Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides

[Sculptor]

ZIONISTS accept genocide.

Imagine, if you will, that a radical Catholic Irish party took power in Northern Ireland, and voted for a "Right of Return policy", for all Catholics of Irish descent.
The law is then used to evict any Protestant, from rented or owned accomodation. They are thrown onto the street, whilst an American from New York who is a Catholic claiming Irish descent is offered their home rent free with a stipend to help them start a new life in Northern Ireland.

What would be your reaction?
But when you object the Irish who support the "Right of Return", scream justification for this on the basis of "Potato Famine", and the great hunger of the 19thC.

Yet this is exactly what is happening, daily, to Palestinians living in the West Bank.

Let us also imagine that the remianing Protestants are corralled into a small area of Ulster, whereby inports and exports are restricted by the Catholic Irish ,and periodically bombed by Eire levelling homes, blowing up hosptials, and universities. Periodically political goups of Protestants form and gather small bands of fighters from the orphan population -
(It being noted that in the October attack 80% of the fighters were orpans and none ofver th eage of 24)
- To try to take revenge on their hopeless situation.
In response Catholic Irish systematically continue the destruction of the enclave, targetting refugee camps, UN workers, journalists, hospitals, and areas of land where they had previously told the Protestants to flee to.

But --- The Potato Famine!!! Remember that!

And it seems to me that the moral objectivists on this Forum support the "Right of Return"; the carrelling of Gaza, and the genocidal destruction meted out by Isreal on the Palestinians.

[bahman]

Again, if morality was universal among children then 100% of them should choose the good guy versus the bad guy. What they found is that only a fraction of children do that. The same for justice and punishment. Children are found to be racist and selfish none of these are moral.

Part of his problem is he conflates the fact that people nearly universally develop or carry on morals with the morals themselves being objective. It should be noted that his version of morals is not a set of laws and acts, but a development at bit like character. Nevertheless humans show a variety of different characters and traits that the consider moral. So, even this issue is really a distraction from his conflation of the existence of morals with their objectivity or even objectivities.

It's a bit like if he said that religion is universal, so religion is objective. Religion certainly used to be pretty much universal. That did not mean the contents of the religion were objective. They are separate issues but he conflates them.

What do you mean by objective?

[Iwannaplato]

Again, if morality was universal among children then 100% of them should choose the good guy versus the bad guy. What they found is that only a fraction of children do that. The same for justice and punishment. Children are found to be racist and selfish none of these are moral.

Part of his problem is he conflates the fact that people nearly universally develop or carry on morals with the morals themselves being objective. It should be noted that his version of morals is not a set of laws and acts, but a development at bit like character. Nevertheless humans show a variety of different characters and traits that the consider moral. So, even this issue is really a distraction from his conflation of the existence of morals with their objectivity or even objectivities.

It's a bit like if he said that religion is universal, so religion is objective. Religion certainly used to be pretty much universal. That did not mean the contents of the religion were objective. They are separate issues but he conflates them.

What do you mean by objective?

I think the better issue is what he means. He is arguing that morality is objective. But he conflates the fact that most people have some kind of morality with the moralities itself begin objective. In a sense it doesn't matter how he defines objective. The two issues are quite different. For some reason he seems to think that people deny the existence of moralities. IOW it is as if moral relativists deny the existence of moralities. 1) they don't and 2) we do have tools to test the hypothesis that people have morals. But whether the conclusions/assertions IN the moralities themselves are true is what the moral relativists are weighing in on. As are other skeptics of objective morals like PH, etc.

Whatever tools/processes we would use to determine this would be quite different. It's a different epistemological issue. In a sense this whole thread is a double strawman. One, it is written as if the moral relativists deny that most people have moralities. They don't. He doesn't say they assert this, but part of his argument is against this position, one they don't have. Two, it conflates the two issues, which moral relativists do not do. At least not the ones I'm aware of.

