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

381–390 of 464 posts

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#381

Post by tivert »

dotsam wrote: post #311
tivert wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> 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…

I put ‘we’ because institutions like legal systems are fundamentally collaborative, unless enacted by a total dictator. Popper’s grandparents were Jewish and he wrote one of his major works which explores these topics, The Open Society and Its Enemies, as an urgent response to the totalitarian ideologies and atrocities of WWII. Totalitarian ideologies do not permit open, critical pursuit of the truth, and so they can…

> I am wondering if it would have been better if I had written ‘solving problems is on balance a good thing’? Or do you think solving problems is on balance bad, or perhaps neutral?

I don't think the "solving problems" angle escapes subjectivity. It seems like just obscured subjectivity.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#382

Post by fsckboy »

scoofy wrote: post #375
fsckboy wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> axioms are by definition arbitrary sorry, the axioms of Euclidean Geometry are not arbitrary. They are axioms by the definition of axioms, but not by the definition of arbitrary.

I’m a bit overwhelmed with the pushback on this point. The fact that axioms are, again, by definition arbitrary, should be anything but controversial. The axioms of Euclidean geometry are very obviously arbitrary, in that, we can create other forms of geometries should we choose to. The fact that we are attempting, with Euclidean geometry, to create a model of the phenomena we experience is good and useful, but that…

a million monkeys on typewriters typing arbitrarily will ultimately type out every known work of literature. But the known works of literature were not created arbitrarily.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#383

Post by reducesuffering »

meitham wrote: post #355
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... ]

He’s right on that though. I lived through desert storm and the invasion of Iraq. The US targeted our civilian infrastructures in the first two weeks of the war. Virtually we had no electricity for nearly 5 years until the “food for oil” was agreed in 95. I have worked on the Haditha documentary for Nick Broomfield, you can watch it to witness the brutality of the US. Russia is bad, but when compared to the US, prett…

> I lived through desert storm

Oh you’re talking about the First Gulf War started by Iraq invading and conquering Kuwait and the bombing campaign freed Kuwait as an independent country, destroyed Iraq’s civilian massacring Scud missiles, and left Iraq intact?

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#384

Post by Gibbon1 »

reducesuffering wrote: post #383
meitham wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s right on that though. I lived through desert storm and the invasion of Iraq. The US targeted our civilian infrastructures in the first two weeks of the war. Virtually we had no electricity for nearly 5 years until the “food for oil” was agreed in 95. I have worked on the Haditha documentary for Nick Broomfield, you can watch it to witness the brutality of the US. Russia is bad, but when compared to the US, prett…

> I lived through desert storm Oh you’re talking about the First Gulf War started by Iraq invading and conquering Kuwait and the bombing campaign freed Kuwait as an independent country, destroyed Iraq’s civilian massacring Scud missiles, and left Iraq intact?

There is also the Iran–Iraq War with 1-2 million casualties. That's also on Iraq.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#385

Post by reducesuffering »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #50
ajuc wrote: post #7

I start to dislike Chomsky more and more. His work in linguistic is over my head, maybe it's true, I can't tell. But whenever I hear him speak outside his niche his points are stupid (like this one) or harmful (like his Ukrainian takes). Everybody sees faces in rocks because we have brains fine-tuned for seeing faces. Does it prove that there's something universal in looking like a face or even worse - being a face?…

Chomsky is a mixed bag, on multiple fronts. He's very strident, and especially many his recent takes on geopolitical issues are unable to understand the new polarities at work in the world. He's been an important critic of American foreign policy, but it has blinded him (and his followers) to the absolutely more terrible nature of e.g. Russian hegemony. (I actually think this turn began for him around the conflict in…

> Marx

> cold hard economic analysis

Haven’t heard something like that in awhile. Maybe you missed how much of his writing was more about how a Hegelian spirit force overtaking the world was inevitable, disproved by the Soviet Union.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#386

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

mcpackieh wrote: post #361
mensetmanusman wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t work on the context of mental illness.

It breaks down when dealing with anybody who selfishly wants more than they deserve. A child stamps his feet and demands the biggest piece of cake, should you give it to him? Treating people the way they want to be treated rewards greed and selfishness. On the other hand, treating other people the way you wish to be treated is self-moderating. If I am greedy, the golden rule commands me to be generous to others. If I…

I think you meant to reply to my comment, rather than a comment on that.

When it comes to materialistic "treating", sure I agree. But in the realm of emotion and psychology, I stand by what I said: treats others as they wish to be treated (to the extent possible).

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#387

Post by galdosdi »

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…

> Now, Chompsky here is basically saying

Heh, reminds me of how once I knew someone who named their dog Chompsky after Noam Chomsky

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#388

Post by emptysongglass »

JackFr wrote: post #253
emptysongglass wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not arbitrary because suffering is universal and unwanted by those who experience it.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#389

Post by emptysongglass »

harperlee wrote: post #249
emptysongglass wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well those are very simple scenarios, but very quickly you get to a place where things are not so clear. For example, as soon as you need to compare two sufferings, you find trouble: is it ethical to kill before being killed? is it the same to have your neighbour suffer vs. someone whose suffering is far away and you don't perceive? It it better to have a child suffer, an adult, or an old man? Two people suffering le…

You're wrapping yourself up in mental games here, exactly what I was criticizing. The majority of people the vast majority of time are not encountering trolley problems. Start with the basics of not choosing to inflict what is harmful to others you encounter in your life.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#390

Post by jnsaff2 »

rjbwork wrote: post #343
tjrgergw wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seriously. I am actually quite a fan of Chomsky, but he is reflexively America bad. You always always have to take what he says with the massive pillar of salt that his default position on everything geopolitics/IA related is "America Bad".

Out of interest, why would you be a fan of a person who is that flawed? Don't you think that their other stuff could also have shortcuts and dishonesty in there?
Post reply on HN