Right & Wrong About Right & Wrong

[iambiguous]

Right & Wrong About Right & Wrong
Paul Stearns argues against moral relativism and moral presentism.

Second, I am tempted to reverse the narrative and argue that we are generally less moral than our ancestors (even the ones who owned slaves). Technologies such as social media and Weapons of Mass Destruction have made it much easier to demonize, dehumanize, and kill others.

And then the part that some suggest is often overlooked: pop culture and mindless consumerism. Along with the worship of celebrity in a context where each of us as individuals can seem to be utterly insignificant in a world brought to us increasingly on television, in the movies and in the news.

In other words, a world not of philosophies, but of "lifestyles".

Meanwhile, global economics helps us benefit from de facto slave labor, without our having to see the faces of the slaves. Indeed, there are many modern forces that make it easier for us to cause unnecessary suffering, demonize others, and, in general, be immoral, than it was for many bad people of past eras.

And isn't that peculiar? Morality that revolves as much around technology as social, political and economic interactions. It's not just what you do but how you go about doing it with technical capacities that our ancestors could scarcely imagine. Thus, new scientific/engineering/computer breakthroughs precipitating new economic parameters creating a new "global economy" that has, among other things, reconfigured the "class struggle". And now, politically, the reaction to all that such that, increasingly, democracy and the rule of law is giving way to more autocratic forms of governance. If not fascism itself.

What are "the foundations of morality that do not change" in our present "brave new world"?

In short, it is a narrow modern prejudice to say modern people are more moral than their ancestors. If you follow your conscience in any time, you will conflict with your times on some issues, and you will then have more in common with moral reformers in the past (or future) than you do with any other people in your own time. Moral people in all times experience the moral law, and the failure to live up to it.

Me? I'm still sticking with this: "Given what context?" Instead, how is the above not just another "general description intellectual contraption" that, depending on the context, can mean many different things to many different people living many different lives?

Your moral law?

Or morality as embraced by others:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

[iambiguous]

Right & Wrong About Right & Wrong
Paul Stearns argues against moral relativism and moral presentism.

Let me clarify two points. First, I am not claiming I would have acted differently than people in the past who owned slaves or contributed to genocides, were I in their culture. On the contrary, both psychological experiments (for example, Milgram’s) and the evidence of history indicate that over 90% of us go along with authority and peer pressure (that is, with social norms) even if it involves acting against conscience.

What do I keep missing here? This is an argument "against moral relativism". And yet he seems to be defending both slavery and genocide because had he been around in a community that practiced them, the community itself might have construed both practices as the embodiment of their very own "foundation of morality". That's what seems important...that some cultures down through the ages embraced slavery and others did not. But: both cultures agreed that there was in fact a "foundation" for morality?

Help me out here.

But there is human conscience, and its roots are older than you and any culture. You do not have a better conscience simply because you live in modern times. Rather, at best we might say we’ve simply had longer to work out (or through) the secondary implications of the same universal, timeless, primary moral values.

Same thing. Some cultures believe that female genital mutilation reflects conscientious behavior, while other cultures do not. And we should not judge their practices by our own moral standards. So, is there a deontological moral argument that pins down definitively whether it either is or is not objectively right or wrong?

Philosophically -- scientifically? -- what encompasses universal, timeless, primary moral values here?

Second, some will argue that since there are obviously individuals and cultures who do not share any primary moral values, my thesis that some values are universal must be mistaken. For example, there are psychopaths whose primary value is to cause unnecessary suffering instead of reducing it.

Again, steer clear of the psychopaths. Why? Because it can be argued that if someone is literally suffering from one or another medical condition like a brain tumor, morality becomes increasingly more moot. They do what they do because they are compelled to by the diseased brain itself.

No, instead, focus in more on the sociopaths. In particular those who come to rationalize their behaviors philosophically by arguing that in a No God world it is not inherently and necessarily irrational to construe morality as revolving entirely around one's own self-gratification.

What is the philosophical argument that will convince the sociopaths that even if they do choose to use others solely as means to sustain their own selfish ends, they are in fact in violation of a fundamental "foundation of morality"?

[Age]

Right & Wrong About Right & Wrong
Paul Stearns argues against moral relativism and moral presentism.

Let me clarify two points. First, I am not claiming I would have acted differently than people in the past who owned slaves or contributed to genocides, were I in their culture. On the contrary, both psychological experiments (for example, Milgram’s) and the evidence of history indicate that over 90% of us go along with authority and peer pressure (that is, with social norms) even if it involves acting against conscience.

