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

271–280 of 464 posts

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#271

Post by [deleted] »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #13
boffinAudio wrote: post #4

All culture is a lie which only persists in the re-telling. For example - there is no such thing as "Europe", unless enough people get together and agree that this thing that doesn't really exist, does exist and shall be named "Europe". "Europe" isn't a physical element, it isn't a naturally occurring substance - it is instead a human cultural construct which only persists for as long as the word continues to be used…

I think you're mistaking an arbitrary or relative concept with a lie. Culture is relative and amorphous, but it's not a lie. It shapes our worldview and it's a framework we can apply to our understanding. Just because it is not the unified worldview as everyone has doesn't make it false.

[deleted]

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#272

Post by [deleted] »

robertlagrant wrote: post #12
boffinAudio wrote: post #4

All culture is a lie which only persists in the re-telling. For example - there is no such thing as "Europe", unless enough people get together and agree that this thing that doesn't really exist, does exist and shall be named "Europe". "Europe" isn't a physical element, it isn't a naturally occurring substance - it is instead a human cultural construct which only persists for as long as the word continues to be used…

> All culture is a lie which only persists in the re-telling. This seems wrong. It's not a lie to give something a name. Why not say "All culture is a truth which only persists in the re-telling", given it is true we call Europe Europe?

[deleted]

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#273

Post by lisper »

nmz wrote: post #260
lisper wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

But cultural norms -- indeed, culture itself -- is grounded in evolution.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#274

Post by za3faran »

0xDEF wrote: post #224
za3faran wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of these are paper arguments. Yeah so Iraq was not "annexed", but the west installed a puppet government to do what they want, and they attempted to brainwash the population with western values. They did the same in Afghanistan, but fortunately they failed miserably and left in a humiliated manner. Maybe the kidnapping wasn't as bad as ukraine, but the hundreds of thousands killed and millions displaced and sick…

>Iraq was not "annexed", but the west installed a puppet government to do what they want, and they attempted to brainwash the population with western values. This is a lie. There was a legitimate democratic election in Iraq in January 2005 with 58% voter turnout. Because of the Shia majority of Iraq they voted into power a pro-Iranian Shia-dominated government which is the very opposite of a US "puppet government".

If you believe that the west didn't have a hand in the outcome, I have a bridge to sell you. Plus, we don't believe in western style democracy in our tradition, so further proof of western destruction and meddling in other countries' affairs. Quite the hypocrisy when they do it themselves but then cry when another power like Russia does it (and I don't condone what is happening in Ukraine either, but the hypocrisy must be pointed out).

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#275

Post by avereveard »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #229

I must not be getting it. "how does a person acquire his or her culture? You don’t get it by taking a pill. You acquire your culture by observing a rather limited number of behaviors and actions, and from those, constructing, somehow, in your mind, the set of attitudes and beliefs that constitutes culture." If you grew up in a different culture, you would have different attitudes and beliefs. That's...moral relativis…

Nothing much. There's lot of extrapolation done and that "rather limited" is doing a lot of work here, as if one is not embedded in his own culture daily.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#276

Post by Natsu »

xenocratus wrote: post #262
Natsu wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only in the weakest sense where one can emit other noises from their mouth instead. That criteria is an outgrowth from our drive to fulfill our own material needs, without which one does not do philosophy or anything else, which in turn are dictated by the natural world we live in. And none of that is something where you can just plug in so many other ideas or axioms and get a similar result.

Those and similar axioms were used to develop science & technology that provides our ability to even have this conversation. Whereas if you give someone a Foucault book and ask them to make similar practical use of it, perhaps they might keep warm for a night.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#277

Post by tjrgergw »

wunderland wrote: post #268
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?

Such as?

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#278

Post by tjrgergw »

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... ]

Come on, Choamsky is the ultimate "america bad" man. He practically invented it.

"America bad" people are also "Russia not so bad" people. These are highly valuable people for Russia propaganda, of course. They're literal useful idiots.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#279

Post by sebastianconcpt »

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…

The complete sentence is "same meta-ethical problem exists as a possibility" but from all possibilities only a portion have any chance to be adjusted to reality. Hence, a natural selection of all theoretical ideas comes into place and excludes most of them (the ones that diverge the reality tests).

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#280

Post by TheHappyOddish »

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... ]

Do you dispute his claim, or do you simply find it distressing? It appears to be an accurate one, so I'm curious to hear a contrary take here.
Post reply on HN