moral relativism

[iambiguous]

Right, a hard no.

No, seriously!



Note to others:

Would you [could you] have ever imagined an exchange of this sort at the Philosophy Now forum?!

Me, coming from The New ILP, I'm rather used to it. But some here no doubt are, well, flabbergasted.

[Walker]

Pretty much all phenomena can be explained in light of a solid, basic premise. A tree is an excellent analogy. We can examine the variety of details in the leaves, or we can find the root from which all phenomena grows.

henry quirk has identified a taproot from which all the varieties of leaves bloom.

To my mind, that's pretty much philosophy, or, a philosophy of life.

*

Has anyone ever prompted you to change your mind about an issue that is important to you? Have you ever been wrong about an issue that was important to you?

- In retrospect. For instance, adults warn children. Children either listen, or they don’t. Could be issues of trust, could be issues of temperament that cause the listening, or the not listening. Could also be issues of nutrition or wax in the ears. (cue laughter)
- Children grow up and sometimes say, “Dang, I should have listened to mamma and papa.”

And, if you have been, doesn't that imply you may also be wrong about other things?

- No.
- Don’t be so quick to betray your old self. Whatever you did was necessary for you to do when you did it, so show some understanding for your old self before presuming to judge the world. Accept the self-condemnation because you had to do what you did, and you’re responsible for doing it … whatever it was. As such, there's nowhere to run to, and nowhere to hide.

[iambiguous]

Science and Morality
Science doesn’t give us a script for what to value or believe in, but it helps us write that script
Jim Kozubek at Scientific American

In his essay “The Virtue of Scientific Thinking” in the Boston Review, Harvard science historian Steven Shapin, who has also written on how much of our belief in science and the world is based on trust in the written word, has argued that trust in science has a critical role in morality, and that science, say climate science, can indeed be useful to shape values and direct policy decisions. But there are also obvious pitfalls to resurgent scientism. In recent decades, the free inquiry of science has been linked to technology, and thus to modes of institutional power, and monetization.

Here's the thing about science: the scientific method.

To the extent that you believe or do not believe in science given a particular context, there either are or are not scientists around able to come the closest to establishing whether what is claimed to be true objectively for all of us actually is. At least in regard to the natural sciences. The social sciences on the other hand -- psychology, sociology, anthropology -- do not have the equivalent of the scientific method in order to establish rock solid conclusions. They can make reasonably accurate predictions about, say, crowd behavior, but the conclusions have to be adjusted depending on which actual crowd it is in this or that set of circumstances.

And to the extent they are well-informed about this or that crowd, if the crowd is rallying around one cause rather than another, how well-informed can they be in regard to noting the most rational cause?

For example, I was just rewatching the film First Man, about Neal Armstrong's trek to the Moon and back. There were crowd scenes in it that depicted protests against the space program. The "Whitey on the Moon" frame of mind. Their behavior may be more or less predictable. But how to decide if the billions spent on the space program was worth it with so many programs needing funding down here?

As for "institutional power, and monetization", there's the "scientific socialism" of Karl Marx.

Which, of course, takes us back to "science and capitalism":

...scientific inquiry can be in jeopardy to the extent that it becomes put to the extreme uses of capitalization of the life sciences. Science, once a challenge to institutional authority, has increasingly been defined by status, finance and what look like hierarchical structures, which I think that people subconsciously like to see. But scientists, by close association with biotech, also risk a backlash that people make disengage with them, and begin to see credible facts as merely framing one more business venture. Importantly, we trust that what scientists say is probably true, but there is no guarantee of this trust or belief. In fact, trust is jeopardy as scientists connect their work to modes of technology as a means to personal power, half-million dollar cancer drugs, a billion-dollar CRISPR patent battle, and the like.

The "scientific method" and the "life sciences" industry. Science and the Defense Department. Science and the CIA/NSA. Science and Big Pharma. Science and the beauty industry. Science and social media technology. And on and on.

And, of course, it didn't much change when science was used by the "totalitarian" regimes to further their own political ideologies. The part where the either/or world and the is/ought world becomes hopelessly entangled. Historically, for example.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175121

[iambiguous]

Has anyone ever prompted you to change your mind about an issue that is important to you? Have you ever been wrong about an issue that was important to you?

- In retrospect. For instance, adults warn children. Children either listen, or they don’t. Could be issues of trust, could be issues of temperament that cause the listening, or the not listening. Could also be issues of nutrition or wax in the ears. (cue laughter)
- Children grow up and sometimes say, “Dang, I should have listened to mamma and papa.”

Okay, but with Henry here at the PN forum, I'm talking about issues like abortion and gun ownership and other "conflicting goods" that we encounter in the news. The "you're right from your side, I'm right from mine" subjectivist point of departure or the "I'm right and you're wrong" objectivist assessment.

