wrong, it would not be impossible.
Yes, I understand how people can come to hold ridiculous beliefs. People can still believe in things like astrology despite the many advances of modern society; the Aztecs, at least, had a much better excuse. What we need to take from this is that we should never believe anything with absolute certainty, and that we should be willing to subject our beliefs to testing.
Though it would be very difficult to realise as an Aztec that what you were doing was wrong, it would not be impossible.
Only when you embrace the paradox will you be able to...bend...the spoon?
But yes, it's an intentional paradox. Morality is inherently paradoxical. It cannot possibly exist, yet we believe it does and conduct ourselves as though it does. Embrace the void.
I agree with this, because I am subjectively biased by the norms of my culture. It is not an objective statement, and could not be measured objectively because it is based on cultural values that are not inherent to nature.
Precisely. That's what I'm driving at. Once you truly grasp this paradoxical nature, you can a step towards becoming a true actor in the universe.
I know of this book, and that it is very popular, but I have never read it. Does it support cultural relativism?
It talks about the schism of "truth" (the idea that only that which can be measured is real) and "good" (the idea that somethings can be classified as "better" than others even if that better-ness cannot be scientifically measured) that is at the root secular of western philosophy and attempts to reunite them. It is worth reading,
It is at least a better attempt than "absolute morality exists because it would suck if it didn't and anyone who disagrees is a monster" which seems to be the crux of the arguments presented here.
Sure we can. In fact, I wholeheartedly espouse this plan. Some cultures are just better than others. The US is better than Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.
I agree with this, because I am subjectively biased by the norms of my culture. It is not an objective statement, and could not be measured objectively because it is based on cultural values that are not inherent to nature.
If you thought that Afghanistan was better than the US, would Afghanistan be better than the US?
Sure we can. In fact, I wholeheartedly espouse this plan. Some cultures are just better than others. The US is better than Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.
I agree with this, because I am subjectively biased by the norms of my culture. It is not an objective statement, and could not be measured objectively because it is based on cultural values that are not inherent to nature.
If you thought that Afghanistan was better than the US, would Afghanistan be better than the US?
Yes. Because "better" is a subjective qualifier based on bias.
Yes. Because "better" is a subjective qualifier based on bias.
Yes. Because "right" is a subjective qualifier based on bias.
Yeap.
I define better to include "freer." As the US is demonstrably more free as a society than Afghanistan, I can conclude objectively that the US is "better" in this regard, assuming definitions of "free" and "better."
I define better to include "freer." As the US is demonstrably more free as a society than Afghanistan, I can conclude objectively that the US is "better" in this regard, assuming definitions of "free" and "better."
No, you can't. Your conclusion can be reached logically, but a decision reached "objectively" using subjective data is still subjective.
I define better to include "freer." As the US is demonstrably more free as a society than Afghanistan, I can conclude objectively that the US is "better" in this regard, assuming definitions of "free" and "better."
No, you can't. Your conclusion can be reached logically, but a decision reached "objectively" using subjective data is still subjective.
Then everything is subjective, because all data you will ever gather throughout your entire lifetime is subjective.
Then everything is subjective, because all data you will ever gather throughout your entire lifetime is subjective.
Thus solipsism. ALL THINGS ARE SUBJECTIVE. PERIOD.
This is a useless distinction, however. So, practically, by creating unambiguous criteria for an examination, you can then make an objective judgement so long as the criteria for said judgement are objective and observable.
The pure definition of objective is meaningless, as nothing can satisfy it. Thus, using it in anything beyond a semantic or philosophical argument is stupid, as it ends the practical debate.
Comments
The validity of a given course of action depends on the person undertaking it and the situation it is being undertaken in (indeed, the person is just a subset of the situation); in that sense, it is subjective. However, I would say that the relative validity of that course of action for that person is independent of any observer with full knowledge of the situation. In that sense, it would be objective.
Consequently, I hold that as we continue to gain knowledge as a species and as individuals, our morality improves in an objective sense.
Listen, I'm not saying that there is an objective scheme of morality that lies waiting to be discovered in bits and pieces throughout time. I am saying that I have a strong suspicion that there are some things that are absolutely wrong, like slavery (American style slavery, zehaeva. Greco-Roman slavery was a cakewalk compared to that. Greco-Roman slavery was more like indentured servitude. You could eventually work your way out of it. Your kid wasn't destined yo be a slave all his life just because you were a slave for a few years. They didn't know shit about slavery.), or maybe female circumcision. My opinion of loopy-schoopy relativism on this point is that it's just laziness. If your answer to everything is that it's alright depending on what culture you're in if some culture, somewhere, even in the distant past, condoned or tolerated it, you don't have to think too hard about it, do you?
