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

261–270 of 464 posts

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#261

Post by JPws_Prntr_Fngr »

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…

You use your time machine to travel back to the year 1350 and make contact with a Mesoamerican society that just loves to capture, torture, and execute their neighbors en masse, because doing this is a Good Thing. It pleases the gods or whatever. You think it's a Bad Thing though. You are now outnumbered 100,000 to 1. How do you prove to them that your moral code is the Universally True one, and not theirs?

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#262

Post by xenocratus »

Natsu wrote: post #213
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…

Some axioms are more useful than others, though. For example, Peano axioms can be used to formalize parts of math which we use to make models of physics which enable engineering that makes all sorts of technology. Many others can't get to that point.

Sure, but usefulness is itself an arbitrary criterium.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#263

Post by chromoblob »

ajuc wrote: post #158
chromoblob wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hunger is pretty objective if your body isn't malfunctioning (and it never is logically, "malfunctioning" body isn't yours). If your body works correctly, you are not free to choose whether to consider yourself hungry, and this is what I understand as objectivity.

What I consider hunger someone else can consider the norm or vice versa. If you define something that depends on the person as objective - then subjective loses meaning.

I improved my definition of feelings so that they can easily be objective.

I define hunger as the ideal signal that corresponds exactly to the extent of starvation. 'Ideal signal' is almost like sensation or feeling, except it may not be always or in full precision accessible by consciousness. It is a physical signal, or a function from the physical state. Extent of starvation seems objective (after fixing its definition), and so hunger seems objective too (correspondence is exact). By this definition, if you are starved, but don't notice a feeling of hunger, it's that, you still are hungry, just don't notice it.

> What I consider hunger someone else can consider the norm or vice versa.

How can that be? Do you mean definition, or something else? What do you consider hunger?

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#264

Post by aionionio »

zilchnotta wrote: post #200

"Moral" is a problematic word with religious baggage. If you exclude the words "right", "wrong", and "ethical" from the debate, you make things easier as well. If you simply use the word "strategy" instead, most heated arguments vanish. Yes, there are foundational social strategies that exist in every successful human culture. It's pretty easy to account for why that is the case, and no reason to oppose the idea that…

If you refuse to engage with a challenging concept and instead talk about something else entirely, you make things easier. Go figure.

Strategy helps us decide which actions will help us reach a goal. It does not tell us what that goal should be. It has practically nothing to do with morality. Human societies adopt different means but they also work towards different ends.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#266

Post by effed3 »

osti wrote: post #237
riversflow wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> axioms are by definition arbitrary. That is very reductive view of what constitutes most axioms. Merriam-Websters has:[1] >2: an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth Etymonline has:[2] >"statement of self-evident truth," late 15c., from French axiome, from Latin axioma, from Greek axioma "authority," literally "that which is thought worthy or fit,"... So, no, not arbitrary at all. Which particular…

Even in math, axioms are kinda arbitrary. They are mostly defined because they can be used to prove stuff that are perhaps useful, in this sense, they aren't arbitrary. But there are infinite sets of axioms out there for the same branch of math, which makes them rather arbitrary. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/327201/are-there-in...

chosen, yes, but -not- arbitrary. Axiom are chosen very carefully at the foundation based on all the upper knoweledge, based on these axioms -all- above must be proved (under Goedel blessing), not -some- stuff.

Change axiom and you end with -another- math.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#268

Post by wunderland »

Varqu wrote: post #265

I find it troublesome to listen to the person who claims that Russia is fighting in Ukraine in a more humane way than the US in their wars [ https://civilek.info/en/2023/04/30/noam-chomsky-russia-fight... ]

Maybe this is because you are ignorant to the extent of American war crimes?

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#269

Post by [deleted] »

gremlinunderway wrote: post #71

This article really sucks at actually engaging with the really extraordinarily interesting debate between Foucault and Chomssky. I mean, even the introduction is a giant leap of logic (the premise that Chomsky was refering to Foucault as an extreme moral relativist). I think as time goes on, it's been interesting to see more of what Foucault was saying as becoming more and more interesting. The ability of power to ge…

[deleted]

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#270

Post by bluGill »

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…

To put out two examples: Abortion and Guns are very hot topics where people with otherwise similar ethics some on the opposite side and refuse to understand how anyone could take the other position because whichever side they are on is so obviously correct.

Please think about the above next time topics like those come up. Once you take a moment to understand the different axioms someone puts higher in priority the better you can understand what is going on. And that there is no universal means you cannot call the someone who takes a different stance things like stupid, unreasonable or wrong (they might be - but not in relation to this topic). Maybe the world will learn to get along a little better if more people will try to understand each other. (I'm not holding my breath)

Post reply on HN