Refuting the argument for cultural relativism...

[Hobbes' Choice]

It seems to me that you have not begun to address the question nor state a problem with any clarity.

Yes, that is your perception of it - no clarity.

What I called "cultural relativism" you may recognize as (what you might speak of as) "moral relativism."

The problem is that it amounts to ethical nihilism.

Not liking a thing, or the consequence of a thing does not make it any less the truth.
Ethical Nihilism is simply the way things are.
And the reason is simple enough, even you can figure it out.
Ethical values change between cultures and within them; through history and across a range of social systems and social organisations.
That is just a fact of life.
Try to keep up.

[prof]

What I called "cultural relativism" you may recognize as (what you might speak of as) "moral relativism."

The problem is that it amounts to ethical nihilism.

..Ethical Nihilism is simply the way things are.
And the reason is simple enough, even you can figure it out.
Ethical values change between cultures and within them; through history and across a range of social systems and social organisations.[sic]
That is just a fact of life.
Try to keep up.

The conclusion, of course, doesn't follow from the reason given.

And I detect a strong tone of condescension when you write: "even you can figure it out" and "Try to keep up." Someone here does believe that he is superior to others.

In an earlier thread - which I guess some of you haven't read - I presented this portion of the ethical history of Western civilization, its moral development:

"When it was still right to own slaves, it was already wrong to eat people. When it had become wrong to own slaves, it was still right to possess women as property. When that became wrong, it was still all right to blow cigarette smoke in your neighbor's face. Now, with smoking in disgrace, it is still all right to use and dispose of polystyrene foam cups, regardless of their long-term effects on the environment. More changes, clearly, are in the works." --Rushworth Kidder

Now it is becoming respectable for gays, or lesbians, to marry who they choose. Social Security and HeadStart are established institutions. Healthcare is becoming an entitlement. People are gradually becoming aware of what it takes to maintain bodily health ...which gives a new meaning to 'healthcare.' Some day, people of color will get to vote without hinderance.

Capital punishment is gradually fading out (except in Texas.) The country is more receptive to progressive policies. Mores change. We acquire a new ethos; though many had to struggle, and some to die, to achieve some of these reforms. We should not forget that.

Telling us that cultures change is not news to us.

The part of the globe I am focusing on is the United States. I want it to set a good example. It needs education that fosters harmony and cooperation and reduces violent conflict.

I am working on the construction of an improved theory of Ethics to be taught in academic settings, alongside Deontology, Consequentialism, etc. Moral Nihilists - like the Logical Positivists - say there is no point to teaching about values (which includes moral values.)

I am a futurist, not afraid of change. There has long been a struggle between those who fear change, who want things to stay the way they are (called Conservatives), and those who welcome change if it is progress. It is progress if it contributes to the Ultimate Purpose - which is a Quality Life for one and all.

Some conservatives go by the implicit motto: Don't rock the boat while I'm comfortable !
Many others just believe: "The devil we know is better than the devil we don't know." They are in a rut but are shaken up by changes and innovations.

Comments? Suggestions?

[prof]

To everyone:

I just came upon a discussion that I would recommend as 'must reading' for anyone with an interest in understanding ethics. It is a transcript of a conversation between Sam Harris and Paul Bloom. Read over this text, a link to which you will find below, and it will get you thinking -- about vital topics, and serious questions with which to grapple. Harris, of course, over-values Consequentialism, and fails to acknowledge the values in Virtue Theory and in Deontology, overlooks their good ideas and the positive contributions those schools of thought can make. My theory synthesizes and integrates all three, but as you know, gives a higher emphasis on Modern VT, and while recognizing the benefits of systemic-thinking, places it at the lower end of th hierarchy of values. { See: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9462 }

Check out this Harris blog. Don't miss it Click HERE;
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... d-and-evil

Then we can discuss the implications of it, and solve some of the problems it raises, after you have had a chance to study it. Okay?

-

[Hobbes' Choice]

What I called "cultural relativism" you may recognize as (what you might speak of as) "moral relativism."

The problem is that it amounts to ethical nihilism.

..Ethical Nihilism is simply the way things are.
And the reason is simple enough, even you can figure it out.
Ethical values change between cultures and within them; through history and across a range of social systems and social organisations.[sic]
That is just a fact of life.
Try to keep up.

The conclusion, of course, doesn't follow from the reason given.

And I detect a strong tone of condescension when you write: "even you can figure it out" and "Try to keep up." Someone here does believe that he is superior to others.

