Is it really so bad to give in to hatred and black and white morality?

[PC2]

The same applies to morals: if you have a set of moral absolutes then obviously there won't be any progress.

But there will be progress because our knowledge of right and wrong behavior can never be completed. Moral philosophy is "the question of what to do next?". So people simply keep creating better and better ideas of how to be right and what to do next.

As the moral differences between people decreases then so to does the amount of problems that exists. When problems(cultural conflict) go away then that means we can focus our efforts on entirely new and better moral and cultural disagreements.

[Grimbold21]

if you have a set of moral absolutes then obviously there won't be any progress. There might be new discoveries - eg you invent a brand new technology and have to integrate it into your existing moral code - but that's not the same thing as progress.

I would argue that this isn't the correct perspective from which to analyze this from.

Simply because perfection isn't attainable. Moral guidelines, right & wrong, are meant to be that, guidance that accounts for our imperfections and in turn help us in our journeys.

Ideals aren't meant to be the finish line that you anxiously strive to overcome. We're not meant to be Jesus, Buddha or what have you.

[Endus]

But there will be progress because our knowledge of right and wrong behavior can never be completed. Moral philosophy is "the question of what to do next?". So people simply keep creating better and better ideas of how to be right and what to do next.

The moment you acknowledge this is the case, you're tacitly admitting that there are no moral absolutes. It's contextual to your current, personal and cultural, understanding. Which is exactly the point made by relativists.

As the moral differences between people decreases then so to does the amount of problems that exists. When problems(cultural conflict) go away then that means we can focus our efforts on entirely new and better moral and cultural disagreements.

That conflict exists because of unwarranted certainty in the objectivity of your own position; you're "right" and therefore they must be "wrong", rather than you each simply having a different perspective.

It has nothing to do with the diversity. This is essentially like arguing that racism wouldn't be a thing if countries were just ethnocentric and purged everyone not of that ethnicity. It both solves nothing (the division just gets moved to some other line), and essentially enshrines irrational premises as the status quo of society.

[Teleros]

But there will be progress because our knowledge of right and wrong behavior can never be completed. Moral philosophy is "the question of what to do next?". So people simply keep creating better and better ideas of how to be right and what to do next.

Okay, I think we're coming at this from different perspectives. From your idea of progress, yes you could advance to the stage where, by whatever moral standards you have, you are better able to pick the best possible option out of whatever options you have available. However, I was thinking in terms of progress as in change of the moral standards themselves.

= = =

Ideals aren't meant to be the finish line that you anxiously strive to overcome. We're not meant to be Jesus, Buddha or what have you.

No, but if we have one to give us their perfect rules...

[Shadowferal]

No, but if we have one to give us their perfect rules...

Golden Rule?
Buddha said it a few centuries earlier than Jesus...but still good to keep things current for Roman society at the time.

[PC2]

The moment you acknowledge this is the case, you're tacitly admitting that there are no moral absolutes. It's contextual to your current, personal and cultural, understanding. Which is exactly the point made by relativists.

No my claim is that moral absolutes exist and that they are immutable and that human subjectivity is the process of testing out new memes in order to see which memes are better at approximating an absolute moral rule set.

That conflict exists because of unwarranted certainty in the objectivity of your own position;

No i'm a fallibilist which means I reject certain knowledge.

you're "right" and therefore they must be "wrong", rather than you each simply having a different perspective.

Yes i'm claiming that all different theories that are about the same topic exist on a spectrum of objectively 'more right' or 'less wrong' and that it's impossible for there to ever be two different but equal theories.

This is essentially like arguing that racism wouldn't be a thing if countries were just ethnocentric and purged everyone not of that ethnicity. It both solves nothing (the division just gets moved to some other line), and essentially enshrines irrational premises as the status quo of society.

I don't know what this part means. Racism can only go away if people decide to not be racist and treat people as individuals without reference to their genetic attributes.

[Felya]

Well sort of yeah, it's true that virtually all people and cultures hold the ideas that they do because they think their ideas, values, and traditions are the correct ones.

No, all of them do... why would you follow the wrong tradition?

The only exception to this is Western culture because it's only Western culture that has an intense tradition of skepticism and self-criticism.

Subjective, but still horribly misinformed. Heretic isn’t unique to the East... the west has the same blind spots as any other culture.

The reason why this current Western culture of relativism cannot and will not last is because the universal ideas that were developed in the West under the umbrella of *liberal democracy* actually are objectively superior to the alternatives.

