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

441–450 of 464 posts

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#441

Post by mcpackieh »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #386
mcpackieh wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> 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).

How do you deal with narcissists, who feel entitled to praise and adoration beyond what they can reasonably be entitled? Do you humor them to the extent possible? And if you don't humor narcissists like that, what is your process for determining what is or isn't reasonable? Probably, that process involves you imagining yourself in their shoes and thinking about what you might reasonably feel entitled to in their position, e.g. applying the golden rule.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#442

Post by tnecniv »

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…

In my undergraduate engineering ethics class, our professor (who had an engineering and legal background) pointed this out in one of the first lectures and said “this is the first reason why I am not going to pretend to teach you ethics in this course. The second reason is that, even if there was clear set of ethics to follow, I am not going to pretend that this mandatory class will convince an unethical person to be ethical. What I will teach you is that decisions have consequences, and many of those consequences are bad for more than one party.”

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#443

Post by johnnyjeans »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #433
johnnyjeans wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i dispute it because fundamentally the entire notion of some war being fought in a noble way relative to another is heinous. as though there are good wars which aren't so bad and the soldiers behave themselves. chomsky perpetuating the harmful myth of comparative "goodness" of wars alone is enough to indict his capacity for real thought and compassion, however in the context of the life he's lived and his personality…

Do you propose to not oppose evil with force?

Though this topic's domain is beside what I wrote; what is on the other end of said force does not matter. The moral burden is not alleviated because it stands in contrast of goodness from the same action. To kill is to kill. To enact terror through rape, pillaging and demolition cannot be washed away. They exist simultaneously to any hypothetical goodness and the two of them taken together cannot be reduced to a single value.

A life of no evil cannot be perpetuated from will alone. It can be lived, and possibly perpetuated in extremely narrow likelihoods, but not through force of will. If you would like to complain that this suggests it is unfair if you are to survive in this world, yes. Though I wouldn't call it unfair. Consider this, if it's a function of luck, it is truly the most fair thing of all. Far more than if it were simply left up to will, which gives a discriminatory advantage to those with better skills of utilizing and applying their will.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#444

Post by knewter »

roenxi wrote: post #64
knewter wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We universally agree that it is at least "the wavelength produced from a well-calibrated display when asked to render #ff0000'

I mean, ok. But that isn't objective. That is a subjective judgement of the display calibration standards body, with no reference to what most people think "red" means.

At least they can reliably compare society's idea of red to their own but I'm pretty sure people's ability to think of red as things outside the rgb gamut is likely diminishing over time.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#445

Post by johndhi »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #152
johndhi wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is Russia's imperialism far far far worse? What about the us invasion of Iraq is "better" than the Russia invasion of Ukraine?

Ok, let's put it another way so we don't play whataboutisms, which this is what this is veering into: Would you rather your country and governance be controlled and dominated by Russia or by the EU & the west? I think most people here, if they're being honest, know that despite all its issues, political and economic life in the Baltic states, Poland, Czech Republic, etc. is better in most respects than life in Belaru…

Great post.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#446

Post by asah »

stavros wrote: post #76
asah wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 - I got off the Chomsky bandwagon decades ago. Language is a loose encoding of thought, nothing more or less. Want proof? Spend some time with ChatGPT4.

I don't entirely agreed, as there have been cases where my thought has changed because I learned a new word for something. I started to see that thing everywhere, where before I wouldn't notice it as much, just because I learned the word for it.

interesting point - but was it the word? or the concept?

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#447

Post by stavros »

asah wrote: post #446
stavros wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't entirely agreed, as there have been cases where my thought has changed because I learned a new word for something. I started to see that thing everywhere, where before I wouldn't notice it as much, just because I learned the word for it.

interesting point - but was it the word? or the concept?

Are the two different? What is a concept without a word?

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#448

Post by Aerbil313 »

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…

Say the truth for once. I’m so sick of all the people thinking their standpoints are ultimately based on anything other than just that they “feel” they are correct.

The only exception I know of is the case for religious morality. It comes directly from God, so the believer only needs to believe in one axiom, that the scripture and the prophet is really from God, as opposed to many axioms, “feels”, and source-of-truths a non-believer may have.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#450

Post by fishtacos »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #150
fishtacos wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chomsky has missed the mark more than once. His response to the NATO campaign against Serbia during the Kosovo war was what clinched it for me. He's come back to apologize about being misunderstood in that he was only opposing NATO intervention because it would lead to a response (no shit) against ethnic Albanians by Serbs... Talk about missing the forest for the trees. The ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo had…

Agree 100%. FWIW I was in various left wing activist groups at the time and the Chomsky-type position was both mainstream, but one I disagreed with and one thing that pushed me further away from those kinds of groupings. It's a blind tribal positioning -- NATO / US bad, therefore everything it does bad. But this is in no way a materialist or logical method of analysis. Either you support the oppressed and minorities…

Like you, I've managed to navigate myself through the minefield of various activist groups I also subscribed to, at least in concept...

It appears, to me, that one's alliances are teaching moments (months, years) that lead to a rather enticing, surreptitious, inward analysis of of the logic and values one considers primary.

>>There is simply no excuse to support an authoritarian, homophobic, violent, quasi-theocratic, terrorizing gangsterist regime like Putin's...

Not to pat each other on the back, but we are in agreement. To bring it down to a more simplistic, humane POV, follow the Golden Rule: do unto others etc... Russia has failed at the first 3 words of that written/said idea of reciprocity and is unfortunately, damn proud of it.

Post reply on HN