In an earlier thread - which I guess some of you haven't read - I presented this portion of the ethical history of Western civilization, its moral development:

"When it was still right to own slaves, it was already wrong to eat people. When it had become wrong to own slaves, it was still right to possess women as property. When that became wrong, it was still all right to blow cigarette smoke in your neighbor's face. Now, with smoking in disgrace, it is still all right to use and dispose of polystyrene foam cups, regardless of their long-term effects on the environment. More changes, clearly, are in the works." --Rushworth Kidder

Now it is becoming respectable for gays, or lesbians, to marry who they choose. Social Security and HeadStart are established institutions. Healthcare is becoming an entitlement. People are gradually becoming aware of what it takes to maintain bodily health ...which gives a new meaning to 'healthcare.' Some day, people of color will get to vote without hinderance.

Capital punishment is gradually fading out (except in Texas.) The country is more receptive to progressive policies. Mores change. We acquire a new ethos; though many had to struggle, and some to die, to achieve some of these reforms. We should not forget that.

Telling us that cultures change is not news to us.

The part of the globe I am focusing on is the United States. I want it to set a good example. It needs education that fosters harmony and cooperation and reduces violent conflict.

I am working on the construction of an improved theory of Ethics to be taught in academic settings, alongside Deontology, Consequentialism, etc. Moral Nihilists - like the Logical Positivists - say there is no point to teaching about values (which includes moral values.)

I am a futurist, not afraid of change. There has long been a struggle between those who fear change, who want things to stay the way they are (called Conservatives), and those who welcome change if it is progress. It is progress if it contributes to the Ultimate Purpose - which is a Quality Life for one and all.

Some conservatives go by the implicit motto: Don't rock the boat while I'm comfortable !
Many others just believe: "The devil we know is better than the devil we don't know." They are in a rut but are shaken up by changes and innovations.

Comments? Suggestions?

Yes, I suggest that your "universal ethical system" is very personal, and relatively arguable.
Does "one and all" include rapists, BTW?

[prof]

Does "one and all" include rapists, BTW?

Yes, it does.

Why are we giving rapists so much attention? If they use force or violence during (or instead of) sex, then they are criminals (guilty of felonious assault, at least) and ought to be handled as such. The perpetrators ought to be brought to justice. A balance needs to be restored; reparations need to be made. The perp is to be held accountable, and - at minimum - has to compensate the victims monetarily, even if it takes them the rest of their lives to work off that debt they owe. We meed to lock them up for a while.

Let's not forget, though, that rapists are conscious individuals too. They need therapy and rehabilitation, of course, and they need to be isolated from society while this intense treatment is going on, but their well-being is my (and your) well-being.

As long as they are untreated they could be a menace. Rapists can be of any gender. It is best for civilized society if they are regarded as mental cases, and treated accordingly, as handicapped people. It is in the best interest of a society to spend money on hiring therapists, mental-health workers and facilities, as well as teachers and trainers, as a central focus of the criminal justice system.

In general, "one and all" means just what it says: namely, we are all better off when we are ALL better off.,
Since the unemployed with low skills and little schooling will never catch up with the rate of technological improvement these days. They - with the possible exception of a few landscape gardeners - are being replaced by robots, and other technology changes, at a fast pace. There just won't be enough (traditional) jobs for human workers to do in the future] That is why the government's policy priority ought to be to mass-produce good food and shelter, making these necessities rather inexpensive, nearly free, so as to release the destitute and miserable to have the leisure and peace-of-mind to be creative with respect to some project society would find to be useful ...such as, , for example, inventing something, or innovating a morally-better social institution. {It only takes one Gregor Mendel, Alexander Graham Bell, Edison,, or Steve Jobs, to come along once in a while, for vast societal changes to occur.}

I hope this was helpful, and was responsive to your question.

Feel free to comment or ask any other questions.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Does "one and all" include rapists, BTW?

Yes, it does.
.

In other words you disagree that It is progress if it contributes to the Ultimate Purpose - which is a Quality Life for one and all, because rapists don't count.

[chasw]

snip...Meta-ethics is independent of specific cultures which people happen to have formed in the history of human evolution. It transcends them. Just as Logic and Math can be taught, objectively, all over the globe, so too can Formal Axiology. It proceeds by defining terms and by spinning out the implications of one, or a few, fertile concepts.... the axioms of the system. Your thoughts?

Sorry for belatedly jumping in, but prof argues for a rational use of "meta-ethics" to counter the cultural relativism school of thought. I agree with the idea that particulars of ethics and morality vary among the many human cultures alive today, but there are definite commonalities, beyond the structural similarities prof describes.

