moral relativism

[jamesconroyuk]

Kohler

Do we mean Kohlberg?

[Belinda]

Kohler

Do we mean Kohlberg?

Yes I do, of course! Thanks.

[Belinda]

by 'life' you

If you meant me

Yes, sorry.

[Belinda]

Kohler's explanation of developmental stages

I'm familiar with Kohlberg's work on moral development, and I appreciate the insight it provides into the ways children develop their moral understanding. However, my interest in the fundamental nature of value and why we elect to live is more focused on the underlying drivers of human existence, rather than the developmental stages per se.

Developmental stages and ages of children's development of value explains that Daseine of individual children is where value resides, throughout development, and including the most mature age and stage.

[jamesconroyuk]

Developmental stages and ages of children's development of value explains that Daseine of individual children is where value resides, throughout development, and including the most mature age and stage.

I thought Dasein was Heidegger’s term for the structure of Being, not a stage in psychological development?

Seems like Kohlberg’s stages describe reasoning about morality, not existence itself.

I think I understand what you're trying to say though...

Still, when I describe value - I'm talking more fundamentally

[Pistolero]

Dasein = being there.
Presence.

From Heidegger's 'throwness.'

Mary, and those of her low IQ ilk, believes this means man emerges out of nowhere and nothing....a tabula rasa, culturally programmed....
This is part of the postmodern delusion that identity is entirely a social construct....and that all human inequalities are the consequence of social factors.

[jamesconroyuk]

Dasein = being there.
Presence.

From Heidegger's 'throwness.'

Mary, and those of her low IQ ilk, believes this means man emerges out of nowhere and nothing....a tabula rasa, culturally programmed....
This is part of the postmodern delusion that identity is entirely a social construct....and that all human inequalities are the consequence of social factors.

Thanks for the much-needed "clarification," (clearly completely necessary... ) but I think you’re simplifying the concept a bit. Heidegger's Dasein refers to the unique way human beings are thrown into the world and must navigate their existence, rather than just 'being there.'

Do you mean Belinda? Who is Mary?

[Pistolero]

Mary is a twat.....a postmodern, crypto Marxist, idiot...using feminine subversive methods to bring about her "utopian world.'
You will know her as 'iamastupidtwat"...or something like that.

So, 'being there' does not mean 'tabula rasa', does it?
We awaken to existence, finding ourselves within a cultural milieu, but we carry with us information....
Don't we?

We are not enslaved by the culture we find ourselves in?
We can break out of our zeitgeist.

[iambiguous]

Moral relativism identifies something real: morality is shaped by culture, history, biology, psychology, it evolves with life.

Or, in my view, it is embedded and embodied historically, culturally and experientially out in a world awash in contingency chance and change.

In other words, if a deontological morality does exist it has eluded philosophers and ethicists now for thousands of years. Unless, of course, you count those who grapple with morality theoretically up in the philosophical clouds.

If morality were purely relative, just "what people happen to think", then it would collapse into incoherence.
Every whim would be as valid as any horror.
Yet in practice, we intuitively know that some moral instincts are deeper and more durable than others, because they are rooted in the very structure of life itself.

Moral instincts? Pertaining to what particular set of circumstances? Situations in which moral and political conflagrations have rented the species for, well, thousands of years.

The missing piece is an anchor.
Not "God" in the simplistic, authoritarian sense, nor "pure reason" floating in the void, but life itself as the grounding condition for value.
Without life, there is no perception, no meaning, no good, no bad.
Thus, at the most fundamental level: what is good is what enables life to persist, flourish, and deepen its own experience.

On the other hand, run that by any number of these folks...

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_philosophies

...and you'll come up with hundreds of [at times] hopelessly conflicting assessments regarding what that most fundamental level is.

Cultures, experiences, and perspectives differ wildly, yes - but across them, the through-line is always: Does this enhance life or diminish it?
This doesn't eliminate moral complexity, it grounds it.

Which, in my view, is why any number or moral objectivists seem intent on reducing that complexity down to their own One True Path.

It's what I call the "psychology of objectivism". In other words, what one believes is not nearly as important as the fact that in believing it, it comforts and consoles you. And with any luck, all the way to the grave.

Negotiation, compromise, and evolving standards are necessary because life is dynamic, contested, and unfolding.
But they are not arbitrary: the vitality of life remains the hidden compass behind all genuine moral systems, even when people are unaware of it.