If the current western culture is relativist, how does Trump and BREXIT win? No... the current western culture is reactionary populism.

- - - Updated - - -

No my claim is that moral absolutes exist and that they are immutable and that human subjectivity is the process of testing out new memes in order to see which memes are better at approximating an absolute moral rule set.

Not true... Though shall not kill vs capital punishment. Our perceived morals are a tangled web of contradictions.

No i'm a fallibilist which means I reject certain knowledge.

That must make life easy... or difficult... I can see this going both ways.

Yes i'm claiming that all different theories that are about the same topic exist on a spectrum of objectively 'more right' or 'less wrong' and that it's impossible for there to ever be two different but equal theories.

Adding more or less to right or wrong, inherently make them subjective. Right vs wrong are objective declarations, more or less add a subjective gradient.

I don't know what this part means. Racism can only go away if people decide to not be racist and treat people as individuals without reference to their genetic attributes.

How do you influence said decision? Is there anything that can impact it?

- - - Updated - - -

Referencing the OP... is it black and white or is it shaded from one side to the other? We know that even killing people is not black or white, because in some parts we allow killing as punishment. We charge people with different grades of crime, based on details of the killing. Theft is the same thing, when someone using public services is not paying taxes and is free, while someone stealing bread would be fined. Than if we factor in executive privilege, it all goes upside down.

[PC2]

the west has the same blind spots as any other culture.

I mean every culture will always have blindspots, moral failings, and an unlimited capacity for consciousness-raising and improvement.

If the current western culture is relativist, how does Trump and BREXIT win? No... the current western culture is reactionary populism.

Good point but that only relates to the field of politics and leadership where as I would like to convince everybody that moral relativism cannot be true in the slightest and that only absolute morals can explain why humanity converges on the same general principles over time because objectively wrong memes about morality cannot survive in a competition with objectively true memes. The objectively true ones will always out-propagate the wrong ones over the long-term.

[Felya]

I mean every culture will always have blindspots, moral failings, and an unlimited capacity for consciousness-raising and improvement.

That’s close to a catch 22... isn’t defining the blind spot, the result of your culture? There are no people born in vacuums... and with psychology, that would result in a fucked up individual. There is no “control”, no placebo, when it comes to culture...

Good point but that only relates to the field of politics and leadership where as I would like to convince everybody that moral relativism cannot be true in the slightest and that only absolute morals can explain why humanity converges on the same general principles over time because objectively wrong memes about morality cannot survive in a competition with objectively true memes. The objectively true ones will always out-propagate the wrong ones over the long-term.

But, that’s the thing... there are no universal morals. They are all reactions to the environment. Why was it so immoral to eat pig, that it’s in the Old Testament? Bacon... everyone loves bacon... well... we didn’t like bacon because it had a good chance to kill you. Environment has changed, just yesterday Trump forced pork producers to return to work.

- - - Updated - - -

What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong and there is certainly a grey area because we can't tell not because it's both right and wrong, but ultimately it's not all grey. It would be stupid to assume it's all grey.

It’s a different gradient of grey, going from darkest black, to clearest white. The bold would be a sliver on the color span...

[Big Thanks]

What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong and there is certainly a grey area because we can't tell not because it's both right and wrong, but ultimately it's not all grey. It would be stupid to assume it's all grey.

LOL
I loved your comment.
Is a perfectly worded reply but seemed like you were thinking deeply inside: "Cmon guys, STFU, its a little bit of both, im tired of this crap"

And i agree (>_<)

[PC2]

But, that’s the thing... there are no universal morals.

No I think that cannot be so and my claim is that there is only universal values and relative values are never true. Human subjectivity is simply the process of testing out various different morals in order to see which ones spread through-out the entire system over time which then converts that moral into a universal value. Then it may turn out that there is a flaw in that value which means that people then come up with an improved version which then repeats the process of spreading through-out the entire system.

They are all reactions to the environment.

Again no, that can only be true for genes but when it comes to memes there is no such thing as environmental determinism because when we're talking about the creation of an abstraction they are formed independently of the geographic environment.

Why was it so immoral to eat pig, that it’s in the Old Testament? Bacon... everyone loves bacon... well... we didn’t like bacon because it had a good chance to kill you. Environment has changed, just yesterday Trump forced pork producers to return to work.

The reason for that is because people had less objective knowledge 2,000 years ago which caused their ideas to be more arbitrary and less reasonable.