I'm much more inclined to subscribe to the view of the dude in Andrew's videos. If some culture cuts out the eyes of every third child, it doesn't mean that that practice is right for that culture. It means that that particular culture is fucking wrong about that particular practice.
There are similar things on the positive end that I am inclined to consider absolute, such as proper child rearing. If some culture exists where they don't give as shit about their kids, or they eat their kids, or some fucked up shit, that doesn't mean it's right for that culture. It means that culture is fucked up.
Why don't people have the simple fucking courage to say that? What's more important, morality or the protection of the feelings of every little fucked up culture? Can we just say that there are some culture that are win and some that are fail? Can we just start there?
I'm sorry. I haven't had my fucking coffee yet, so fuck you. Oh, don't get mad. I'm sure that some culture exists where "fuck you" is a cheerful morning greeting, so I haven't said anything fucking wrong. Fuck.
Also, I used the wrong term, and have corrected my comment; "moral relativism" is what I meant to use, "cultural relativism" seems to a term for a different concept. There are also apparently several different categories of moral relativism, as described in the Wikipedia article.
But you also need to understand the mutable nature of morality. Think about it like this. What if we one day decide that our own morality isn't as good as some other morality? We should be able to change that! But if you cling to the idea that morality is a thing that really exists, and not a thing that we simply define, then you'll have all sorts of people resisting that change in morality. There are tons of people who believe something like "morality is and always will be X," because they believe that it can be an immutable thing.
So if we all abandon the notion that morals exist, we'll be able to adapt our morals more readily as our world changes. But you have to act as if your morals are actually true, even though you just made that shit up. I call it "dynamic objective morality;" we can actively change what is actually true from a morality standpoint.
I am not arguing that slavery of any sort is a good thing. But I am unwilling to say that in any sort of absolute sense however. I hold the personal belief that such things are an artifact of a bygone age and that getting rid of such institutions has helped to further humanity a great deal. I have read many arguments that slavery can be correlated to the lack of technological innovation for much of the past 4,000 years. The partial argument runs along the lines that it is easier to get a slave to do the menial tasks of life than to invent a machine to do such work for you. Dan Carlin made a good argument for this in his Hardcore History series.
I think the thing about cultural relativism is that if you are inside the culture you can not tell what is happening is really wrong. We can certainly say from outside, well yes of course that idea is wrong, what are you an idiot? But if you are insulated by that culture and have nothing to compare that to how can you make a good argument for what is happening is truly wrong? You are just a poor Aztec standing at the bottom of a step pyramid watching blood of human sacrifices flow down the smooth steps. To this Aztec these sacrifices are a necessary thing. The sun won't rise tomorrow with out them! Granted we can show them that they are being wasteful with that human life by demonstrating to them that the vast majority of their world view is faulty. But to him, before you show him such things, assuming that he doesn't outright dismiss you or murder you, those sacrifices are the right thing to do and it is completely unthinkable to not do them. We can step back and say "Well thats the wrong thing to do." but was there really any way for them to say the same?
I should note that I am not arguing that if they were around today that we should allow them to continue on their wasteful path. I would fully support getting into their lands and educating them properly about how the earth rotates and the arraignment of the planets and how we know these things. Just as I think that we should educate those in Africa and the Middle East about the terrible things that Female Circumcision brings about.
Though it would be very difficult to realise as an Aztec that what you were doing was wrong, it would not be impossible.
But yes, it's an intentional paradox. Morality is inherently paradoxical. It cannot possibly exist, yet we believe it does and conduct ourselves as though it does. Embrace the void. Precisely. That's what I'm driving at. Once you truly grasp this paradoxical nature, you can a step towards becoming a true actor in the universe.
At least, that's my take on things.
It is at least a better attempt than "absolute morality exists because it would suck if it didn't and anyone who disagrees is a monster" which seems to be the crux of the arguments presented here.
I define better to include "freer." As the US is demonstrably more free as a society than Afghanistan, I can conclude objectively that the US is "better" in this regard, assuming definitions of "free" and "better."
This is a useless distinction, however. So, practically, by creating unambiguous criteria for an examination, you can then make an objective judgement so long as the criteria for said judgement are objective and observable.
The pure definition of objective is meaningless, as nothing can satisfy it. Thus, using it in anything beyond a semantic or philosophical argument is stupid, as it ends the practical debate.