Moral relativism describes the surface turbulence.
A deeper philosophy of life shows the ocean floor.

Well, in regard to any of the moral and political conflagrations that crop up over and again "in the news", what constitutes the surface turbulence and what constitutes the ocean floor?

This whole comment acts as an illustration of my point.

"what constitutes the surface turbulence and what constitutes the ocean floor?"

Every point you made is surface turbulence, and shows the need to have an anchor ( i.e. the ocean floor )

There is one:

Without Life, there is no value.

No valuer, no good, no bad, no happy, no sad, no cultures, no complexities.

This is an axiomatic fact.

Okay, but my own moral philosophy revolves around the assumption that in a No God universe, differentiating the surface turbulence from the part that anchors us substantially to the world around us, is no less rooted existentially in dasein.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong. And, sure, given the fact that I am but an infinitesimally tiny speck of existence in the staggering vastness of "all there is" what are the chances, going back to an explanation for the existence of existence itself, that I am not wrong?

I merely suggest that this is true, as well, for you and everyone else here.

In any event, my own "modus operandi" here revolves around bringing theoretical assumptions about morality down to earth and integrating them into our day to day social, political and economic interactions.

Thus what I am most interested in is how you differentiate surface turbulence from the ocean floor in regard to moral conflagrations like abortion, gun control, human sexuality, capital punishment, etc.

I have a paper currently in peer review that states: We have an anchor - and that denying it is ridiculous as it is a performative contradiction. Here it is:

Life is Good.

That can be articulated more formally using what I refer to as the Trifecta:

Axiom 1: Life is, therefore value exists.
Formal Statement:
Without life, there is no subject to generate or interpret value.
Explanation:
Value is not a free-floating property. It is always attributed by a living subject. Rocks do not assign value. Dead universes do not weigh worth. The existence of life is the necessary condition for anything to be regarded as good, bad, true, false, beautiful, or ugly.
Implication:
All systems of ethics, reason, or judgment are parasitic on life. Value is not discovered; it is enacted by life.

And this is relevant to all of the moral and political conflicts that have plagued humankind now for millennia...how?

Axiom 2: Life builds, therefore growth is what is valued.
Formal Statement:
Life persists by resisting entropy through structure, order, and adaptation.
Explanation:
From the molecular to the civilisational, life constructs patterns that propagate itself. This is not moral, it’s mechanical. Growth, complexity, cooperation, and innovation are selected for because they enable continuation.
Implication:
What sustains and enhances life tends to persist. “Good” can be structurally defined as that which reinforces this persistence.
Implication:
What sustains and enhances life tends to persist. “Good” can be structurally defined as that which reinforces this persistence.

Same thing though from my own morally fractured and fragmented frame of mind.

Imagine, for example, going to a clinic that performs abortions. Outside are protesters insisting that an abortion is the murder of a human baby. How do you suppose they would react to the above? Philosophically, Is abortion good or bad?

Axiom 3: Life must affirm itself, or it perishes.
Formal Statement:
For life to continue, it must operate as if life is good.
Explanation:
A system that ceases to prefer life will self-destruct or fail to reproduce. Therefore, belief in life’s worth isn’t merely cultural or emotional, it’s biologically and structurally enforced. This is not idealism; it’s existential natural selection.
Implication:
To endure, life must be biased toward itself. “Life is Good” is not a descriptive claim about all events; it’s an ontological posture life must adopt to remain.

Once again, all I can do here is point out the hundreds and hundreds of assessments embraced by these folks...

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_philosophies

...regarding the parts of life that are said to be either Good or Bad.

The rest, as they say, is history.

[Pistolero]

Good/Bad, in this context, refers ot what benefits life.
This is not a universal truth.

Again...
ALL value-judgements, including good/evil, inducing moral/immoral, refer to an objective.
The objective measures their goodness.

But not ALL objectives are equally valid.
What determined their success.failure, their merit?
Nature.

[iambiguous]

Dasein = being there.
Presence.

From Heidegger's 'throwness.'

Mary, and those of her low IQ ilk, believes this means man emerges out of nowhere and nothing....a tabula rasa, culturally programmed....
This is part of the postmodern delusion that identity is entirely a social construct....and that all human inequalities are the consequence of social factors.