Paramount among these is the obvious common effect of evolution, related to our particular ecological niche as social animals. See my essay on human evolution for more exposition, but in this context, one's survival and reproductive success depends on getting along with your fellow members of society. This applies to societies large and small, urban and semi-isolated. Getting along, especially with kinfolk, is key to daily success. Most difficult tasks require concerted effort by multiple parties, with leadership, obedience, honesty, etc. highly valued personal qualities. It is no wonder these behavioral traits are found over and over again within disparate ethical systems across the planet. - CW

http://onhumanaffairs.blogspot.com/2012 ... -none.html.

[prof]

[/// I agree ... that particulars of ethics and morality vary among the many the many human cultures alive today, but there are definite commonalities, beyond the structural similarities prof describes. {{emphasis added}

... success depends on getting along with your fellow members of society. This applies to societies large and small,..., especially with kinfolk...Most difficult tasks require concerted effort by multiple parties, ...honesty,... [we find is] highly valued .... - CW

http://onhumanaffairs.blogspot.com/2012 ... -none.html.

Greetings, CW

Thank you for your constructive contribution. And thanks for a rational argument; a discussion in which no logical fallacies were committed - in contrast to some of the posts here.

Yes, you are correct: there are commonalities, or invariants.

I will have more to say about this later in a future post.

You mention the importance of getting along "with kinfolk." It is worth remembering the fact that we are all cousins, since the population of the Earth was much smaller years ago, and the odds are that much intermarriage took place among the first group of human hominids that emerged from prior species. Those were the ancestors from whom we are all descended.

I read the entire blog to which you offered us a link. It reminded me of certain passages in the Unified Theory of Ethics on the topics of evolution (of ethical thought through the ages) and of the nature of human nature. We come to similar conclusions. So thanks again. You write well and you write about important subjects.

[prof]

The various images of man known to philosophy and to social science point toward a new field of research - ethics as science. The combinatorial possibilities, when divers images of man are considered and investigated, with the assistance of logic, constitute the new science. Ethics may be understood as the discipline that studies the transformations of morality, and the invariants over all these transformations.

Morality, in its broad sense may be understood as: man being true to man - in individual terms and in group terms.

From the aspect of the individual it means avoiding self-defeating behavior while approaching that which is self-enhancing. It means every person's right and responsibility to avoid stagnation and to pursue self-improvement; to keep "growing" -- if he would be true to himself.

Sometimes it is by acquiring a new concept, such as "high synergy" or "favorable reinforcement schedule" or "gross national debit" or "the happiness index." Often it is by building new social institutions which enhance the individuals involved.

The individual and the social turn out, in practice, to be nearly inseparable; however, for purposes of theory and method it is useful to make the distinction.


Comments? Questions?

[Hobbes' Choice]

[/// I agree ... that particulars of ethics and morality vary among the many the many human cultures alive today, but there are definite commonalities, beyond the structural similarities prof describes. {{emphasis added}

... success depends on getting along with your fellow members of society. This applies to societies large and small,..., especially with kinfolk...Most difficult tasks require concerted effort by multiple parties, ...honesty,... [we find is] highly valued .... - CW

http://onhumanaffairs.blogspot.com/2012 ... -none.html.

Greetings, CW

Thank you for your constructive contribution. And thanks for a rational argument; a discussion in which no logical fallacies were committed - in contrast to some of the posts here.

Yes, you are correct: there are commonalities, or invariants.

I will have more to say about this later in a future post.

You mention the importance of getting along "with kinfolk." It is worth remembering the fact that we are all cousins, since the population of the Earth was much smaller years ago, and the odds are that much intermarriage took place among the first group of human hominids that emerged from prior species. Those were the ancestors from whom we are all descended.

I read the entire blog to which you offered us a link. It reminded me of certain passages in the Unified Theory of Ethics on the topics of evolution (of ethical thought through the ages) and of the nature of human nature. We come to similar conclusions. So thanks again. You write well and you write about important subjects.

You can only use the commonalities to explain and understand the particularities and the idiosyncrasies.
The scientific commonalities extend only to the fact that we are all bipedal evolved apes, structured bodily for hunting and gathering, living in communities of less than 50 persons.

Sadly little of this applies today, except providing practical ways of arranging our supermarket shelves to mimic and exploit our visual cortex. And, sadly, as we have long abandoned our 'primitive' roots of small mobile communities, there is little else to say. Where you to begin to gather moral recommendations to mimic those nascent small communities I think you might have a chance to begin to use the commonalities.
But without embracing the particularities of cultural diversity and the inherent idiosyncrasies that their peculiar cultural/ideological and endemic assumptions, none of what you say looks anything more than a peculiar, late 20thC white/ western and peri-christian load of old bollocks that will be as out-of-date, as the Roman by word "Quot Servi Tot Hostes" that led them out of the 1st Millenium BC, to a further 1000 years+ of slavery.