And, if you have been, doesn't that imply you may also be wrong about other things?

- No.

No? You were wrong about this issue but you are still absolutely right about all the other ones?

- Don’t be so quick to betray your old self. Whatever you did was necessary for you to do when you did it, so show some understanding for your old self before presuming to judge the world. Accept the self-condemnation because you had to do what you did, and you’re responsible for doing it … whatever it was. As such, there's nowhere to run to, and nowhere to hide.

Fine, but how does this work in regard to issues like abortion and gun ownership? The old and new self are, to me, still the embodiment of dasein. The old self may have believed that abortion is immoral and the new self is not so sure. Or the new self is now convinced that given a certain set of circumstances it is actually moral to have one.

There's still the part where this is disentangled from dasein and rooted in something along the lines of a deontological obligation for all rational women dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

[henry quirk]

henry quirk has identified a taproot from which all the varieties of leaves bloom.

To my mind, that's pretty much philosophy, or, a philosophy of life.

This is mebbe the finest compliment I've ever gotten.

[iambiguous]

henry quirk has identified a taproot from which all the varieties of leaves bloom.

To my mind, that's pretty much philosophy, or, a philosophy of life.

This is mebbe the finest compliment I've ever gotten.

Maybe, but, in my view, it doesn't make this...

Okay, but with Henry here at the PN forum, I'm talking about issues like abortion and gun ownership and other "conflicting goods" that we encounter in the news. The "you're right from your side, I'm right from mine" subjectivist point of departure or the "I'm right and you're wrong" objectivist assessment.

Fine, but how does this work in regard to issues like abortion and gun ownership? The old and new self are, to me, still the embodiment of dasein. The old self may have believed that abortion is immoral and the new self is not so sure. Or the new self is now convinced that given a certain set of circumstances it is actually moral to have one.

There's still the part where this is disentangled from dasein and rooted in something along the lines of a deontological obligation for all rational women dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

...go away.

It's always your taproot -- philosophy of life -- isn't it?

[Eodnhoj7]

if there is no agreement to verify what is or isn't justified in that agreement, then all is fair game. the constitution of the US is an agreement between the gov and its people, a covenant if you will. one is justified to speak freely within the territories under the US gov's power because the US constitution justifies it. or gun ownership, or anything stated in that agreement (for example). hence the president's sworn duty to protect it, its the heart of the peaceful coexistence of those who agree to it.

agreements are the morals or rules or laws agreed to by those included to be in agreements. the document is the verification of what is and is not justified. therefore morals are relative to those in the agreement. for example Russians in Russia are not bound to the US constitution. they are bound to whatever is agreed to between the its gov and people.

Then all is fair game as one stance always has an opposing counter stance.

not if there is an agreement, then the agreement rules, and what is and is not justified is stipulated. other wise yes all is fair, like as in the wild, or animal kingdom. man is different then animals because he can stipulate conditions of agreement, and honor them.

One must be in agreement that agreement rules and how reality presents itself necessitates there is no total agreement over everything.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nope. I, like you, know a great many abortions (not all) are done becuz the ladies involved, after consensual sex, are lookin' to short cut their way out of consequences they were well aware were possible.

These questions...

*Is the loss of nine months equivalent to the loss of an entire life?

*Should a life be rubbed out solely becuz that life is a temporary inconvenience?

*If someone consents to sex, aren't they also consenting to the potential, natural, consequence of having sex?

...are for those ladies.

And what about the abortions around non-consensual sex? Abortion is a broad topic and cannot be limited to consensuality.

I have this picture of you and others who believe as you do about abortion coming upon a woman you discover has just had one. I picture you dragging her before some tribunal where the details of her crime are spelled out and sentence pronounced. But there the picture becomes murky. What will the sentence be? Shall she be stoned, hung, jailed (and taken away from any other children she might have), flogged, put in stocks, fined, or perhaps forced to walk around with a sign with a big red. "A", or what? If abortion is a crime, how do you intend to deal with it?

Assuming the premise that some abortions are murder, and the abortion she committed falls under this definition of "some", then the punishment for murder suffices. This is relative, the punishment that is, to the context of the society she is in.

[Walker]

There's still the part where this is disentangled from dasein and rooted in something along the lines of a deontological obligation for all rational women dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

Life is the measure of all things. This is the objective standard. This means that the impact upon life that is caused by an event, is the measure of that event’s significance, and importance.

[iambiguous]

...how does this work in regard to issues like abortion and gun ownership? The old and new self are, to me, still the embodiment of dasein. The old self may have believed that abortion is immoral and the new self is not so sure. Or the new self is now convinced that given a certain set of circumstances it is actually moral to have one.