What do I keep missing here? This is an argument "against moral relativism". And yet he seems to be defending both slavery and genocide because had he been around in a community that practiced them, the community itself might have construed both practices as the embodiment of their very own "foundation of morality". That's what seems important...that some cultures down through the ages embraced slavery and others did not. But: both cultures agreed that there was in fact a "foundation" for morality?

Help me out here.

I do NOT see ANY 'defending' of either slavery NOR genocide above here.

What words, EXACTLY, led you to think that "he" was 'defending' both slavery and genocide?

But there is human conscience, and its roots are older than you and any culture. You do not have a better conscience simply because you live in modern times. Rather, at best we might say we’ve simply had longer to work out (or through) the secondary implications of the same universal, timeless, primary moral values.

Same thing. Some cultures believe that female genital mutilation reflects conscientious behavior, while other cultures do not. And we should not judge their practices by our own moral standards.

When 'you' say and write, 'And we should not judge their practices by our own moral standards', is this what you think, or what you think "he" is saying and claiming?

So, is there a deontological moral argument that pins down definitively whether it either is or is not objectively right or wrong?

Yes this IS. BUT, the sound AND valid argument is NOT being made here above.

Philosophically -- scientifically? -- what encompasses universal, timeless, primary moral values here?

The EXACT SAME 'thing', which encompasses universal, timeless, primary Truth, AS WELL, and that is JUST AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE.

What IS AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED by ALL, IS what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, and Right, IN Life.

BUT, what IS AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED, by ALL, is JUST STILL IN an evolving process, of which 'you', human beings, in the days of when this is being written, are NOT YET SAVVY TO.

Second, some will argue that since there are obviously individuals and cultures who do not share any primary moral values, my thesis that some values are universal must be mistaken. For example, there are psychopaths whose primary value is to cause unnecessary suffering instead of reducing it.

Again, steer clear of the psychopaths. Why? Because it can be argued that if someone is literally suffering from one or another medical condition like a brain tumor, morality becomes increasingly more moot. They do what they do because they are compelled to by the diseased brain itself.

No, instead, focus in more on the sociopaths. In particular those who come to rationalize their behaviors philosophically by arguing that in a No God world it is not inherently and necessarily irrational to construe morality as revolving entirely around one's own self-gratification.

What is the philosophical argument that will convince the sociopaths that even if they do choose to use others solely as means to sustain their own selfish ends, they are in fact in violation of a fundamental "foundation of morality"?

As I have been CONTINUALLY SAYING and POINTING OUT, there is ABSOLUTE NO 'thing' that can SHOW 'otherwise' to one who BELIEVES some 'thing' IS TRUE. So, in other words, there is absolutely NO 'argument' that could be given to even one who CLAIMS to be of 'truly sound mind', and/or who is even PERCEIVED to be of 'truly sound mind', which could SHOW 'them' the ACTUAL Truth of ANY 'thing' while 'they' are BELIEVING some 'thing' opposing IS TRUE.

Even a 'sound AND valid argument', which, OBVIOUSLY, is one that could NOT be REFUTED by ANY one, is STILL NOT sufficient in REVEALING and SHOWING the Truth of some 'thing' to someone WHO BELIEVES otherwise.

So, FINDING the so-called 'philosophical argument', which would convince someone with a so-called 'truly sound mind who BELIEVES some 'thing', IS IMPOSSIBLE, let alone trying to FIND one for a so-called "sociopath" with A BELIEF.

In regards to SHARING THE 'philosophical argument', which WILL convince ANY or ALL of 'you', human beings, then 'you' are ALL 'in the SAME boat here', as some might say. That, that is WHILE ANY one of 'you' is HOLDING ONTO and/or MAINTAINING A BELIEF, then there there is NOT one AVAILABLE.

[iambiguous]

Right & Wrong About Right & Wrong
Paul Stearns argues against moral relativism and moral presentism.

Let me clarify two points. First, I am not claiming I would have acted differently than people in the past who owned slaves or contributed to genocides, were I in their culture. On the contrary, both psychological experiments (for example, Milgram’s) and the evidence of history indicate that over 90% of us go along with authority and peer pressure (that is, with social norms) even if it involves acting against conscience.