[bahman]

Part of his problem is he conflates the fact that people nearly universally develop or carry on morals with the morals themselves being objective. It should be noted that his version of morals is not a set of laws and acts, but a development at bit like character. Nevertheless humans show a variety of different characters and traits that the consider moral. So, even this issue is really a distraction from his conflation of the existence of morals with their objectivity or even objectivities.

It's a bit like if he said that religion is universal, so religion is objective. Religion certainly used to be pretty much universal. That did not mean the contents of the religion were objective. They are separate issues but he conflates them.

What do you mean by objective?

I think the better issue is what he means. He is arguing that morality is objective. But he conflates the fact that most people have some kind of morality with the moralities itself begin objective. In a sense it doesn't matter how he defines objective. The two issues are quite different. For some reason he seems to think that people deny the existence of moralities. IOW it is as if moral relativists deny the existence of moralities. 1) they don't and 2) we do have tools to test the hypothesis that people have morals. But whether the conclusions/assertions IN the moralities themselves are true is what the moral relativists are weighing in on. As are other skeptics of objective morals like PH, etc.

Whatever tools/processes we would use to determine this would be quite different. It's a different epistemological issue. In a sense this whole thread is a double strawman. One, it is written as if the moral relativists deny that most people have moralities. They don't. He doesn't say they assert this, but part of his argument is against this position, one they don't have. Two, it conflates the two issues, which moral relativists do not do. At least not the ones I'm aware of.

Correct. Let's see if he defines objective.

[Iwannaplato]

What do you mean by objective?

I think the better issue is what he means. He is arguing that morality is objective. But he conflates the fact that most people have some kind of morality with the moralities itself begin objective. In a sense it doesn't matter how he defines objective. The two issues are quite different. For some reason he seems to think that people deny the existence of moralities. IOW it is as if moral relativists deny the existence of moralities. 1) they don't and 2) we do have tools to test the hypothesis that people have morals. But whether the conclusions/assertions IN the moralities themselves are true is what the moral relativists are weighing in on. As are other skeptics of objective morals like PH, etc.

Whatever tools/processes we would use to determine this would be quite different. It's a different epistemological issue. In a sense this whole thread is a double strawman. One, it is written as if the moral relativists deny that most people have moralities. They don't. He doesn't say they assert this, but part of his argument is against this position, one they don't have. Two, it conflates the two issues, which moral relativists do not do. At least not the ones I'm aware of.

Correct. Let's see if he defines objective.

An interesting irony is that in a sense moral relativists view the different moralities as FSKs. One can decide what is moral in, for example, a certain country, by looking at the morals conditioned on that country's moral FSK. They are arguing that there aren't objective morals but rather intersubjectively determined morals in different areas, ethnic and religious groups, etc. It's not so different from VA's use of FSK's. In this, they are his intellectual cousins. And given that he has said on occasion that objectivity is intersubjectivity - please let that fact about what he has asserted percolate for a moment, then what we are dealing with is a number of different intersubjective groups, each with their own morality. But I think the appeal of using the term 'objective' and it's related forms is too great and this is leading to all sorts of problems, as the discussions float around meanings that are sometimes intersubjective, sometimes, universal, sometimes objective. The whole basis of his assault on PH has been that PH's objectivity is actually intersubjective. Great. I think there is a lot of meat in that argument. But for some reason he refuses to give up his own use of objectivity as a descriptor.

One could certainly argue that objectivity covers those intersubjectively arrived at conclusions that meet rigorous criteria.

But because his terms and arguments and underlying meanings shift around all the time - due to their ad hoc nature - a lot of time gets spent on issues that may well turn out to be non-issues.

[FlashDangerpants]

Correct. Let's see if he defines objective.

The real trick is to spot where he forgets the rules. Or more accurately, when he just doesn't realise they apply to him as well. Atla says that VA lacks empathy, I would say he's got a bit of a deficit in theory of mind. I don't mean philosophical mind theories in this instance, I mean the psychological phenomenon of understanding when other people don't think the same thing you think, or have the same information to hand that you do. I think that Atla and I are probably pointing at the same thing though. Whatever is going in in there, he has a blind spot where if it seems to him that certain things are obvious, then he assumes that everybody else finds them obvious as well, and he simply cannot fathom ths idea that we don't agree with him.

