[ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero.

[darren shawn greer]

>> in conclusion, there is no objective morality
>
> . . . is a morally objective statement.
>
> Nope, but it is an objective one. Just not *morally* objective
> statement. It'd be morally objective if I said "belief in objective
> morality is evil", which I didn't.
Yup. I thought twice about putting "morally" in the above objection, and then decided it was, as well as being objective, also morally objective. Reasoning: if guy A says bananas are good. And guy B says bananas are bad, and guy C comes along and says that bananas are neither good nor bad, they only seem that way to guy A and B because of their perspectives.
But guy D. He says, then bananas are neither good nor bad? They are objectively tasteless? tastlessness is in fact their objective nature?
Isn't tastlessness also a taste? A kind of judgement and perspective as well, made from inside a system with an opposite view waiting to be aired from inside another system?
This is where things get tricky for relativism. I agree that once you use logic to extricate yourself from the base-level moral system( bananas are good or bad) you can say you're done. Any further discussion about it is just a semantics/logic game.
The problem is we keep playing it anyway.
When I first joined this group I suggested that any discussion about God's existence --pro or con-- was in fact a huge waste of time. I believe the same thing about relativism vs objectivism. Another way to frame that argument is fundamentalism vs modernism. It's been raging for thousands of years and maybe longer. In practically every intellectual discipline known to man.
Everyone keeps refining their arguments based on the last guy's try 'till the original question, the one everyone should be asking, is lost: why in the hell do we care how other people frame their beliefs anyway if it doesn't interfere with my way of life? I still think evolutionary psychology offers some clues: we're still operating in a brand new world with very old survival programming. 
> Or alternatively, just have one guy take over the world with absolute
> power,
Seriously suggested not only as a possibility, but as an inevitability, by U.S. foreign policy thinker Robert Kaplan in his book "The Coming Anarchy."
Darren