What do I keep missing here? This is an argument "against moral relativism". And yet he seems to be defending both slavery and genocide because had he been around in a community that practiced them, the community itself might have construed both practices as the embodiment of their very own "foundation of morality". That's what seems important...that some cultures down through the ages embraced slavery and others did not. But: both cultures agreed that there was in fact a "foundation" for morality?

Help me out here.

I do NOT see ANY 'defending' of either slavery NOR genocide above here.

What words, EXACTLY, led you to think that "he" was 'defending' both slavery and genocide?

But there is human conscience, and its roots are older than you and any culture. You do not have a better conscience simply because you live in modern times. Rather, at best we might say we’ve simply had longer to work out (or through) the secondary implications of the same universal, timeless, primary moral values.

Same thing. Some cultures believe that female genital mutilation reflects conscientious behavior, while other cultures do not. And we should not judge their practices by our own moral standards.

When 'you' say and write, 'And we should not judge their practices by our own moral standards', is this what you think, or what you think "he" is saying and claiming?

So, is there a deontological moral argument that pins down definitively whether it either is or is not objectively right or wrong?

Yes this IS. BUT, the sound AND valid argument is NOT being made here above.

Philosophically -- scientifically? -- what encompasses universal, timeless, primary moral values here?

The EXACT SAME 'thing', which encompasses universal, timeless, primary Truth, AS WELL, and that is JUST AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE.

What IS AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED by ALL, IS what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, and Right, IN Life.

BUT, what IS AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED, by ALL, is JUST STILL IN an evolving process, of which 'you', human beings, in the days of when this is being written, are NOT YET SAVVY TO.

Second, some will argue that since there are obviously individuals and cultures who do not share any primary moral values, my thesis that some values are universal must be mistaken. For example, there are psychopaths whose primary value is to cause unnecessary suffering instead of reducing it.

Again, steer clear of the psychopaths. Why? Because it can be argued that if someone is literally suffering from one or another medical condition like a brain tumor, morality becomes increasingly more moot. They do what they do because they are compelled to by the diseased brain itself.

No, instead, focus in more on the sociopaths. In particular those who come to rationalize their behaviors philosophically by arguing that in a No God world it is not inherently and necessarily irrational to construe morality as revolving entirely around one's own self-gratification.

What is the philosophical argument that will convince the sociopaths that even if they do choose to use others solely as means to sustain their own selfish ends, they are in fact in violation of a fundamental "foundation of morality"?

As I have been CONTINUALLY SAYING and POINTING OUT, there is ABSOLUTE NO 'thing' that can SHOW 'otherwise' to one who BELIEVES some 'thing' IS TRUE. So, in other words, there is absolutely NO 'argument' that could be given to even one who CLAIMS to be of 'truly sound mind', and/or who is even PERCEIVED to be of 'truly sound mind', which could SHOW 'them' the ACTUAL Truth of ANY 'thing' while 'they' are BELIEVING some 'thing' opposing IS TRUE.

Even a 'sound AND valid argument', which, OBVIOUSLY, is one that could NOT be REFUTED by ANY one, is STILL NOT sufficient in REVEALING and SHOWING the Truth of some 'thing' to someone WHO BELIEVES otherwise.

So, FINDING the so-called 'philosophical argument', which would convince someone with a so-called 'truly sound mind who BELIEVES some 'thing', IS IMPOSSIBLE, let alone trying to FIND one for a so-called "sociopath" with A BELIEF.

In regards to SHARING THE 'philosophical argument', which WILL convince ANY or ALL of 'you', human beings, then 'you' are ALL 'in the SAME boat here', as some might say. That, that is WHILE ANY one of 'you' is HOLDING ONTO and/or MAINTAINING A BELIEF, then there there is NOT one AVAILABLE.

Just a reminder that for strictly person reasons I never READ anything that AGE posts. But for those who do, sure, if he/she ever does post something that you believe might be of interest to me, please pass it along.

Thanks.

[Age]

Right & Wrong About Right & Wrong
Paul Stearns argues against moral relativism and moral presentism.



What do I keep missing here? This is an argument "against moral relativism". And yet he seems to be defending both slavery and genocide because had he been around in a community that practiced them, the community itself might have construed both practices as the embodiment of their very own "foundation of morality". That's what seems important...that some cultures down through the ages embraced slavery and others did not. But: both cultures agreed that there was in fact a "foundation" for morality?

Help me out here.

