Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist • Hacker News Board

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#281

Post by tivert » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 9:49 PM UTC

dotsam wrote: post #251

tivert wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 li…

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

>> 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.

I think your use of "we" presumes some value of universalist cooperation (I'm no philosopher, so I'm just throwing around words to express what I'm feeling), which I don't think can be assumed. I think the more accurate statement is: "how to 'make you care' about you creating a problem for me" is a problem for you.

My gut feel is the only way to really to prioritize concern for others is a moral framework that says so (and offers a compelling reason to follow it), or some kind of finely-balanced anarchy where no person or group really has the power or opportunity to force problems on others (which seems impossible to maintain in practice).

Also another reason I think I can't agree that "solving problems = good" is there once was a problem labeled "the Jewish Problem" and the "final" solution to it is literally the epitome of evil.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#282

Post by afwef » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 9:51 PM UTC

alphazard wrote: post #241

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…

Axioms are only arbitrary in terms of the logical system they are involved in. If they conflict with other axioms, one of them has to go. So the choice of axioms isn't totally arbitrary, even at the level of logic. When it's time to take an idealized theory and use it to make predictions about the real world, we first have to check that the axioms match our sense data. If they don't, it's not an applicable theory. Th…

You're assuming a logical system, but these "axioms" aren't like math, trying to find a contradiction is itself a moral judgement.

So you're just arguing in circles. None of the grounding in reality is actually connected to moral judgements in the sense of proving them wrong or right.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#283

Post by tjrgergw » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 9:52 PM UTC

Why are we talking about Foucault anyway? Anything written about ethics before 1859 was missing a piece so crucial, it's garbage.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#284

Post by AndrewKemendo » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 9:54 PM UTC

scns wrote: post #257

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?"

I share your vector

However the point/problem is that our position has exactly the same epistemic grounding as to what is “right” as “my philosophy is to Kill all but 10 humans” does.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#285

Post by afwef » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 9:55 PM UTC

eynsham wrote: post #211

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…

I think you’re confusing epistemic problems for metaphysical problems. It’s quite plausible that any axioms we come up with are merely ‘based on feel', but there can be a truth ‘based on feel’ ultimately inaccessible to us except ‘[by] feel’. That inaccessibility does not make the underlying truth arbitrary; it merely makes our attempts to work it out arbitrary.

[flagged]

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#286

Post by OkayPhysicist » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 9:56 PM UTC

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…

Far from being completely impossible, subjective ethics are entirely more consistent than the alternative. The important thing about analyzing ethical systems is to find axioms that you actually believe. An unanalyzed moral system tends to have false axioms: things that the speaker says are fundamental tenets, but on further analysis simply don't stand muster.

For example, the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is anything but an axiom. All but the most unreasonable followers will be able to produce some circumstance where killing is moral. That's not an axiom, that's a guideline.

So why find one's axioms? Ultimately, the entire study of ethics boils down to one simple question: "What ought I do?". When faced with a dilemma, what should I choose? With the understanding of your beliefs, you can make a reasoned decision, consistent with your broader choices. If you exist in a society, then you will inevitably be forced to react to the actions of others, which, in of itself, is a forced action on your part. If you don't have some framework with which to judge the actions of others, then your ethical framework is utterly incomplete.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#287

Post by dundarious » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 9:57 PM UTC

tjrgergw wrote: post #283

Why are we talking about Foucault anyway? Anything written about ethics before 1859 was missing a piece so crucial, it's garbage.

I don't think Chomsky is so old to have debated that Foucault on Dutch television.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#288

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 9:57 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#289

Post by afwef » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 9:58 PM UTC

scns wrote: post #257

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?"

That question is not resolvable in any meaningful way. You can justify anything with a rationalization

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#290

Post by afwef » Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 9:59 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #273

nmz wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Only partly, there is still a large degree of arbitrariness based on the social environment within the biologically constrained bounds