Such mind numbingly naive statements such as "we are all kinfolk" is a narrow minded and narrowly focused example of your own limited and culturally focused idiosyncratic culturally determined viewpoint. It is not universal, not universally accepted, not absolute, it is relative your your upbringing, and limited to a narrow culturally focused assumption. It is not accepted by the vast majority of people. Your saying it, as if it were some sort of overriding truth is nothing more than arrogant and blinkered.
It is limited to your wishfulness.
Whilst I agree that such an ideology would be great if accepted by all humans, and would lead to world peace. I'm not stupid enough to think that the idea has any legs. I am also struck by the unavoidable fact that if all humans are kinfolk, then all apes are our kinfolk too, and such a thought could so easily be extended to dogs, cats, sheep and cattle, even to the malarial parasite to all living things.
In fact there are many people who object to experimentation on, and/or eating other animals for that very reason. Where you draw the line is arbitrary and based on cultural conditioning.
That a Turk draws that line against the Greek and the Palestinian draws it against the Jew is not accommodated by your philosophy and thus your premise that there can be such a thing as a objective, universal or scientific ethical system is utterly bankrupt; devoid of any attempt to understand the human differences from which all moral and ethical systems are built upon.

[prof]

Hello, HB

You write: "statements such as "we are all kinfolk" is a narrow minded and narrowly focused example of your own ...viewpoint. "

Isn't it rather a biological fact? We descend from a relatively few people, who intermarried, if we trace it back far enough. Hence we are literally cousins.

I leave it to the Readers and Members here to be the judge whose view on ethics are more appealing and true, which system offered is the better one.

[chasw]

"Ethics may be understood as the discipline that studies the transformations of morality, and the invariants over all these transformations."

prof: To paraphrase your proposition, you are aiming for a descriptive system of ethics that can be applied to all or most human societies. Ethics being commonly held codes of conduct and supporting value statements. A very ambitious project, it seems.

I've not studied ethics much, so I'm on thin ice here, but I suggest you start with a taxonomy and reference model that describes those ethical values and relations that make up the bulk of human conventions in this area. Use some well defined codes of conduct such as classic chivalry, Confucianism, Buddhism (as in Sayings of the Compassionate Buddha), etc. All three have something to say about courage, purity and loyalty, for example. The larger your taxonomy grows, the clearer the relationship patterns that will eventually make up your reference model.

IMO, this is a purely philosophical exercise, so it will be difficult if not impossible to prove your claims through deductive reasoning. Instead, you are creating an explanation of human behavior that either makes sense, or not. Under the best of circumstances your conclusions will be controversial. good luck - CW

[prof]

Thanks for the suggestion, Chaz - and thanks for your kindness.

There are some deductions, and some proofs, in the system. There is a test - the HVP - which produces statistical results. These are subject to comparisons before and after the testee takes classes, has a lesson, etc. Hypotheses are suggested by the test results, and they can be confirmed by later experiments (or, to be more exact, by experiences.)

Comments?

[prof]

The people of this Earth, and their cultures, have come a long way from just 50 years ago.

Today average life-expectancy is 70 years.

The literacy rate in the world today is 80 percent.

Those are facts !

So there is progress. Social media can spread ideas very rapidly. Some day they may spread good ideas, ethical concepts, popularizations of good, systematic ethical theory. It could become the 'conventional wisdom.'

Efficient,, effective education may occur - resulting in getting us closer to a Quality Life for one and all.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Hello, HB

You write: "statements such as "we are all kinfolk" is a narrow minded and narrowly focused example of your own ...viewpoint. "

Isn't it rather a biological fact? We descend from a relatively few people, who intermarried, if we trace it back far enough. Hence we are literally cousins.

I leave it to the Readers and Members here to be the judge whose view on ethics are more appealing and true, which system offered is the better one.

Yes, it is a biological fact, just as the propensity to behave like dogs in a pack, respecting other members.
But so what?
That is only relevant to the degree that we live like animals. Humans have long ago departed from the the universality of animal life and have evolved a series of cultures which exhibit inherent cultural logic.
As each other these cultures have their own ways of looking at the world it is of upmost importance the each of these can be understood within their own systems.
That is why cultural relativism is so important

All you are achieving my trying to deny cultural difference by pretending a "universal morality" is in fact imposing your own particular choices based on the endemic assumptions of your own cultural programming.

I do not think there is anything wrong with promoting your own brand of morality, it is just that you are failing in being honest about what you are doing.
You are failing because you pretend that you have a morality that is true for all; it is not.
We've heard it all before from a long list of megalomaniacal moralists in the past.