To him it goes without saying that everything can be first listed, and then organised into hiearchies, and that we can and should compare all things in this way. He lacks the theory of mind to understand that when other people say something is 'comparing apples to oranges' we are saying it makes no sense to compare them. For VA, that is the work of the apples-and-oranges-FSRK. This extraordinarily faulty assumption underpins all of his work on the matter of objectivity but he has zero means by which to question his own assumed principle.

That's how he ends up with this bizarre conception of FSK things that are arranged according to another FSK thing into a pyramid of excellence with the things hethinks are obviously good at the obviously good end of said pyramid. But when asked to explain how any of that is justified he gets confused and doesn't understand why you are questioning the obvious.

[bahman]

I think the better issue is what he means. He is arguing that morality is objective. But he conflates the fact that most people have some kind of morality with the moralities itself begin objective. In a sense it doesn't matter how he defines objective. The two issues are quite different. For some reason he seems to think that people deny the existence of moralities. IOW it is as if moral relativists deny the existence of moralities. 1) they don't and 2) we do have tools to test the hypothesis that people have morals. But whether the conclusions/assertions IN the moralities themselves are true is what the moral relativists are weighing in on. As are other skeptics of objective morals like PH, etc.

Whatever tools/processes we would use to determine this would be quite different. It's a different epistemological issue. In a sense this whole thread is a double strawman. One, it is written as if the moral relativists deny that most people have moralities. They don't. He doesn't say they assert this, but part of his argument is against this position, one they don't have. Two, it conflates the two issues, which moral relativists do not do. At least not the ones I'm aware of.

Correct. Let's see if he defines objective.

An interesting irony is that in a sense moral relativists view the different moralities as FSKs. One can decide what is moral in, for example, a certain country, by looking at the morals conditioned on that country's moral FSK. They are arguing that there aren't objective morals but rather intersubjectively determined morals in different areas, ethnic and religious groups, etc. It's not so different from VA's use of FSK's. In this, they are his intellectual cousins. And given that he has said on occasion that objectivity is intersubjectivity - please let that fact about what he has asserted percolate for a moment, then what we are dealing with is a number of different intersubjective groups, each with their own morality. But I think the appeal of using the term 'objective' and it's related forms is too great and this is leading to all sorts of problems, as the discussions float around meanings that are sometimes intersubjective, sometimes, universal, sometimes objective. The whole basis of his assault on PH has been that PH's objectivity is actually intersubjective. Great. I think there is a lot of meat in that argument. But for some reason he refuses to give up his own use of objectivity as a descriptor.

One could certainly argue that objectivity covers those intersubjectively arrived at conclusions that meet rigorous criteria.

But because his terms and arguments and underlying meanings shift around all the time - due to their ad hoc nature - a lot of time gets spent on issues that may well turn out to be non-issues.

I see and I agree with you.

[bahman]

Correct. Let's see if he defines objective.

The real trick is to spot where he forgets the rules. Or more accurately, when he just doesn't realise they apply to him as well. Atla says that VA lacks empathy, I would say he's got a bit of a deficit in theory of mind. I don't mean philosophical mind theories in this instance, I mean the psychological phenomenon of understanding when other people don't think the same thing you think, or have the same information to hand that you do. I think that Atla and I are probably pointing at the same thing though. Whatever is going in in there, he has a blind spot where if it seems to him that certain things are obvious, then he assumes that everybody else finds them obvious as well, and he simply cannot fathom ths idea that we don't agree with him.

To him it goes without saying that everything can be first listed, and then organised into hiearchies, and that we can and should compare all things in this way. He lacks the theory of mind to understand that when other people say something is 'comparing apples to oranges' we are saying it makes no sense to compare them. For VA, that is the work of the apples-and-oranges-FSRK. This extraordinarily faulty assumption underpins all of his work on the matter of objectivity but he has zero means by which to question his own assumed principle.

