I'm not sure I understand the point being made. Chomsky seems to be saying that since we learn the prevalent morality of our culture through sparse data there must be an underlying universal morality. But how does that allow for the fact that different cultures do have different moral codes and that those do change over time?
It can be seen in an individual. A boy is raised in rural Oaxaca, Mexico. He works on a farm, speaks Copala Triqui and no Spanish. Then when he's 14 his family moves to east Los Angeles. As he adjusts to his new situation, his behavior changes. The moral code of rural Oaxaca is different them that of east LA. His moral code changes. Perhaps he always gave a great amount of help when needed to neighbors in rural Oaxac…
Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist
81–90 of 464 posts
Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist
#82I've read that Chomsky can be pretty nasty to his debate opponents, but he's amazingly congenial in this video. It really makes me wish I could spend hours and hours chatting with him. I've run across a handful of philosophers: Chomsky, Peter Kreeft, etc. who can stay really chill during a debate. It's seems like a superpower for keeping discussions productive.
Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I hope we’d all agree there’s objectively a color red We don't. For starters there are colourblind people, for seconds there is no specific colour that can be called "red". There is a large and fuzzy category of red-ish colours like blood-red or rose-red. Even if there is some academic "these light wavelengths are the ones" definition of red that is arbitrary. Aliens might have drawn the lines elsewhere.
This is exactly Chomsky’s point. Try to get through life considering the color of the traffic light you’re approaching as a subjective rather than objective fact. To pick an example closer to the morality case: Hunger could equally be called a subjective phenomenon. Aliens may not experience anything like hunger. A rare genetic condition might produce a human who experiences escalating hunger as an escalating degree…
Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
His editorial on ChatGPT definitely read like "sour grapes"[0]. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chat...
ChatGPT does feel a bit like a refutation of his life's work. Because whether or not ChatGPT can think, it certainly has a good command of language without starting out with an inborn sense of grammar. It learns grammar by copying. Just like kids do, I suspect.
Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist
#85I disagree. Moral relativism is very much a thing. But it's just a muddled matter. To me, "moral relativism" just means the recognition that different societies had and have different moral ideas, and that even within a single society rules are murky and fluid, and often outright undefined. Pretty much any moral rule you can name has been proudly broken. Eg, torture? Take Abu Ghraib for instance. Not only was it done…
That’s just a sociological trick. You redefine X to mean “what people think X is” and come to “profound” conclusions. That’s like saying that the laws of the universe has changed when Einstein invented relativity.
Moral relativism is, for example, when you think that being a slave owner in 1800 in the US wouldn’t be bad but being a slave owner in 2023 in the US is bad because of specific cultural background that is different then and now. It’s not about people disagreeing on what constitutes bad actions or conditions per se. Everyone understands that people disagree on stuff. It doesn’t make one a moral relativist in any useful notion of that word.
Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist
#86The UG belief is that there are a finite set of "primitives" of language, and all human languages have grammar syntax that are the permutations of those primitives. This is actually pretty clearly the case for programming languages -- primitives like addition/subtraction, methods, objects, etc. -- are chosen by language developers in different doses, and we group languages together based on these grammatical syntax choices (e.g. functional family of languages, declarative/imperative languages).
It sounds like Chomsky is claiming morals work the same way; there are a finite set of things that humans find reprehensible or good. Per that, certain cultures at certain times may have different permutations of what they group into the 'reprehensible bucket,' but the set of choices is constrained.
Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chomsky is one of the most internationally-known intellectuals. Most people in my country (Argentina) know him for that, rather than his work in linguistics. ... So I think it's very unfair to say he's speaking "outside of his niche" here.
I don't believe that. I have traveled the world and very few people I know know about Chomsky. I know a lot about Chomsky as someone who has studied parsers and natural languages a lot and I usually ask people I talk with if they know Chomsky so I can explain something I do. People in Argentina knows Chomsky because he has always been Communist and an apologist of marxist dictatorships and regimes while a harsh criti…
Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
His editorial on ChatGPT definitely read like "sour grapes"[0]. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chat...
ChatGPT does feel a bit like a refutation of his life's work. Because whether or not ChatGPT can think, it certainly has a good command of language without starting out with an inborn sense of grammar. It learns grammar by copying. Just like kids do, I suspect.
I'm not so sure though, because it starts by being fed sentences assembled by people.
Sort of how we wouldn't say that a book itself has a "good command of language", but that the writer has one, and put it in the book.
So you might need a seed with "an inborn sense of grammar" to create language first and a training corpus second, but once that's available in huge volumes you can mechanically train an LLM to appear to have a "good command of language" just by brute force.
Would an LLM gain a "good command of language" if it was just fed all the taling a human hears and the words it reads in its first 18 years of life?
Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist
#89The revolt against ethnocentrism is an invention of the West, nonexistent elsewhere. Its first great literary success is the famous essay by Montaigne on "The Cannibals," which is already over four hundred years old. The author's anti-Western rhetoric, not always in good faith, is the starting point of a long war against only one ethnocentrism, of course, that of the West itself. This endeavor produces its most beautiful masterpieces in the 18th century and resurfaces, more virulent than ever, after the Second World War.
What characterizes the most recent phase is the abandonment of the elegance and humor of the great ancestors, in favor of very 20th-century neologisms, such as the word "ethnocentrism" itself. The rococo trinkets of the Enlightenment era are covered with a slightly thick veneer. Where Montesquieu said, "How can one be Persian?" our contemporaries roar "against Western ethnocentrism." The essence of the debate has hardly changed.
"This debate is, moreover, legitimate. Western culture is ethnocentric too, it is obvious, as ethnocentric as all the others and in a more brutally effective way, of course, because of its power. It is not a matter of denying this, but why not also recognize an irrefutable historical evidence at the same time? Unlike all other cultures, which have always been straightforwardly and unapologetically ethnocentric, we Westerners are always simultaneously ourselves and our own enemy. We are the supreme Majesty and the opposition to His Majesty. We condemn what we are, or believe to be, with often ineffective fervor, but at least we try. What is happening today is another example of the passion for self-criticism, which only exists among beings touched by Judeo-Christian civilization."
Excerpt from "The One by Whom Scandal Comes" by René Girard
Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Happy to learn otherwise, but everything I've seen follows the pattern of briefly paying lip service to the fact that some enemy of the US is not perfectly innocent, but well we're all human, and here's five pages on how the US is the worst.
“My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that: namely, I can do something about it. So even if the US was responsible for 2% of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2% I would be primarily r…
In the end, it is just an attempt to shore up weak arguments with weaker falsehoods.