Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

openculture.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 464 posts

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#131

Post by dotsam »

epups wrote: post #112
dotsam wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is a universal moral code, we can never know it for certain. Moral knowledge, as well as all other kinds of knowledge, is always open to criticism and being proven wrong. But nevertheless we can make moral progress, just as we make scientific progress. We can find good explanations for why killing and enslaving people is wrong, even whilst we can point to countless examples where killing and enslaving people…

There is a big difference between morality and science though. The physical reality around us does not depend on our opinion of it, and we can design experiments to test it. You cannot "prove wrong" a set of moral rules without agreeing to a set of subjective principles first.

Can we agree that solving problems = good? If you grant that, the rest should follow.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#132

Post by debok »

hotdogscout wrote: post #65
debok wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do human groups glorifying immorality imply that there is no universal moral code? If the universal moral code exists outside of those groups, then it can be applied to their actions, and we can call them wrong for the thing they glorify. Your very sentence implies a universal moral code. You are calling murder, slavery, and genocide wrong. By which standard do you know them to be wrong? Such a standard must nece…

If there are states/governments where Murder, Slavery and Genocide are fine, can you say it is universal if it cannot be applied in that place? What are the conditions for a universal morality?

What do you mean by "cannot be applied"?

Of course it can be applied. We know that those states and governments are wrong by the universal moral code condemning murder, slavery and genocide. We would have no grounds to condemn these things, if it wasn't for a universal moral code.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#133

Post by fishtacos »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #111
boppinz wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 - His Ukraine stance is simply that we have had a Cold War paradox in our American minds since the 50s, Russia is both too strong a foe to ignore and a paper tiger working off of shoddy USSR tanks and being beat by some farmers with lock-on missiles. This article helps clarify his points, he absolutely calls Russia's invasion barbaric, but he has always vehemently stated the West's bloodlust and policing has never…

The problem with the Ukraine stuff is that it falls easily into the same crap position as Varoufakis and others on the left which is basically a) some kind of "realism" about what Ukraine should do [basically surrender] and b) gives credence to much of the crap that Lavrov has put out on the public stage about this war being somehow about American imperialism. Well, duh, everything is about imperialism, but what's mi…

Chomsky has missed the mark more than once. His response to the NATO campaign against Serbia during the Kosovo war was what clinched it for me. He's come back to apologize about being misunderstood in that he was only opposing NATO intervention because it would lead to a response (no shit) against ethnic Albanians by Serbs...

Talk about missing the forest for the trees. The ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo had been going on for almost a century at that point - not all ethnic cleansing is militaristic. It can occur via political representation, whitewashing of one's history, meaning, presence, through educational systems, sidelined and ignored into oblivion, like so many cultures have been.

I think he's taking a similar tone-deaf view of the Ukrainian conflict.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#134

Post by boppinz »

maeln wrote: post #78
Spooky23 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chomsky is a provocateur. The currency he measures is attention. There’s some interesting things that he has to say, but ultimately, not worth getting your blood pressure up over. It’s good to critique the US or the west - you cannot improve without dissent. Fortunately, Chomsky is in the US and enjoys unimpeded speech and academic freedom.

> It’s good to critique the US or the west - you cannot improve without dissent. Fortunately, Chomsky is in the US and enjoys unimpeded speech and academic freedom. That I can fully agree with. My issue is that he often criticizing the U.S while downplaying the other side violence. Saying something like "France should not have had a military intervention in Lybia" is fine. But saying this and then adding "and Gaddafi…

I think this is hardly the genocide-denial you think it is. In the Gaddafi case, I doubt he really sides with a military dictator.

His critique has always been how the West intervenes, but mainly for economic security and superiority. We don't give much of a rat's-ass about installing a fair democracy, if that's even what these countries want, so much as installing someone who agrees with us (see: Reagan in South America)

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#135

Post by epups »

debok wrote: post #34
epups wrote: post #10

There almost certainly isn't a universal moral code. For every abominable act you can think of - murder, slavery, even genocide -, we can find examples of human groups that glorified them, usually by evoking religion, group affiliation or a mix of both.