I do NOT see ANY 'defending' of either slavery NOR genocide above here.

What words, EXACTLY, led you to think that "he" was 'defending' both slavery and genocide?

Same thing. Some cultures believe that female genital mutilation reflects conscientious behavior, while other cultures do not. And we should not judge their practices by our own moral standards.

When 'you' say and write, 'And we should not judge their practices by our own moral standards', is this what you think, or what you think "he" is saying and claiming?

So, is there a deontological moral argument that pins down definitively whether it either is or is not objectively right or wrong?

Yes this IS. BUT, the sound AND valid argument is NOT being made here above.

Philosophically -- scientifically? -- what encompasses universal, timeless, primary moral values here?

The EXACT SAME 'thing', which encompasses universal, timeless, primary Truth, AS WELL, and that is JUST AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE.

What IS AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED by ALL, IS what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, and Right, IN Life.

BUT, what IS AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED, by ALL, is JUST STILL IN an evolving process, of which 'you', human beings, in the days of when this is being written, are NOT YET SAVVY TO.

Again, steer clear of the psychopaths. Why? Because it can be argued that if someone is literally suffering from one or another medical condition like a brain tumor, morality becomes increasingly more moot. They do what they do because they are compelled to by the diseased brain itself.

No, instead, focus in more on the sociopaths. In particular those who come to rationalize their behaviors philosophically by arguing that in a No God world it is not inherently and necessarily irrational to construe morality as revolving entirely around one's own self-gratification.

What is the philosophical argument that will convince the sociopaths that even if they do choose to use others solely as means to sustain their own selfish ends, they are in fact in violation of a fundamental "foundation of morality"?

As I have been CONTINUALLY SAYING and POINTING OUT, there is ABSOLUTE NO 'thing' that can SHOW 'otherwise' to one who BELIEVES some 'thing' IS TRUE. So, in other words, there is absolutely NO 'argument' that could be given to even one who CLAIMS to be of 'truly sound mind', and/or who is even PERCEIVED to be of 'truly sound mind', which could SHOW 'them' the ACTUAL Truth of ANY 'thing' while 'they' are BELIEVING some 'thing' opposing IS TRUE.

Even a 'sound AND valid argument', which, OBVIOUSLY, is one that could NOT be REFUTED by ANY one, is STILL NOT sufficient in REVEALING and SHOWING the Truth of some 'thing' to someone WHO BELIEVES otherwise.

So, FINDING the so-called 'philosophical argument', which would convince someone with a so-called 'truly sound mind who BELIEVES some 'thing', IS IMPOSSIBLE, let alone trying to FIND one for a so-called "sociopath" with A BELIEF.

In regards to SHARING THE 'philosophical argument', which WILL convince ANY or ALL of 'you', human beings, then 'you' are ALL 'in the SAME boat here', as some might say. That, that is WHILE ANY one of 'you' is HOLDING ONTO and/or MAINTAINING A BELIEF, then there there is NOT one AVAILABLE.

Just a reminder that for strictly person reasons I never READ anything that AGE posts. But for those who do, sure, if he/she ever does post something that you believe might be of interest to me, please pass it along.

Thanks.

And this here is the PRIMEST of examples in SHOWING and EXPLAINING WHY adult human beings ENDED UP the way they HAD, in the days when this was being written, AND WHY they took SO LONG to UNCOVER and LEARN what the ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS, EXACTLY.

[iambiguous]

I do NOT see ANY 'defending' of either slavery NOR genocide above here.

What words, EXACTLY, led you to think that "he" was 'defending' both slavery and genocide?


When 'you' say and write, 'And we should not judge their practices by our own moral standards', is this what you think, or what you think "he" is saying and claiming?



Yes this IS. BUT, the sound AND valid argument is NOT being made here above.


The EXACT SAME 'thing', which encompasses universal, timeless, primary Truth, AS WELL, and that is JUST AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE.

What IS AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED by ALL, IS what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True, and Right, IN Life.

BUT, what IS AGREED WITH and ACCEPTED, by ALL, is JUST STILL IN an evolving process, of which 'you', human beings, in the days of when this is being written, are NOT YET SAVVY TO.