That's how he ends up with this bizarre conception of FSK things that are arranged according to another FSK thing into a pyramid of excellence with the things hethinks are obviously good at the obviously good end of said pyramid. But when asked to explain how any of that is justified he gets confused and doesn't understand why you are questioning the obvious.

I see. So there are lots of problems here that I should be aware of.

[FlashDangerpants]

Correct. Let's see if he defines objective.

The real trick is to spot where he forgets the rules. Or more accurately, when he just doesn't realise they apply to him as well. Atla says that VA lacks empathy, I would say he's got a bit of a deficit in theory of mind. I don't mean philosophical mind theories in this instance, I mean the psychological phenomenon of understanding when other people don't think the same thing you think, or have the same information to hand that you do. I think that Atla and I are probably pointing at the same thing though. Whatever is going in in there, he has a blind spot where if it seems to him that certain things are obvious, then he assumes that everybody else finds them obvious as well, and he simply cannot fathom ths idea that we don't agree with him.

To him it goes without saying that everything can be first listed, and then organised into hiearchies, and that we can and should compare all things in this way. He lacks the theory of mind to understand that when other people say something is 'comparing apples to oranges' we are saying it makes no sense to compare them. For VA, that is the work of the apples-and-oranges-FSRK. This extraordinarily faulty assumption underpins all of his work on the matter of objectivity but he has zero means by which to question his own assumed principle.

That's how he ends up with this bizarre conception of FSK things that are arranged according to another FSK thing into a pyramid of excellence with the things hethinks are obviously good at the obviously good end of said pyramid. But when asked to explain how any of that is justified he gets confused and doesn't understand why you are questioning the obvious.

I see. So there are lots of problems here that I should be aware of.

All depends on the mission old chap. It is said that when Subutai led the Mongol army across the impassible desert, he first sent a thousand asses laden with water skins, so that when his army caught up to where they had died there was enough water to complete the journey. On this voyage you have undertaken to examine the mysteries of VA, you may use me, and Atla and IWP as your pile of dead asses!

By the time most people work out roughly what makes communication with VA so difficult, he has ceased any useful attempt to communicate with them in return and is mostly just calling them names such as gnat or kindi-something-or-other and grumbling to himself that they are all so rude to him. Perhaps you will be the one to make him try to actually explain what is so important about arranging all possible methods for answering the infinite number of possible questions into a single array with wieghtings for 'credibility' before going onto the VA pile of ignores.




Or not. The truth is that you will not succeed. That desert couldn't be crossed even with the aid of a million donkeys. But inflicting one moment of self-awareness on VA would still be a special achievement, and worthy of note.

[bahman]

The real trick is to spot where he forgets the rules. Or more accurately, when he just doesn't realise they apply to him as well. Atla says that VA lacks empathy, I would say he's got a bit of a deficit in theory of mind. I don't mean philosophical mind theories in this instance, I mean the psychological phenomenon of understanding when other people don't think the same thing you think, or have the same information to hand that you do. I think that Atla and I are probably pointing at the same thing though. Whatever is going in in there, he has a blind spot where if it seems to him that certain things are obvious, then he assumes that everybody else finds them obvious as well, and he simply cannot fathom ths idea that we don't agree with him.

To him it goes without saying that everything can be first listed, and then organised into hiearchies, and that we can and should compare all things in this way. He lacks the theory of mind to understand that when other people say something is 'comparing apples to oranges' we are saying it makes no sense to compare them. For VA, that is the work of the apples-and-oranges-FSRK. This extraordinarily faulty assumption underpins all of his work on the matter of objectivity but he has zero means by which to question his own assumed principle.

That's how he ends up with this bizarre conception of FSK things that are arranged according to another FSK thing into a pyramid of excellence with the things hethinks are obviously good at the obviously good end of said pyramid. But when asked to explain how any of that is justified he gets confused and doesn't understand why you are questioning the obvious.

I see. So there are lots of problems here that I should be aware of.

All depends on the mission old chap. It is said that when Subutai led the Mongol army across the impassible desert, he first sent a thousand asses laden with water skins, so that when his army caught up to where they had died there was enough water to complete the journey. On this voyage you have undertaken to examine the mysteries of VA, you may use me, and Atla and IWP as your pile of dead asses!

By the time most people work out roughly what makes communication with VA so difficult, he has ceased any useful attempt to communicate with them in return and is mostly just calling them names such as gnat or kindi-something-or-other and grumbling to himself that they are all so rude to him. Perhaps you will be the one to make him try to actually explain what is so important about arranging all possible methods for answering the infinite number of possible questions into a single array with wieghtings for 'credibility' before going onto the VA pile of ignores.




Or not. The truth is that you will not succeed. That desert couldn't be crossed even with the aid of a million donkeys. But inflicting one moment of self-awareness on VA would still be a special achievement, and worthy of note.

Wow, is he such a hard challenge!? I would certainly consider your help on this task.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, if morality was universal among children then 100% of them should choose the good guy versus the bad guy. What they found is that only a fraction of children do that. The same for justice and punishment. Children are found to be racist and selfish none of these are moral.

Again you missed my point.
You should relax and suspend judgment a bit.

What you are saying above is like,
if hunger and the digestive system are universal [a fact that it is universal] then 100% should eat the same food and the same manner.
if the sexual drive is universal [a fact that it is universal], then why do we have so many sexual derivations, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual and the likes.

There is something wrong with your thinking in this case.

In addition, you totally ignored the points I posted above where they agree moral elements are innate.
What I have argued is all humans has innate potential for morality and at the same time the innate propensity for evil. Both should not be conflated.
For example, there are many a times in many humans where they have an impulse to commit evil acts, but then their moral conscience is activated and inhibited them to carry out the evil act. It is reasonable to speculate you personally would have such a experience.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, if morality was universal among children then 100% of them should choose the good guy versus the bad guy. What they found is that only a fraction of children do that. The same for justice and punishment. Children are found to be racist and selfish none of these are moral.

Part of his problem is he conflates the fact that people nearly universally develop or carry on morals with the morals themselves being objective. It should be noted that his version of morals is not a set of laws and acts, but a development at bit like character. Nevertheless humans show a variety of different characters and traits that the consider moral. So, even this issue is really a distraction from his conflation of the existence of morals with their objectivity or even objectivities.

It's a bit like if he said that religion is universal, so religion is objective. Religion certainly used to be pretty much universal. That did not mean the contents of the religion were objective. They are separate issues but he conflates them.

Nope, you got is WRONG as usual due to narrow thinking.

I had defined morality as the management of evil to generate its related good.
In this case, my focus on all specific elements that are supposed to be moral as defined.

One specific moral element is;
"no humans ought to torture and kill babies for pleasure or whatever the purpose"
this is a universal moral element represented by its related neural correlates.

This is evident that 99.9% percent of people has not shown such inclinations.
The 0.01% that do, e.g. Hamas, arose due to a defects in their moral set-up.

The above is merely ONE moral elements and there are many.

Point is, defects to the moral set-up in this specific moral element [set-up] do not obviate its existence with the person.
If a person in blind, it does not obviate the universal core visual system within his brain.
Therefore there are objective moral elements within all humans, i.e. these are objective moral facts and overall morality is objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

ZIONISTS accept genocide.

Imagine, if you will, that a radical Catholic Irish party took power in Northern Ireland, and voted for a "Right of Return policy", for all Catholics of Irish descent.
The law is then used to evict any Protestant, from rented or owned accomodation. They are thrown onto the street, whilst an American from New York who is a Catholic claiming Irish descent is offered their home rent free with a stipend to help them start a new life in Northern Ireland.

What would be your reaction?
But when you object the Irish who support the "Right of Return", scream justification for this on the basis of "Potato Famine", and the great hunger of the 19thC.

Yet this is exactly what is happening, daily, to Palestinians living in the West Bank.

Let us also imagine that the remianing Protestants are corralled into a small area of Ulster, whereby inports and exports are restricted by the Catholic Irish ,and periodically bombed by Eire levelling homes, blowing up hosptials, and universities. Periodically political goups of Protestants form and gather small bands of fighters from the orphan population -
(It being noted that in the October attack 80% of the fighters were orpans and none ofver th eage of 24)
- To try to take revenge on their hopeless situation.
In response Catholic Irish systematically continue the destruction of the enclave, targetting refugee camps, UN workers, journalists, hospitals, and areas of land where they had previously told the Protestants to flee to.

But --- The Potato Famine!!! Remember that!

And it seems to me that the moral objectivists on this Forum support the "Right of Return"; the carrelling of Gaza, and the genocidal destruction meted out by Isreal on the Palestinians.

Where is it indicated that the Zionists accept genocide?
Is is indicated in any Zionist's Constitution?
If Zionists were constituted to commit genocide, they could easily have wiped out the whole population [or as many as possible] of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

On the other hand, it is stipulated in the Constitution of Hamas that their objective is to wipe out all the Jews in Israel. This undeniable the intent to commit genocide.
Moral Relativists cannot condemn such an intent on moral grounds! [note on moral grounds not other grounds]
Therefore by implication moral relativists accept genocides wherever they are intended or committed.

As for moral objectivists, they may or may not have a constitution with the aims of genocide.
There are other moral objectivists who has pacifist objectives, e.g. Christianity, Buddhism, and others.
As such, the moral objectivists with pacifist objects can condemn those with genocide goals and take preventive steps to prevent genocides on moral grounds.

But ALL moral relativists by their definition cannot condemned any other moral ideology [objective or relativist] because tolerance and to each their own is in their DNA.

Get it!

There is no room for Christians by the pacifist maxim, 'love all even enemies' in the Gospels to facilitate Christians to commit genocides as Christians.
If 'Christians' were to commit genocides that is on their own driven by tribalism and not on moral grounds in the name of Christ.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Correct. Let's see if he defines objective.

I had already given a lot of attention to 'what is objectivity'
here are some of the >10 threads I have raised re Objectivity.

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416

There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

The Two Faces of Objectivity
viewtopic.php?t=41214

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286 Jan 13, 2023

What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707


Your definition of 'objectivity' is based on reason is too shallow.

[bahman]

Again, if morality was universal among children then 100% of them should choose the good guy versus the bad guy. What they found is that only a fraction of children do that. The same for justice and punishment. Children are found to be racist and selfish none of these are moral.

Again you missed my point.
You should relax and suspend judgment a bit.

What you are saying above is like,
if hunger and the digestive system are universal [a fact that it is universal] then 100% should eat the same food and the same manner.
if the sexual drive is universal [a fact that it is universal], then why do we have so many sexual derivations, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual and the likes.

There is something wrong with your thinking in this case.

No, there is nothing wrong in my thinking. We were discussing that morality is universal. You provided the link to the video. As I discuss the content of the video clearly shows that morality is not universal at least when it comes to children. What is left is education. In the same video, there is a discussion about education and its impact on our behavior. So, no morality is not universal when it comes to our genetic makeup.

In addition, you totally ignored the points I posted above where they agree moral elements are innate.

Moral behavior is partly innate and partly depends on education.

What I have argued is all humans has innate potential for morality and at the same time the innate propensity for evil. Both should not be conflated.

Therefore, morality is not universal.

For example, there are many a times in many humans where they have an impulse to commit evil acts, but then their moral conscience is activated and inhibited them to carry out the evil act. It is reasonable to speculate you personally would have such a experience.

Yes, I sometimes have the impulse to harm people.