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

451–460 of 464 posts

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#451

Post by za3faran »

snowpid wrote: post #434
za3faran wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mu…

Can you elaborate how a pro Iranian government is a Western puppet government? With credible sources etc.? Also I like to know who is "we".

Wikipedia states: "al-Maliki worked closely with the Multi-National Force (MNF–I), and continued to cooperate with the United States following the withdrawal from Iraq."

And "we" as in Muslims.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#452

Post by b3nji »

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?"

Everyone that has ever that has done terrible things has likely asked themselves the same question. And that is a problem.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#453

Post by boffinAudio »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #429
boffinAudio wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the perspective of the natural world, all culture is a lie that humans tell themselves in order to create something that doesn't exist. We conjure these things into existence by telling ourselves - and hurting those who don't agree - that the thing is real, even if it isn't. >Just because it is not the unified worldview as everyone has doesn't make it false. This is demonstrably incorrect: Just ask a Russian to…

My favourite ice cream is vanilla. My wife thinks I like chocolate. Is my preference a lie?

Depends which one of you persists longer: you or your wife.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#454

Post by GoblinSlayer »

johnnyjeans wrote: post #443
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sin…

But everything is grey. If you can't compare goodness then you can't make any choice, because you can't find greater good.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#455

Post by johnnyjeans »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #454
johnnyjeans wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sin…

But everything is grey. If you can't compare goodness then you can't make any choice, because you can't find greater good.

You simply need to accept that through your actions, you will not just be performing good things. You can certainly pursue a higher good, however if done carelessly this entails higher evils shifting into lock-step behind you.

I like to think of it like a system of feedback loops. A naive pursuit of lofty moral heights naturally creates a vacuum in its wake, where whorls of moral lows collect and aggregate. The reverse also holds true. Should we accept evil being done because it will spawn a great good to balance things out? Paying the cost up front. I find the idea no more absurd than the supposedly logical inverse. Perhaps the ultimate good was not to fight a war, but to recognize its increase in likelihood and defend against evil's manifestation in the first place in a less reactionary way. Failing to do this, we are left with a moral debt to pay. Playing games of gods and devils so to speak, it's like a finger trap puzzle. The more you struggle, the tighter you become bound.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#456

Post by asah »

stavros wrote: post #447
asah wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

multiple words! :-)

I'm arguing that it's an obvious optimization to assign short tokens to commonly used concepts.

I'm arguing that many people had the thought before society agreed on a given token for that thought.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#457

Post by ch4s3 »

eddythompson80 wrote: post #380
ch4s3 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know why people still defend Chomsky’s horrible positions on this stuff. Moreover his claim that Leninism is distinct from Stalinism was absolutely disproven when the soviet archives were briefly opened and scholars could read Lenin’s letters and memos, but Chomsky holds to the claim.

My main problem with Chomsky is that he's intellectually dishonest. He picks his positions, then redefines words and picks facts or parts of facts that support his position and ignores others. He twists narratives dismisses anything that contradicts with his position as conspiracy. I used to like Chomsky when I was initially introduces to him because I agreed with a lot of his leftist ideologies. But being so intelle…

> My main problem with Chomsky is that he's intellectually dishonest

He also routinely cites "the archives," and every single time I've checked the source he's referencing his grossly misstating things (if I'm feeling generous).

> an Alex Jones of the intellectual left

This gave me a good chuckle.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#458

Post by foobarqux »

ch4s3 wrote: post #457
eddythompson80 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main problem with Chomsky is that he's intellectually dishonest. He picks his positions, then redefines words and picks facts or parts of facts that support his position and ignores others. He twists narratives dismisses anything that contradicts with his position as conspiracy. I used to like Chomsky when I was initially introduces to him because I agreed with a lot of his leftist ideologies. But being so intelle…

> My main problem with Chomsky is that he's intellectually dishonest He also routinely cites "the archives," and every single time I've checked the source he's referencing his grossly misstating things (if I'm feeling generous). > an Alex Jones of the intellectual left This gave me a good chuckle.

> He also routinely cites "the archives," and every single time I've checked the source he's referencing his grossly misstating things (if I'm feeling generous).

Can you give an example? I've never found a gross misstatement when checking his citations.

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#459

Post by snowpid »

za3faran wrote: post #451
snowpid wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate how a pro Iranian government is a Western puppet government? With credible sources etc.? Also I like to know who is "we".

Wikipedia states: "al-Maliki worked closely with the Multi-National Force (MNF–I), and continued to cooperate with the United States following the withdrawal from Iraq." And "we" as in Muslims.

This is not a puppet goverment. And interestingly "we" excludes parts of Iraque society, namely Christians and Yazidis. Also ask your local Kurdish (mostly Muslims) people what they think about Hussein. You will be surprised ;)

Re: Chomsky explains why nobody is a moral relativist

#460

Post by ch4s3 »

foobarqux wrote: post #458
ch4s3 wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My main problem with Chomsky is that he's intellectually dishonest He also routinely cites "the archives," and every single time I've checked the source he's referencing his grossly misstating things (if I'm feeling generous). > an Alex Jones of the intellectual left This gave me a good chuckle.

> He also routinely cites "the archives," and every single time I've checked the source he's referencing his grossly misstating things (if I'm feeling generous). Can you give an example? I've never found a gross misstatement when checking his citations.

As an example he claimed in 2022 that in 1970 Soviet Citizens could access the BBC, citing historical records of broadcasts in Russian. He neglected to mention that the Soviet government jammed the signal.

This is just one example.

Post reply on HN