[Felya]

No I think that cannot be so and my claim is that there is only universal values and relative values are never true.

There are no universal ones or relative ones... it’s all adhoc based on environment.

Human subjectivity is simply the process of testing out various different morals in order to see which ones spread through-out the entire system over time which then converts that moral into a universal value.

Name one universal value...

Then it may turn out that there is a flaw in that value which means that people then come up with an improved version which then repeats the process of spreading through-out the entire system.

Than why does it go backwards?

Again no, that can only be true for genes but when it comes to memes there is no such thing as environmental determinism because when we're talking about the creation of an abstraction they are formed independently of the geographic environment.

Not true... fight or flight... it’s that simple.

The reason for that is because people had less objective knowledge 2,000 years ago which caused their ideas to be more arbitrary and less reasonable.

Moraliry isn’t objective and you just used environment to describe the flaw. So... in 2000 years, I’m sure there will be... uhm... things... that articulate the same.

[PC2]

There are no universal ones or relative ones... it’s all adhoc based on environment.

No there are universal values but the human condition is about comparing relative values in order to see which one is closer or further from approximating a universal value. However because humans are inherently fallible we'll never be able to attain complete knowledge of morality, it will always be a "work-in-progress".

Name one universal value...

Rape is bad and outlawed everywhere.

Than why does it go backwards?

Because people are fallible and we live in a non-linear system and there is never a guarantee of future success. It depends entirely on the amount of effort that people choose to put into life on an on-going basis.

Not true... fight or flight... it’s that simple.

I'm not sure how this relates to morality. That's simply a judgement as to whether it is safer to flee or just beat an opponent.

Moraliry isn’t objective and you just used environment to describe the flaw. So... in 2000 years, I’m sure there will be... uhm... things... that articulate the same.

No, for any two different moral ideas about the same issue one of them will always be objectively more or less accurate and efficacious in terms of which moral idea has a stronger testament in reality.

[Teleros]

Rape is bad and outlawed everywhere.

First, bride kidnapping and the like exists. Second, even if rape is outlawed everywhere doesn't mean it's good or bad - it just means it's outlawed everywhere. Something being popular (eg banning rape) does not make it right - at least, it won't if you've got any common sense. After all, what the Mongols did to build their empire was pretty popular amongst the Mongols.

You need a more objective means of showing why rape is bad.

[Endus]

Rape is bad and outlawed everywhere.

Again, the problem with this kind of statement is that it's used to avoid dealing with the question honestly. It's not an answer, it's a phrasing that shifts the goalposts to avoid providing that answer.

"Rape", as a term, only applies to a "bad" act, by definition. Using that term presumes that you have already decided a particular act is bad; stating that "rape is morally bad" is not an argument, it's a tautology. We already knew it was morally bad because the word "rape" was used. It's like saying "it's safe to eat edible plants". It's a non-statement that just repeats what the word in question already means.

Moral questions are about determining whether a particular act is a rape, or not. The moral discussion occurs before that label is applied. Labelling it a "rape" is the outcome, not a premise in a moral framework.

Same goes for other labels like "murder". It's a fundamentally circular argument that means nothing, and is generally used to dishonestly misrepresent how morality works.

It isn't about whether all cultures think "rape is bad". It's about whether all cultures agree about the question "what does it mean to rape someone?"

And if you're going to claim that question has a universal, objectively-defined answer, you're completely out to fucking lunch and disconnected from reality.

[PC2]

You need a more objective means of showing why rape is bad.

Except that's impossible, for any given theory such as moral relativism or moral univeralism(objective) you can't ever show they are right. All you can do is use your intuition to try and reason about which one is a better explanation.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Good:

Love
Kindness
Compassion
Empathy
Security
Protection
Mercy
Understanding.



Bad:

Hate
Cruelty
Indifference
Vanity
Bullying
Violence
Pride
Stupidity

Good and Bad are ACTIONS based on decisions, which is why what warehouses in the mind is what eventually leads down the path to either.


There is no in-between period.

No human being in evil in general, evil doesn't look certain like dressing the part.


Evil isn't a person, it is the Opposite of Life, and no one person is Evil in general, they serve Evil and typically without knowing it. That is how evil works.


It's why people hated to see Kylo Ren killed of, but at the same time curse Charecters like Sylvannas it's because people pick and choose what is redeemable based on their own bias and failed idea of how far one can go knowing they do evil and wrong and come back.