Thanks for the much-needed "clarification," (clearly completely necessary... ) but I think you’re simplifying the concept a bit. Heidegger's Dasein refers to the unique way human beings are thrown into the world and must navigate their existence, rather than just 'being there.'

Do you mean Belinda? Who is Mary?

Just for the record, pertaining to moral values, here [in the op] is my own rendition of dasein: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/a-man ... sein/31641

As for Pistolero/Satyr, if you are interested in exploring his own moral philosophy, start here: https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1501-morality.

As for Mary, that's me. A long story but rather typical of just how often he devolves into declamatory "huffing and puffing" when others refuse to share his own assumption about morality. And, well, everything else too.

[iambiguous]

Heidegger's Dasein refers to the unique way human beings are thrown into the world and must navigate their existence, rather than just 'being there.'

Dasein and Being-in-the-world – Heidegger
at the Eternalised: In Pursuit of Meaning website

The fundamental concept of Being and Time is the idea of Da-sein or “being-there”, which simply means existence, it is the experience of the human being.

In other words, from birth to death, what does it mean to be "there" and not "here". To be "here" or "there" now and not before or later. Existence relative to being out in a particular world at a particular time.

Historically and culturally, this part...

If you were born and raised in a Chinese village in 500 BC, or in a 10th century Viking community or in a 19th century Yanomami village or in a 20th century city in the Soviet Union or in a 21st century American city, how might your value judgments be different?

In other words, the deontologists and moral objectivists among us have to explain why philosophers and ethicists have been unable to examine and then assess all of the many social, political and economic interactions among human beings [down through the ages and across the globe] and provide us with either the optimal manner in which to differentiate right from wrong, good from evil or, for some, [God and No God] provide us with what they insist is the only rational assessment.

[jamesconroyuk]

Easy now cowboys and cowgirls...

Have I walked into the middle of a lover's tiff?

I'll be completely honest, I didn't have the time read or unpack most of that - I really don't have time to ego-stroke in forums like you guys do, or comb through long lists of quotes taken out of context.

But I did see the several logical fallacies (argument from authority, etc etc) as I skimmed over it.

It does seem Mary IS in fact, quite contrary.

Abortion is murder. Anyone that thinks otherwise needs a good dressing down.

"My body my choice" - my backside.

ALL value-judgements, including good/evil, inducing moral/immoral, refer to an objective

It's hard to decode what you say most of the time - I do understand thats intentional - in the world of rational discourse we call it "semantic sophistry" - this quote being a prime example. I'm not impressed. I strive for clarity - not fog - and certainly not inline semantic context switching.

As is true with Ms Contrary, I think my time is better invested with more productive discourse.

I'lll just make clear (because its gone past both of you):

The trifecta isn't prescriptive - it's descriptive.
It gives an anchor - a common starting point - without prescribing an "Oughts" (may help conflicts - Nietzsche seemed to think it might)
It's also axiomatic - whether you agree or not, its still true. Ask your logic professor. To say otherwise is a performative contradiction.

I have no moral philosophy - other than to start there (trifecta) - and work within context - which differs (what Foucault was worried about)

I'll let you guys figure the rest out. Just think 'anchor' and 'logical extension'.

[Pistolero]

ALL value-judgements, including good/evil, inducing moral/immoral, refer to an objective

It's hard to decode what you say most of the time - I do understand thats intentional - in the world of rational discourse we call it "semantic sophistry" - this quote being a prime example. I'm not impressed. I strive for clarity - not fog - and certainly not inline semantic context switching.

Ha!!
ALL....value....judgements....are....in.....reference....to .....an ....objective....
A motive, an ideal, a standard.

Try it;
Good....bad....tall....short....fat....skinny.....strong....weak....free....unfree.... big...small....smart....dumb....
Powerful....powerless....

The trifecta isn't prescriptive - it's descriptive.
It gives an anchor - a common starting point - without prescribing an "Oughts" (may help conflicts - Nietzsche seemed to think it might)
It's also axiomatic - whether you agree or not, its still true. Ask your logic professor. To say otherwise is a performative contradiction.

Yes....all judgements express a motive.

But if you wish for me to leave you alone with Mary...I'll slither away and watch your intercourse.

[jamesconroyuk]

But if you wish for me to leave you alone with Mary...I'll slither away and watch your intercourse.

Haha, Easy now cowboy. you're utter filth

There's no way I'd let you watch from the closet