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

251–260 of 464 posts

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#251

Post by dotsam »

tivert wrote: post #221
dotsam wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Can we agree that solving problems = good? If you grant that, the rest should follow. What do you mean by "problems"? And whose problems? My solution might be the source of your problem, and why should I care if it is?

> What do you mean by "problems"?

In David Deutsch's terminology, a problem exists when a conflict between ideas is experienced. It is worth reading his books to understand more on his view. He builds on Karl Popper's work, which is also worth reading.

> And whose problems?

Everyone has their own particular problem situation. Here's some relevant things Popper has said about problems and solving them:

> All things living are in search of a better world. Men, animals, plants, even unicellular organisms are constantly active. They are trying to improve their situation, or at least to avoid its deterioration... Every organism is constantly preoccupied with the task of solving problems. These problems arise from its own assessments of its condition and of its environment; conditions which the organism seeks to improve... We can see that life — even at the level of the unicellular organism — brings something completely new into the world, something that did not previously exist: problems and active attempts to solve them; assessments, values; trial and error.

And lastly

> My solution might be the source of your problem, and why should I care if it is?

How to 'make you care' about you creating a problem for me is itself a problem that we can create knowledge to solve, perhaps e.g. by creating a legal system that discourages you from doing the thing that made my life worse.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#252

Post by btilly »

naasking wrote: post #235
fluoridation wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Read Kant. Nah. And either way following such a reasoning would just tell you whether a statement meets a condition defined by an arbitrarily chosen axiomatic system. Whether someone chooses to call that moral or not is still subjective. Look, I can do it right now: bool is_moral(string s){ return false; }

Math is also composed of arbitrarily chosen axiomatic systems, and yet math is still objective. I'm afraid such trivial arguments aren't much challenge to moral realism, which you'd know if you actually bothered to read anything about it.

Let's see if I can achieve the same tone that you just did.

Math cannot be proven to be objective. Therefore a trivial appeal to the objectiveness of math don't make your case. You'd know this if you actually bothered to read anything about it. I suggest that you start with Gödel.

Seriously, no matter how much you might know about the topic, this is not how you make an argument that convinces anyone else.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#253

Post by JackFr »

emptysongglass wrote: post #239
scoofy wrote: post #201

I think that the thing that most people don't realize about ethics is the meta-ethical problem that axioms are by definition arbitrary. When we really think about the fact that all of our ethical theories are based on arbitrary axioms, suddenly the teeth to ethics have a deep, serious problem. The only argument we have at that point is that the axioms "feel" correct, and I have no problem with this basis, I consider…

This is really silly and largely a result of our Western desire to turn everything into an impartial science when the experience of life is anything but. Ethics are not arbitrary. If you do violence to me, that causes me suffering. If you have sex with my husband or my wife without my consent, that's gonna cause me suffering. Both of these things are also highly likely to cause you suffering because most people who a…

But basing your ethics on suffering rather than say some other model of virtue is arbitrary.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#254

Post by lisper »

scoofy wrote: post #201

I think that the thing that most people don't realize about ethics is the meta-ethical problem that axioms are by definition arbitrary. When we really think about the fact that all of our ethical theories are based on arbitrary axioms, suddenly the teeth to ethics have a deep, serious problem. The only argument we have at that point is that the axioms "feel" correct, and I have no problem with this basis, I consider…

> all of our ethical theories are based on arbitrary axioms

But they aren't. Morality -- like all animal behavior -- is grounded in evolution.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#255

Post by fluoridation »

nico wrote: post #240
fluoridation wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I can assign a different meaning to it I don't even understand what that means. Ideas don't have meaning, they are meaning. What does it mean to assign a different meaning to the idea represented as "1+1=2"? >No ideas are objective truth No. Mathematical truths are objectively true. Even if addition itself is false in the universe, in the sense that in some cases you can put one real thing next to another and get ot…

You can believe whatever you want, assign any meaning you want I can say that 1+1=2 means it’s lunchtime on the moon I can also say that 1+1=11 I can’t force you (nor anyone else), to accept or agree with those meanings, but I can definitely assign any meaning I want No ideas, nor meaning, nor formulas, nor math are objective truth Just the fact that I can disagree with you right now means there isn’t an objective tr…

>I can say that 1+1=2 means it’s lunchtime on the moon

You're still confusing the symbols with the meaning.

>Just the fact that I can disagree with you right now means there isn’t an objective truth. If there was, then we wouldn’t even be able to disagree

Please explain how objective truth existing would prevent people from disagreeing with each other.

>And the universe is not based on any axiomatic anything, maybe your models of the universe are, but those models are just a subjective approximation to whatever the reality of the universe is

Yes, that's more or less what I said. However, those models contain objectively true statements with regards to themselves. According to the theory of relativity no object can go faster than light, correct? A sandwich is an object, correct? Then it's objectively true that according to the theory of relativity a sandwich can't go faster than light. It doesn't matter whether sandwiches actually are capable of going faster than light, that the theory of relativity states (indirectly) that sandwiches can't go faster than light is an objective truth.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#256

Post by mcpackieh »

momirlan wrote: post #194
gadflyinyoureye wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

in a commune there is no concept of "stealing" because there is no private property

In communes without private property, there is generally still personal property. Taking somebody's personal property is theft if you had reason to believe their feelings would be hurt by the taking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_ver...

Even communal property may be stolen if there are any sort of expectations about one person having temporary exclusive use of that item. Maybe you and I live in a cult compound where literally everything is communally owned, even the cult robes on our backs. Now suppose that when you step into the shower, I take the robe you were wearing, the clean robe you were planning to wear, and all the communally owned towels as well. I have violated your reasonable expectation to have temporary use of those communal items. I have therefore stolen from you. Maybe our cult has a different word for it, but fundamentally I have stolen from you because I've deprived you of something you had a reasonable expectation to possess.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#257

Post by scns »

scoofy wrote: post #201

I think that the thing that most people don't realize about ethics is the meta-ethical problem that axioms are by definition arbitrary. When we really think about the fact that all of our ethical theories are based on arbitrary axioms, suddenly the teeth to ethics have a deep, serious problem. The only argument we have at that point is that the axioms "feel" correct, and I have no problem with this basis, I consider…

Well, since i shed the shackles of religion and am diametrically opposed to simply following leaders, i had to find my own definition of ethically correct behaviour.

The question i ask myself: "Is my action beneficial to mankind and nature as a whole?"

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#258

Post by nmz »

scoofy wrote: post #201

I think that the thing that most people don't realize about ethics is the meta-ethical problem that axioms are by definition arbitrary. When we really think about the fact that all of our ethical theories are based on arbitrary axioms, suddenly the teeth to ethics have a deep, serious problem. The only argument we have at that point is that the axioms "feel" correct, and I have no problem with this basis, I consider…

Whatever raises survivability and QOL is ethical. Though there is a feeling/emotion when dealing with QOL, it is measurable.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#260

Post by nmz »

lisper wrote: post #254
scoofy wrote: post #201

I think that the thing that most people don't realize about ethics is the meta-ethical problem that axioms are by definition arbitrary. When we really think about the fact that all of our ethical theories are based on arbitrary axioms, suddenly the teeth to ethics have a deep, serious problem. The only argument we have at that point is that the axioms "feel" correct, and I have no problem with this basis, I consider…

> all of our ethical theories are based on arbitrary axioms But they aren't. Morality -- like all animal behavior -- is grounded in evolution.

Morality is set around cultural norms not animal behavior.
Post reply on HN