171–180 of 464 posts
The main question of the second essay is the ethnocentrism often criticized in my anthropological perspective. Those who protest against "Western ethnocentrism" willingly imagine that they owe nothing to the West since they vehemently attack it. In reality, their perspective is the most Western that has ever existed, more typically Western than that of their opponents. The revolt against ethnocentrism is an invention…
I 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…
I admire Chomsky but I'm afraid this particular argument isn't very convincing. He merely asserts his position but does nothing (substantial) to defend his position. In what way is moral relativism a logical contradiction? "...even if you’re the most extreme cultural relativist, you are presupposing universal moral values. Those can be discovered.” That's not true at all. I don't presuppose universal moral values. An…
If you assert that 'moral relativism is true' that itself would be a relative claim which would undermine the assertion as a universal position.
Further, you end up in a position of equivalence of all claims and generate major contradictions.
I will go out on a limb on the universal moral values claim and I think again it's pretty simple:
The existence of even the most basic objective truth, such as 1+1=2 would imply by its existence a frame of reference by which all claims can be evaluated against. This constrains the scope of relative claims, as you pointed out, but also implies an actual truth or set of standards with which you can evaluate anything.
It's not clear what universal moral values looks like, like Epicurean pleasure/pain or maybe it stems from thermodynamics, or even just mathematics itself, but it is possible that it could be discovered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you had to qualify it with "most", then it isn't universal. Moreover, I don't think morality is what applies only to your friends.
Well the qualifier could be the writer’s way of stating that he or she lacks knowledge of every society. After a brief search I can find no society that approved of stealing from peers.
The main question of the second essay is the ethnocentrism often criticized in my anthropological perspective. Those who protest against "Western ethnocentrism" willingly imagine that they owe nothing to the West since they vehemently attack it. In reality, their perspective is the most Western that has ever existed, more typically Western than that of their opponents. The revolt against ethnocentrism is an invention…
By Western, does he perhaps mean "almost Western but then a little bit East, and not all the cultures obviously" or something?
Earlier 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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Due to little info coming out of Cambodia at the time, from what I read, Chomsky said he underestimated the immensity of the genocide, not that he denied it. Later he acknowledged it, you make it sound he's some sort of Holocaust denier. Funnily Chomsky gets a lot more flack for incorrectly assessing the gravity of the Khmer Rouge killings in the late 70s while the US foreign policy which was intstumental in keeping…
This is bullshit. He unequivocally said that the refugees were lying for the benefit of the US. Chomsky is always quick to shout that anything short of the literal Holocaust isn’t genocide and doubly so if a leftist regime is doing it. He was then and always has since minimized crimes against humanity in one direction.
And that if you criticize someone it better be your own side, where you at least have a slight chance of changing something even if democracy is a thin veneer over something shady, rather than bravely criticising totalitary regimes where your chance of having an impact is really negligible. Just like if you have kids you'd better make sure you correct their faults instead of gossiping about the neighbours' kid's mischiefs.
Chomsky and his cohort was criticizing the Vietnam war at a time it was very unpopular to do so at home, today you get western people criticizing Putin and Xi as if this was some act of bravery and not the pointless navel grazing that it is in fact.
Until the West has a shitty foreign policy, and increasingly shitty domestic one as well (see surveillance, making terrorists of activists or journalists) totalitarian regimes can use this a valid excuse to shake off any criticism on their part.
I admire Chomsky but I'm afraid this particular argument isn't very convincing. He merely asserts his position but does nothing (substantial) to defend his position. In what way is moral relativism a logical contradiction? "...even if you’re the most extreme cultural relativist, you are presupposing universal moral values. Those can be discovered.” That's not true at all. I don't presuppose universal moral values. An…
It's a logical contradiction in a simple way: If you assert that 'moral relativism is true' that itself would be a relative claim which would undermine the assertion as a universal position. Further, you end up in a position of equivalence of all claims and generate major contradictions. I will go out on a limb on the universal moral values claim and I think again it's pretty simple: The existence of even the most ba…
no it wouldn't because meta-ethical statements express objectives claims about moral values, they are not themselves normative or moral claims.
It is equivalent to pointing out that everyone is a relativist in regards to their favorite flavor of ice cream. That statement is itself verifiably true or false.