"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

-Herbert Spencer






________________________________
> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:39:03 -0500
> From: jebdm at jebdm.net
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: Re: [ExI] The mosque at Ground Zero.
>
> 2010/8/15 John Clark>
> Then forget about good or bad, is relativism objectively true?
>
> only that objectivity doesn't exist.
>
> But is what you just said really true, objectively? If we can't talk
> about good or evil or truth or falsehood then that would rather
> seriously limit the scope of philosophy and we'd only have the
> contemptible "the story of Adam and Eve and the talking snake is true
> for me" or "it's true for me that 2+2=5". Jebadiah, do you really think
> that is the proper way to figure out how the world works?
>
> Depends what you mean by "objective". Most people take things which
> are shown by logic to be "objectively" true, and I agree with this.
> The problem is, you always have to start with some axioms, or you
> can't show anything. And because we can't know anything directly--we
> have to rely on induction through our senses/experiences--we have no
> truly "known" axioms, and thus can't prove anything is true about our
> universe.
>
> We can prove things about posited universes, though, and we can posit
> descriptions of a universe which matches our experiences, then test
> whether our theorems still match our experiences. This is what
> learning and science and whatnot are all about.
>
> So, we can prove things objectively, but we can't prove things about
> our universe objectively. In fact, we can't prove that there is an
> objective universe at all, containing anything but our own mind (the
> "everything is in your head" scenario). (Technically I'd say that even
> if my mind is the only thing is the universe, that's still an objective
> universe, but there's really not much difference between "objective"
> and "subjective" in that case because there's only one subject. In
> fact, I think I'd argue that there's no such thing as a non-systematic
> universe at all, because if it ever seems that something is behaving as
> if it was not caused by anything, the cause probably just lies outside
> whatever we're calling "the universe" at the moment. But anyways.)
>
> But it sure seems like there are other people and a systematic
> universe, doesn't it? Even if it is all in our heads, since it seems
> to be a pretty good simulation it'd probably be best to go along with
> it. Though in that case there may be exploitable edge cases...
>
> So, again; objectivity exists, we can't prove things about our universe
> objectively. We do have a pretty good model, which we can prove things
> about; it's not technically the same, but it's close enough to work.
>
> Repeat your quote:
> But is what you just said really true, objectively? If we can't talk
> about good or evil or truth or falsehood then that would rather
> seriously limit the scope of philosophy and we'd only have the
> contemptible "the story of Adam and Eve and the talking snake is true
> for me" or "it's true for me that 2+2=5". Jebadiah, do you really think
> that is the proper way to figure out how the world works?
>
> What I meant by "only that objectivity doesn't exist" was "only that
> moral objectivity doesn't exist"; I wasn't clear enough, sorry. And
> that, I think, is objectively true, given that the world doesn't have a
> god-like thing and that it doesn't compute on the level of humans. I
> didn't mean to say you couldn't talk about truth or falsehood, at all.
> I did mean that it's stupid to talk about good and evil in absolute
> terms, since they are both always relative to a value system. While it
> might be useful to omit the description of your value system most of
> the time, for brevity's sake, you have to keep in mind that it is one
> of many, and that other people hold different values, and that while
> "validity" doesn't really make sense, the whole "your system's no
> better than others" thing hold true in the sense that yours is probably
> not going to get enforced over others (unless you're in power) and that
> you'll just be butting heads if you just keep bringing that up.
>
> "True for me", I agree, is dumb. There is probably only one truth (as
> I mentioned, I do believe an objective reality exists), but it is not
> fully knowable, and the set of true statements contains no absolute
> moral judgments.
>
>
>
> By the way, does subjectivity exist, does existence exist?
>
> I think I wasn't clear that I only meant that absolute morality didn't
> exist. I do believe, again, that objective truth exists, and that
> subjectivity as a concept exists (by which I mean I do believe that
> people believe different things according to their experiences), and of
> course that existence exists (but perhaps it's only an axiom).
>
> you almost make it sound like super-generalized concepts are a bad idea.
>
> Nope, I love me some generalized concepts. But the more you generalize
> something, the more it gets misapplied.
>
> Value is judged according to some standard; there isn't a universal
> standard of value, obviously, because different entities have different
> values due to their different goals, positions, and domains of
> interaction.
>
> If a Muslim says "I think it was a good thing that a religious zealot
> through concentrated sulfuric acid into the face of a young schoolgirl
> for the crime of wanting an education" then I have learned something
> new, namely the persons standards are OBJECTIVELY incompatible with my
> own standards. We would disagree about who is right and who is wrong
> but we would both agree that are views are not in harmonious agreement.
> You can decide for yourself if your views are more similar to the
> Muslim's or to mine.
>
> I'd say that they are objectively incompatible, sure. But this would
> be true even if the Muslim (or you) thought somehow that they
> were compatible, as long as you both didn't. (I'm taking "compatible"
> to be the function: compatible(a, b) = True if for all x in actions (a
> believes x is moral) implies (b believes x is moral) AND compatible(b,
> a), else False.)
>
> I agree with you about the specific action you cite. I don't know you
> well enough to judge otherwise (but it seems we disagree about a lot of
> things, especially the proper tone with which to conduct conversation
> with strangers, and the best way to convince the religious to stop
> being religious), and I certainly can't speak for all Muslims, even all
> Muslims holding the view you state, as a whole.
>
> Absolutely true, but there is something far more important, subjective
> morality. I prefer to associate with people who's subjective morality
> is closer to mine than the acid thrower.
>
> Hooray! But your belief in universal rights (correct me if you don't
> believe in them) contradicts your belief in the non-universality of
> morality. Even if you specifically don't believe in universal rights,
> many people do despite not believing in universal morality, which is
> silly though an understandable state of affairs. As is the belief in
> religions at all.
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 1:00 PM, darren shawn
> greer> wrote:
>
>> in conclusion, there is no objective morality
>
> . . . is a morally objective statement.
>
> Nope, but it is an objective one. Just not *morally* objective
> statement. It'd be morally objective if I said "belief in objective
> morality is evil", which I didn't.
>
> It's a philosophical sink-hole. Not to mention a political mine-field,
> as objectivists (think Aristotle and slavery) usually end up making
> moral assertions that are repugnant to some, and relativists (think
> Machiavelli and drowning your enemies) usually (if inadvertently)
> undermine values that are important to most.
>
> I agree it's problematic. But I think I explained pretty thoroughly
> that at least my form of relativism only relies on the non-knowability
> of the universe to be true, which I think is pretty universally
> accepted. And really, I don't consider any moral statements to be true
> except as a statement of belief, perhaps a prediction of others'
> reaction, etc. Plus, I certainly don't consider all moral statements
> to be "equally valid" and am perfectly willing to favor my own
> reactions over others, modulo others' reactions to my reactions.
> (Which is the kicker that keeps people from all just doing whatever
> they want.)
>
> Wittengstein noticed this, and said that to discuss such things you
> need a language and frame of reference entirely beyond what human
> beings are capable of as subjective observers. Perhaps what we are
> capable of is agreeing on that which would be acceptable to the largest
> number of people as mutually beneficial "universal" morality: a kind of
> philosophical and moral utilitarianism.
>
> I agree. I think there is probably a system which maximally satisfies
> peoples' senses of morality (and value in general) despite their
> differences, and I believe that that system is probably a variant of
> utilitarianism.
>
> Or we could step back a few years ( or a couple thousand of 'em) and
> adopt tribal territorial morality, which lets you do YOUR thing as long
> as it doesn't interfere substantially with MY thing. Either way, it
> would be better than what we have now, which is this constant back and
> forth between two dominant two world views and the conflict that always
> results when you try to impose your preference -- relativist or
> objectivist -- on others.
>
> Or alternatively, just have one guy take over the world with absolute
> power, or implement mass-human-programming, or some such thing. Morally
> repugnant to most, but these types of solutions could theoretically end
> such conflicts. And if you were able to truly change peoples' minds
> via reprogramming or just propaganda, would it really matter?
>
> Of course, such ideal solutions don't seem to exist, and probably won't
> for a while. Though perhaps, given a singularity or something.
> Interesting to think about, and certainly many sci-fi writers have.
> Though they all seem to come to dystopianism... I wish there were more
> (or really, any) who didn't assume that such changes were Bad Mojo from
> the get go (though if that's the invariable conclusion, of course they
> shouldn't repress it, but I don't think it necessarily is).
>
> --
> Jebadiah Moore
> http://blog.jebdm.net
>
> _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing
> list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat