Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides

[bahman]

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

You don't expect me to go through five threads and discussion within to see what is your definition of universality? Could you please define the universality in a couple of sentences?

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

It is not. Our behavior is either based on reason, emotion, bias,... It is only through reason that we can have a universal agreement in moral instances otherwise we would be scattered when it comes into moral instances if morality is considered to be based on emotion, bias,... therefore morality is not universal in this case.

[Atla]

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

You don't expect me to go through five threads and discussion within to see what is your definition of universality? Could you please define the universality in a couple of sentences?

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

It is not. Our behavior is either based on reason, emotion, bias,... It is only through reason that we can have a universal agreement in moral instances otherwise we would be scattered when it comes into moral instances if morality is considered to be based on emotion, bias,... therefore morality is not universal in this case.

VA also redefined morality (and many other key concepts), so good luck.

[FlashDangerpants]

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

Alas, VA is the self-constricting snake that strangles its own arse. Through iron will and dedication to the first idea he ever had and then equally iron dedication to every half baked add on he ever used to support it, VA is now irretrievably locked into self contradiction. If was smarter he would look at the mess he's made and realise he needed to find what was his actual first principle and hten work everything out from there avoiding the mistakes that previously took himm in crazy directions. But he can't do that. Every part of his nonsense seems obvious and right to him, and he lacks the imagination to even wonder if he's made serious mistakes.

He does believe he has made countless tiny adjustments over the years to accomodate new information better, but it wouldn't occur to him that a major error in the first steps of his theorising has taken him on a wild ride. Sadly this means that if you point him to a large problem in his argument (and there are many of these) he believes that some very small change he already made covers it. And because of the issue he has with things that seem obvious to him .... he can't long tolerate it not being obvious to you.

You are on a countdown now, soon you must accept his egregiously stupid theory that says it is objectively true that the Earth orbits the Sun only because more than half of all poeople agree it is. You must renounce the notion that what makes it objectively true is the actual fact that it happens and that this is best checked by looking at the objects ratgher than by analyzing the contents of people's beliefs. If you don't accept that definition soon, you will become a gnat, one of the army of inferiors that just cannot understand how amazing VA is, and how awesome his proofs of things are.

He will have a theory about why you don't believe (in) him, it won't be very sensible. It will be something long-winded about how you are betrayed by your inner needs, how you can't understand VA's grand wisdom because you have a cognitive dissonance that you inherited from your mother's side of the ape species.

He doesn't think there are or could be any good reasons to disagree with him. That's why he posts threads that say dumb shit like Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides.

[bahman]

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

Alas, VA is the self-constricting snake that strangles its own arse. Through iron will and dedication to the first idea he ever had and then equally iron dedication to every half baked add on he ever used to support it, VA is now irretrievably locked into self contradiction. If was smarter he would look at the mess he's made and realise he needed to find what was his actual first principle and hten work everything out from there avoiding the mistakes that previously took himm in crazy directions. But he can't do that. Every part of his nonsense seems obvious and right to him, and he lacks the imagination to even wonder if he's made serious mistakes.

He does believe he has made countless tiny adjustments over the years to accomodate new information better, but it wouldn't occur to him that a major error in the first steps of his theorising has taken him on a wild ride. Sadly this means that if you point him to a large problem in his argument (and there are many of these) he believes that some very small change he already made covers it. And because of the issue he has with things that seem obvious to him .... he can't long tolerate it not being obvious to you.

You are on a countdown now, soon you must accept his egregiously stupid theory that says it is objectively true that the Earth orbits the Sun only because more than half of all poeople agree it is. You must renounce the notion that what makes it objectively true is the actual fact that it happens and that this is best checked by looking at the objects ratgher than by analyzing the contents of people's beliefs. If you don't accept that definition soon, you will become a gnat, one of the army of inferiors that just cannot understand how amazing VA is, and how awesome his proofs of things are.

He will have a theory about why you don't believe (in) him, it won't be very sensible. It will be something long-winded about how you are betrayed by your inner needs, how you can't understand VA's grand wisdom because you have a cognitive dissonance that you inherited from your mother's side of the ape species.

He doesn't think there are or could be any good reasons to disagree with him. That's why he posts threads that say dumb shit like Moral Relativists 'Accept' Genocides.

Ok, I see. I take your word of wisdom and see what I can do with him.

[bahman]

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

You don't expect me to go through five threads and discussion within to see what is your definition of universality? Could you please define the universality in a couple of sentences?

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

It is not. Our behavior is either based on reason, emotion, bias,... It is only through reason that we can have a universal agreement in moral instances otherwise we would be scattered when it comes into moral instances if morality is considered to be based on emotion, bias,... therefore morality is not universal in this case.

VA also redefined morality (and many other key concepts), so good luck.

Let's see what is his current definition.

[Atla]

VA also redefined morality (and many other key concepts), so good luck.

Let's see what is his current definition.

Well morality, first and foremost, deals with what is right and wrong. VA has taken the morality out of morality, VA's "morality" is not concerned with what is right and wrong. His "morality" is just about the objective features of the inherent human moral sense.

Except then he smuggles back right and wrong, by prescribing to us which parts of the human moral sense we should enhance, and which parts of it we should get rid of. But he's pretending that he didn't smuggle back right and wrong.

So in short, VA's morality is not really about morality, and it's also a self-contradiction.

[Iwannaplato]

VA also redefined morality (and many other key concepts), so good luck.

Let's see what is his current definition.

Well morality, first and foremost, deals with what is right and wrong. VA has taken the morality out of morality, VA's "morality" is not concerned with what is right and wrong. His "morality" is just about the objective features of the inherent human moral sense.

Except then he smuggles back right and wrong, by prescribing to us which parts of the human moral sense we should enhance, and which parts of it we should get rid of. But he's pretending that he didn't smuggle back right and wrong.

So in short, VA's morality is not really about morality, and it's also a self-contradiction.

Oh, no. You have it partially everted. According to VA: Morality is a universal thing that all people have. Except their sense, nearly all of their senses, of what morality is is wrong. Since their morality tends to be some combination of deontology (right and wrong acts) and consequentialism, but his sense of morality is an innate tendency to have a morality. So, it's universal, even if their idea of what morality is is wrong. So, he has an ad populum support for morality even though the populus has a bad idea of what morality is. IOW even thought the most popular - hence more intersubjectivelely support moral FSKs are NOT like VA's moral FSK, since they are deontological/consequentialist, in some odd, very subtle way they all support his Moral FSK since they somehow have it.

Now, here's where most people get lost. Even though most moral relativists - every single one I have encountered - thinks that morality exists, moral relativists are wrong because... morality exists. It exists and therefore it is objective.

It has no particular contents and even can be formed in entirely different ways and the assertions in people's moralities may or may not have a truth value, BUT moral relativists are wrong.

And they are fans of killers. They must, for some strange not articulated reason, support and not care about genocide.

People only care about what they consider objective. Their emotions and passions and tastes never lead to decisions or investments of tremendous time and energy.

This is an objective fact, but not in PH's sense of fact.

[bahman]

VA also redefined morality (and many other key concepts), so good luck.

Let's see what is his current definition.

Well morality, first and foremost, deals with what is right and wrong. VA has taken the morality out of morality, VA's "morality" is not concerned with what is right and wrong. His "morality" is just about the objective features of the inherent human moral sense.

Except then he smuggles back right and wrong, by prescribing to us which parts of the human moral sense we should enhance, and which parts of it we should get rid of. But he's pretending that he didn't smuggle back right and wrong.

So in short, VA's morality is not really about morality, and it's also a self-contradiction.

But how we could enhance some moral sense and get rid of others if we have no criteria to do this?

[Iwannaplato]

Let's see what is his current definition.

Well morality, first and foremost, deals with what is right and wrong. VA has taken the morality out of morality, VA's "morality" is not concerned with what is right and wrong. His "morality" is just about the objective features of the inherent human moral sense.

Except then he smuggles back right and wrong, by prescribing to us which parts of the human moral sense we should enhance, and which parts of it we should get rid of. But he's pretending that he didn't smuggle back right and wrong.

So in short, VA's morality is not really about morality, and it's also a self-contradiction.

But how we could enhance some moral sense and get rid of others if we have no criteria to do this?

Well, the interesting thing is what we generally believe is objective, in VA's assessment. Months ago, perhaps more than a year ago, he had specific changes in moral attitude that we should make, that humans in general should make, and this included training brains to be morally better, in his sense of better.

He didn't seem to notice that if the current state of brains and the attitudes brains have justify objective moral attitudes - his position - we cannot possibly have objective grounds to change/improve brains' moral attitudes, because that would be going against objectivity. Objectivity being determined buy looking at what brains tend to believe/have now.

He hasn't talked about these neo-transhumanist changes in the last while, but they were a foundational proposed plan for years.

Oh, and to answer your question about criteria: if VA's intuition says so. He's never said that openly like that. But it seems to be what happens. For a long time mirror neurons demonstrated objective morals given their involvement in empathy. But there was never an justification for view empathy as objective since it is hardwired in brains, but not aggressive tendencies which are also hardwired in. He wanted us to enhance certain neuronal patterns but not others.

But there cannot be objective grounds for this if we determine morality via what's there in brains. What's there is the already present ratio between aggressive and compassionate neuronal patterns. You can't decide based on what HE was saying what the determining source of objectivity to change that source, yet he repeatedly asserted that this should be done.

Pointing this out did little to elicit some other source of objectivity that allowed changing the source of objective conclusions - the current states of brains.