How do human groups glorifying immorality imply that there is no universal moral code? If the universal moral code exists outside of those groups, then it can be applied to their actions, and we can call them wrong for the thing they glorify. Your very sentence implies a universal moral code. You are calling murder, slavery, and genocide wrong. By which standard do you know them to be wrong? Such a standard must nece…

> How do human groups glorifying immorality imply that there is no universal moral code? If the universal moral code exists outside of those groups, then it can be applied to their actions, and we can call them wrong for the thing they glorify.

Those groups would also call us wrong. If groups of humans tend to display very different and incompatible moral codes, that's a strong argument against a universal morality. Another argument against it is that most people in groups that glorified what terrifies us lived and died without showing an ounce of remorse for their actions.

> Your very sentence implies a universal moral code. You are calling murder, slavery, and genocide wrong.

Not at all. I used those examples because I know that most contemporary readers would agree. The fact that there is no universal moral code does not mean we can't have a moral code.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#136

Post by epups »

dotsam wrote: post #131
epups wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a big difference between morality and science though. The physical reality around us does not depend on our opinion of it, and we can design experiments to test it. You cannot "prove wrong" a set of moral rules without agreeing to a set of subjective principles first.

Can we agree that solving problems = good? If you grant that, the rest should follow.

I don't believe it does, at all? How do you "solve" the moral problem of, say, whether we can breed and kill animals to eat them?

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#137

Post by torstenvl »

johndhi wrote: post #119
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the Ukraine stuff is that it falls easily into the same crap position as Varoufakis and others on the left which is basically a) some kind of "realism" about what Ukraine should do [basically surrender] and b) gives credence to much of the crap that Lavrov has put out on the public stage about this war being somehow about American imperialism. Well, duh, everything is about imperialism, but what's mi…

Why is Russia's imperialism far far far worse? What about the us invasion of Iraq is "better" than the Russia invasion of Ukraine?

The U.S. could do better about prosecuting troops who commit war crimes, but it does prosecute them.

By contrast, Russia openly condones war crimes. Not in the debatable "enhanced interrogation" borderline kind of way. In the kidnapping children to wipe out an entire cultural history and intentionally bombing civilian targets kind of way.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#138

Post by dotsam »

epups wrote: post #136
dotsam wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we agree that solving problems = good? If you grant that, the rest should follow.

I don't believe it does, at all? How do you "solve" the moral problem of, say, whether we can breed and kill animals to eat them?

What I mean is: solving problems is good. Solving scientific problems is good, solving moral problems is good. If you do not think solving problems in general is good, you will not think solving the killing animals moral problem is good.

The only way to solve problems is to create knowledge. We need to create good explanations of what is there, what it does, and how and why. The only we know to create knowledge is through creatively guessing things and checking our ideas against criticism.

To solve the moral problem of whether breeding and killing animals to eat is wrong we need a good explanation of consciousness, and whether animals are conscious, and if they suffer. We do not have a good explanation of consciousness or suffering yet. Any ideas we do have we can improve upon, endlessly.

Edit: I should emphasize that we can never be certain that we've really 'solved' any given problem: we could always be wrong. This is why we should always be open to criticism and better ideas.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#139

Post by ajuc »

mcv wrote: post #73
actionfromafar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess one could phrase it like this - his work in linguistics was important and somewhat falsifiable. The rest, not so much.

Is anything in philosophy or politics falsifiable? If politics is not his field, then whose field is it? Are only polsci majors allowed to discuss politics?

"Peace for our time" by Chamberline and Germany's dependence on Russia are as falsified as you can be in politics. Chomsky would probably support both :)

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#140

Post by hotdogscout »

debok wrote: post #132
hotdogscout wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are states/governments where Murder, Slavery and Genocide are fine, can you say it is universal if it cannot be applied in that place? What are the conditions for a universal morality?

What do you mean by "cannot be applied"? Of course it can be applied. We know that those states and governments are wrong by the universal moral code condemning murder, slavery and genocide. We would have no grounds to condemn these things, if it wasn't for a universal moral code.

With that definition any moral code can he universal.

I can support legalized murder and condemn everyone who doesn't, therefore creating the grounds to condemn anything else.

Some religions practice human sacrifice, including of children.[1]

My opinion is we're better off arguing there's a better moral code based on a number of arbitrary parameters (freedom, resource creation, comfort, longevity, equality, merit, envy management, violence management, respect for tradition, respect of minorities, etc). I can't see how you can declare a universal code of conduct, I can see how you can declare a technocratic liberal one.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_cul...

Post reply on HN