Banden

I think what Simon Payton is saying is that each culture has forms. Like platonic forms or archetypes. There is such a thing as Spartan, and Quaker helping as a structure. Or there is such a thing as law.
Is it the form which is universal, compared to the specific content.

The relative part is the contents of the structure so Spartan laws would…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

Unseen wrote:
Versions. Relative the the particular cultures. Relativism.

Versions of the same concepts. Helping is simple, fairness is complex, and different cultures carry them out in different ways. That’s the universality we have. We might expect the answer to be fairly abstract.

I don’t know why you can’t see that o…[Read more]

I was thinking, if humans went through a Hunter gatherer stage and later formed complex societies. Then when they were in small groups they needed cooperation to survive.
That cooperation requires group norms like don’t kill don’t steal stuff like that.
This cooperative behaviour would actually be adaptive.
Culture would aid in the transmission of…[Read more]

Ever ask a Christian if it OK for a woman to covet their neighbor’s husband? Why is there no commandment against this??

Religious people seem to want or need moral absolutes, for things to be definitely right or wrong. I’m not sure why this is….

It is because they are religious! They think they are being watched by a celestial dictator (Hitchens’ term) so must do what they are commanded to do by their Bible.  Their rules are absolutes. They constantly talk of “a…[Read more]

Religious people seem to want or need moral absolutes, for things to be definitely right or wrong.  I’m not sure why this is.  I think each person is like the large groups of the world – morally unique, but sharing some morality with other people.  We all have things we think are definitely right and wrong.

Can we then forget about Biblical morality as it talks of absolutes and consign it to the dustbin of bad ideas. Any sentence that begins with “thou shalt” is a command that upon consideration of its potential value become meaningless.

Yes, I think “objective morality” is people’s own morality: the morality of the group.  The large group provides the objective point of view, the “view from anywhere”, where all rational people agree on what’s right.

As soon as we start comparing moral systems morality becomes relative (to our own).

Unseen wrote:
Versions. Relative the the particular cultures. Relativism.

Versions of the same concepts.  Helping is simple, fairness is complex, and different cultures carry them out in different ways.  That’s the universality we have.  We might expect the answer to be fairly abstract.

Simon Paynton wrote:
All cultures have versions of these, and all cultures have norms.

Versions. Relative the the particular cultures. Relativism.

It is true everywhere and for all time.

Among the world of people – the human family tree of species.  Animals have their own versions of morality which nevertheless follow the same rules and are related to ours.  Even ants have theory of mind and perspective taking (it is believed, from the white mark mirror test).

I think a non-relative m…[Read more]

Is this article on the scourge of postmodern pedantry pointless?

I find it hard to understand the outline of postmodern theory.  I believe they are probably misunderstood if people think they are saying “nothing is true”.  I think there are some good ideas floating around in there.

Subjective truth is a real thing.  Each of us experiences the wo…[Read more]

I dislike the idea of moral relativism, BUT what’s the alternative? A unrelativistic moral/ethical system needs to be built on firm ground like “God says do this not that.” At the same time, to argue backwards that without God nothing would be really immoral, so we must believe in God is a bad faith argument which any modern philosopher will…[Read more]

Is this article on the scourge of postmodern pedantry pointless?

That’s a very interesting video.  I didn’t realise that “relative” can mean “relatively better or worse”.  This implies, a common standard anyway.  Perhaps “plural” or “various” or something would be a good description without the value judgement.

Noam Chomsky on moral relativism and postmodernism

Davis wrote:

Relative truth.

Ugh. Gross. Why? That is the starting place of anti-learning. It is for those who are afraid of knowledge.

Relative truth

Kinda good

Sorta beautiful

Almost passable

I’m sure that is a very good book, but from looking on amazon.co.uk, the subject matter is more general philosophy and not really ethics, in the sense that ethics is the “good” or ideal behaviour.

If not, anyway, I’m not too interested in the existing systems except in passing.  I have consulted “The Elements of Moral Philosophy” by…[Read more]

Yeah I’d say if you are up for some light reading, indeed pick up any book by Kant (if it isn’t too heavy) and you’ll be asleep in no time. It’s ironic that it is tediously difficult to read and yet the genesis for a family of moral systems of which modern versions I consider the most useful.