As I have been CONTINUALLY SAYING and POINTING OUT, there is ABSOLUTE NO 'thing' that can SHOW 'otherwise' to one who BELIEVES some 'thing' IS TRUE. So, in other words, there is absolutely NO 'argument' that could be given to even one who CLAIMS to be of 'truly sound mind', and/or who is even PERCEIVED to be of 'truly sound mind', which could SHOW 'them' the ACTUAL Truth of ANY 'thing' while 'they' are BELIEVING some 'thing' opposing IS TRUE.

Even a 'sound AND valid argument', which, OBVIOUSLY, is one that could NOT be REFUTED by ANY one, is STILL NOT sufficient in REVEALING and SHOWING the Truth of some 'thing' to someone WHO BELIEVES otherwise.

So, FINDING the so-called 'philosophical argument', which would convince someone with a so-called 'truly sound mind who BELIEVES some 'thing', IS IMPOSSIBLE, let alone trying to FIND one for a so-called "sociopath" with A BELIEF.

In regards to SHARING THE 'philosophical argument', which WILL convince ANY or ALL of 'you', human beings, then 'you' are ALL 'in the SAME boat here', as some might say. That, that is WHILE ANY one of 'you' is HOLDING ONTO and/or MAINTAINING A BELIEF, then there there is NOT one AVAILABLE.

Just a reminder that for strictly person reasons I never READ anything that AGE posts. But for those who do, sure, if he/she ever does post something that you believe might be of interest to me, please pass it along.

Thanks.

And this here is the PRIMEST of examples in SHOWING and EXPLAINING WHY adult human beings ENDED UP the way they HAD, in the days when this was being written, AND WHY they took SO LONG to UNCOVER and LEARN what the ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS, EXACTLY.

SO, anything OF interest here?

[Age]

Just a reminder that for strictly person reasons I never READ anything that AGE posts. But for those who do, sure, if he/she ever does post something that you believe might be of interest to me, please pass it along.

Thanks.

And this here is the PRIMEST of examples in SHOWING and EXPLAINING WHY adult human beings ENDED UP the way they HAD, in the days when this was being written, AND WHY they took SO LONG to UNCOVER and LEARN what the ACTUAL Truth of 'things' IS, EXACTLY.

SO, anything OF interest here?

NO, NOT REALLY.

BUT, you WILL NEVER KNOW 'this'.

[iambiguous]

Right & Wrong About Right & Wrong
Paul Stearns argues against moral relativism and moral presentism.

The problem with this objection [above] is that it is based on a misunderstanding of the thesis. This asserts there are universal moral values – moral values that are true for all times and places in human history – not that everyone recognizes or follows them. A math analogy can help one see the confusion. The person who believes that 2+2=5 does not have a different math, thus proving that mathematics is not universal; instead they are mathematically deficient. In a similar way, the person who feels no obligation to reduce unnecessary suffering does not have a different morality, but is instead outside the sphere of morality. Such a person does not refute the thesis of universal basic morality, but is instead morally deficient.

Again...

Note a moral conflagration that has rent the species down through the ages. My argument is that it is one thing to claim that reducing human suffering in regard to it is a "universal moral" pursuit, and another thing altogether to pin down the actual political policy that accomplishes this in an actual flesh and blood human community.

Let's choose capital punishment as an example. Everyone in the community can agree that reducing human suffering should be the overarching goal of the legal system in that community.

But: those on both sides have their own rooted existentially in dasein moral and political prejudices regarding which suffering counts more. Execute a prisoner and the families and friends of the person he or she killed and caused great suffering to feel some measure of justice, of closure. But what about the suffering of the family and friends of the prisoner executed? Is their suffering the moral equivalent of 2 + 2 = 5?

Start here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... n#p2359312

Now, connect the dots between human suffering, human justice and universal human morality.

To conclude, different cultures and times do not have radically different moral values, and it is a mistake to believe we are fundamentally morally advanced simply because we are modern. While we do have better factual knowledge about how to reduce suffering (for example, germ theory and polio vaccines), the moral obligation to reduce unnecessary suffering is a timeless primary value that we share with our ancestors, and to some degree even with other primates.

It is difficult to be highly moral in any time, because in all times people are tempted to demonize others and cause unnecessary suffering when it is in their self-interest. This is why the moral heroes of different times have more in common with each other than they do with the majority in their own time. When someone understands these points, they are less likely to dismiss morality itself as a product of their time or culture.

Let's call this what it is: a general description intellectual contraption that anchors morality to a world of words. Try taking his argument to, say, Texas and get reactions to it from citizens there in regard to capital punishment.

Then get back to us.