I think he just thought it was obvious and I have sympathy for that position, but one person's obviously morally right may well be someone else's obviously morally wrong or low priority.

[bahman]

Well morality, first and foremost, deals with what is right and wrong. VA has taken the morality out of morality, VA's "morality" is not concerned with what is right and wrong. His "morality" is just about the objective features of the inherent human moral sense.

Except then he smuggles back right and wrong, by prescribing to us which parts of the human moral sense we should enhance, and which parts of it we should get rid of. But he's pretending that he didn't smuggle back right and wrong.

So in short, VA's morality is not really about morality, and it's also a self-contradiction.

But how we could enhance some moral sense and get rid of others if we have no criteria to do this?

Well, the interesting thing is that what we generally believe is objective, in VA's assessment. Months ago, perhaps more than a year ago, he has specific changes in moral attitude that we should make and this included training brains to be morally better.

He didn't seem to notice that if the current state of brains and the attitudes brains have justify objective moral attitudes we cannot possibly have objective grounds to change/improve brains' moral attitudes, because that would be going against objectivity. Objectivity being determined buy looking at what brains tend to believe/have now.

He hasn't talked about these neo-transhumanist changes in the last while, but they were a foundational proposed plan for years.

Oh, and to answer your question about criteria: if VA's intuition says so.

Oh, interesting. Thanks for letting me know. It seems that I missed a lot of things by not being involved in ethical theory.

[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.

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.

Wrong.
They just want their land returned. The Jews can simply return to where they came from.
But as usual you are conflating tow different things.
Palestinians and not the same as Hamas, anymore than Zionsists are the same as Jews.
And you "objectively" justify Netanyahu's genocide, whilst "objectiviely" condemning all Palestinians to death

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.

No. It's the objectivists.
Relativisits can see the multifaceted and varisous sides of the argument, which you are incapable of.
Objectivism is one dimensional, blinkered and dull of thought.

[Iwannaplato]

Oh, interesting. Thanks for letting me know. It seems that I missed a lot of things by not being involved in ethical theory.

I corrected some of my weak and confusing writing in that post and added some new points, or at least rewordings to make it clearer.

[bahman]

Oh, interesting. Thanks for letting me know. It seems that I missed a lot of things by not being involved in ethical theory.

I corrected some of my weak and confusing writing in that post and added some new points, or at least rewordings to make it clearer.

Ok, thanks for letting me know. I read your new post and got informed.

[FlashDangerpants]

Oh, interesting. Thanks for letting me know. It seems that I missed a lot of things by not being involved in ethical theory.

I corrected some of my weak and confusing writing in that post and added some new points, or at least rewordings to make it clearer.

Going further back than that, there was also his long teleological period in which all of this was underpinned by fate as determined by the brain and DNA/RNA and his 'confidence' that in ten thousand years all 'evil' would have been magicked away by this journey towards goodness that he can see in the entrails or something. I have difficulty remembering the specifics, it's weird to have to put up with such a religious argument from an atheist.

An awful lot of his stuff over the years has depended upon his personal 'confidence'.

[Sculptor]

Oh, interesting. Thanks for letting me know. It seems that I missed a lot of things by not being involved in ethical theory.

I corrected some of my weak and confusing writing in that post and added some new points, or at least rewordings to make it clearer.

Going further back than that, there was also his long teleological period in which all of this was underpinned by fate as determined by the brain and DNA/RNA and his 'confidence' that in ten thousand years all 'evil' would have been magicked away by this journey towards goodness that he can see in the entrails or something. I have difficulty remembering the specifics, it's weird to have to put up with such a religious argument from an atheist.

An awful lot of his stuff over the years has depended upon his personal 'confidence'.

Of course evolution is not at all teleological - though it appears that way in hindsight.
Our language, though, is. And it can be very hard to describe things without implying some sort of underlying purpose.
Natural "Selection" does not care because it is not a process of active or conscious selecton. Sh1t happens, and whatever makes it to the mext generation survives or is "selected". What is important is reproductive success. This can be achieved in several ways, but the hard edge is mixing that seed and eggs to produce viable progeny.
TO the degree to which those progeny are "Good" and "Evil" - what ever those words might mean to you - it is only important that the progeny continue.
SO - NO. Evil has not been magicked away whilst people who are evil genetically are able to spread their seed. THe same amy be said of those that are good. Societies that are "Good" have to survive against the ones that are "evil", and the wheel of chance makes sure that with each generation a bit of random mutation keeps it all fresh and interesting.

My advice though is that "evil" has ways of hiding behind facades of "Objective morality" - the inhumane means by which a singleminded bigotry has always imposed a set of values upon us, largely through religion and the laws which are designed to protect the powerful, against the strugglg good people who co-operate with one another, but always preyed upon by the psychopathies of the moralist.