The truth is it doesn't work like that, you might be Stupid Or Ignorant, both can serve Evil, however Stupidity there is almost no way back, because it isn't a lack of understanding or knowledge, it's merely a matter of choice.

When you KNOW something is wrong, and you CHOOSE to serve evil there isn't any going back. Regardless to what people think

[Teleros]

Except that's impossible, for any given theory such as moral relativism or moral univeralism(objective) you can't ever show why they are right. All you can do is use your intuition to try and reason about which one is a better explanation.

Or you could just dig out some works on natural law .

Still though, my broader point is that "rape is outlawed everywhere" is not proof of it being bad, just of it being illegal and/or unpopular. Sodomy was once not only illegal in most of the Western world but also very unpopular etc etc etc - nowadays it's celebrated, which is obviously quite a turnaround. So is sodomy good or bad? Depends on when & where you ask. Now, why can't the same logic be applied to rape? Obviously it can, which is why if you want to claim as a universal value the idea that "rape is bad", you need a much better argument for that statement than its legality or popularity.

[PC2]

Again, the problem with this kind of statement is that it's used to avoid dealing with the question honestly. It's not an answer, it's a phrasing that shifts the goalposts to avoid providing that answer.

"Rape", as a term, only applies to a "bad" act, by definition. Using that term presumes that you have already decided a particular act is bad; stating that "rape is morally bad" is not an argument, it's a tautology. We already knew it was morally bad because the word "rape" was used. It's like saying "it's safe to eat edible plants". It's a non-statement that just repeats what the word in question already means.

Moral questions are about determining whether a particular act is a rape, or not. The moral discussion occurs before that label is applied. Labelling it a "rape" is the outcome, not a premise in a moral framework.

Same goes for other labels like "murder". It's a fundamentally circular argument that means nothing, and is generally used to dishonestly misrepresent how morality works.

It isn't about whether all cultures think "rape is bad". It's about whether all cultures agree about the question "what does it mean to rape someone?"

And if you're going to claim that question has a universal, objectively-defined answer, you're completely out to fucking lunch and disconnected from reality.

Okay well I view this as overly pedantic. People will simply reason about whether or not they think moral statements of right vs wrong behavior are objectively right or subjectively a matter of personal preference and local culture. That's all people are capable of doing.

It's about whether all cultures agree

My claim is that all cultures will converge on the same universal policy values which will then end the discussion about whether or not all cultures think a given statement is universally true or not. Only time can indicate that my claim is right though as there is no way to determine or guarantee what will happen ahead of time.

"what does it mean to rape someone?"

For that I think all cultures will agree on a basic interpretation over time which in this case is simply "any form of penetration without consent". But also people are free to make their own interpretation such as "any contact with sexual organs without consent". Either way it's not a big deal because the latter claim encompasses the former claim.

- - - Updated - - -

Or you could just dig out some works on natural law .

Still though, my broader point is that "rape is outlawed everywhere" is not proof of it being bad, just of it being illegal and/or unpopular. Sodomy was once not only illegal in most of the Western world but also very unpopular etc etc etc - nowadays it's celebrated, which is obviously quite a turnaround. So is sodomy good or bad? Depends on when & where you ask. Now, why can't the same logic be applied to rape? Obviously it can, which is why if you want to claim as a universal value the idea that "rape is bad", you need a much better argument for that statement than its legality or popularity.

Yes that's correct on the bolded part, there cannot ever be conclusive "proof" of moral correctness but it's not a big deal because even when it comes to scientific theories there can never be proof of correctness there either. So holding moral claims to a higher standard then what is required in science doesn't make sense.

[Teleros]

Yes that's correct on the bolded part, there cannot ever be conclusive "proof" of moral correctness but it's not a big deal

It is a big deal given the ability of humans to rationalise what they want to do. Remember Whoopi Goldberg's "rape-rape" comments re Roman Polanski?

As to conclusive proof... whilst you might not be able to derive "ought" from "is", there are alternatives to that particular formulation. If you believe in the four causes like Aristotle (material, form, efficient & final) then you can do a lot with that, to give just one example.

because even when it comes to scientific theories there can never be proof of correctness there either. So holding moral claims to a higher standard then what is required in science doesn't make sense.

I'd say it makes more sense TBH. You don't need scientific facts to make a civilisation work - the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese and all sorts managed just fine without the scientific method or knowledge - heck they had steam engines even whilst believing Zeus was chucking lightning bolts down at them. Not sure you can have a civilisation without a solid moral foundation though, no matter your technological or scientific know-how.