There's still the part where this is disentangled from dasein and rooted in something along the lines of a deontological obligation for all rational women dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

Life is the measure of all things. This is the objective standard. This means that the impact upon life that is caused by an event, is the measure of that event’s significance, and importance.

Again, to me this is just another "general description intellection contraption" that does not take morality out into the world of actual conflicting human behaviors derived from conflicting value judgments derived from the ofttimes very different lives that we live.

Is your life the measure of all things? My life? Henry's life? Instead, our individual lives have predisposed us existentially to espouse particular moral and political prejudices.

Mary aborts her unborn fetus. Henry buys his bazooka. How does the manner in which you understand "the impact upon life that is caused by an event, is the measure of that event’s significance, and importance" factor in then?

Whose "objective standard"?

[Walker]

Mary aborts her unborn fetus. Henry buys his bazooka. How does the manner in which you understand "the impact upon life that is caused by an event, is the measure of that event’s significance, and importance" factor in then?

Whose "objective standard"?

Both are important events. The second event holds the potential to end the lives* of humans and tanks, which is the purpose of the bazooka machine's creation. The first event is the manifestation of a purpose. The purpose is to end life*.

- The first, manifestation, is most important.
- Intent that drives manifestation is of lesser importance than manifestation. For example, thinking mean and nasty things is less important than a physical assault. (I figure Will Smith probably agrees.)
- Potentiality that is inherent in the bazooka's design and purpose is of lesser importance than either manifestation or intent. This is because potentiality is infinite, and the potentiality of abortion or bazooka need not manifest in a civil society, but does manifest when conditions are ripe.

Q: "Whose 'objective standard'?"
A: A body's.

* Life is the measure.

[Walker]

Whose "objective standard"?

Caress or punishment? Which is most important to the body, with Life as the measure.

That depends, doesn’t it. For instance, for the brute of a boxer who is wracked with guilt over the damage he always leaves in the wake of his personal life, a good beating upon his own body, a sound thumping about the noggin, is a penance more pleasurable than any caress, thus more important by the body’s objective standard, with Life as the measure (because of the thumping's effects upon life of the body).

Folks can get complicated, can’t they. They make a unified-field theory so complicated to distill.

[DPMartin]

Then all is fair game as one stance always has an opposing counter stance.

not if there is an agreement, then the agreement rules, and what is and is not justified is stipulated. other wise yes all is fair, like as in the wild, or animal kingdom. man is different then animals because he can stipulate conditions of agreement, and honor them.

One must be in agreement that agreement rules and how reality presents itself necessitates there is no total agreement over everything.

na, agreements can allow for addendums amendments renegotiations forgiveness restorations judges for unforeseen circumstances and situations. take a simple law addressing killing, there is the understanding the agreed parties may supersede the law or agreement to deal with a hostile attacker not covered in the law. also the law and or agreements can, if applies, set judges to discern such problems and rule accordingly.

[iambiguous]

Mary aborts her unborn fetus. Henry buys his bazooka. How does the manner in which you understand "the impact upon life that is caused by an event, is the measure of that event’s significance, and importance" factor in then?

Whose "objective standard"?

Both are important events. The second event holds the potential to end the lives* of humans and tanks, which is the purpose of the bazooka machine's creation. The first event is the manifestation of a purpose. The purpose is to end life*.

- The first, manifestation, is most important.
- Intent that drives manifestation is of lesser importance than manifestation. For example, thinking mean and nasty things is less important than a physical assault. (I figure Will Smith probably agrees.)
- Potentiality that is inherent in the bazooka's design and purpose is of lesser importance than either manifestation or intent. This is because potentiality is infinite, and the potentiality of abortion or bazooka need not manifest in a civil society, but does manifest when conditions are ripe.

Q: "Whose 'objective standard'?"
A: A body's.

* Life is the measure.

Okay, then let's agree to disagree. Besides, I have no idea what you are trying to convey here.

In fact, you remind me of Meno over at ILP.

[Walker]

Besides, I have no idea what you are trying to convey here.

'Tis a common refrain oft' echoed in these parts, in this neck of the woods, over yonder here.

Just responding to your questions in light of, life is the measure of all things, as you requested.

Life is the measure, does not mean to preserve life at all costs. Life is the measure, is simply a rule-of-thumb for situations.

Situations are like leaves on a tree. Measuring all things against life, is a tree root. I’ve found that a handy way to understand roots is to suspend disbelief for the purpose of analysis, and then extrapolate answers to “what if,” through the resulting filter.

For example, with life as the measure, should a woman have an abortion? Well, as an objective ethic, ending a life is more significant than two lives continuing to coexist, and that’s because death of the body is an absolute. Death and taxes, as they say.

Thus the question. With life as the measure, regarding the need for abortion, does the less significant take precedence over the more significant? In a rational world, no. In a world of bias, yes. I suspect most abortions are caused by a world of troubles.