| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/24/2010 03:22:24 PM · #426 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Erm, in the God Delusion, he discusses his theory of altruism. |
Erm, for one chapter... |
Ah, okay. Which chapter of "Mere Christianity" can we disregard as "just another voice in the rabble"? |
The ones where Lewis is discussing Science? Oh wait, there are none... :P |
Need I really point out that you've already agreed that Dawkins' theories of altruism were soundly based on his preeminent knowledge of evolution? Try to stay inside the circle. :P |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 03:46:38 PM · #427 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The ones where Lewis is discussing Science? Oh wait, there are none... :P |
Need I really point out that you've already agreed that Dawkins' theories of altruism were soundly based on his preeminent knowledge of evolution? Try to stay inside the circle. :P |
I'm honestly not sure where you are trying to lead me. Dawkins talks about altruism (or lack thereof) best in The Selfish Gene. I'm not sure how that argument lends itself to an expansion under which to deny the existence of God and the evil of religion. At very best it's a brick in a wall, but the rest of the wall is philosophical in nature and not scientific. At worst it actually works against his argument. In The Selfish Gene his argument is that altruism is a weak instinct. In the God Delusion, it becomes the basis for all our morality. Frankly I don't see the two as particularly compatible.
Message edited by author 2010-09-24 15:46:54. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 03:59:29 PM · #428 |
Man, these quotes just keep popping up. How's this one?
Morality is "a cultural overlay, a thin veneer hiding an otherwise selfish and brutish nature".
You know who said that? The dude who did Shannon's monkey experiments Frans de Waal. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 04:00:19 PM · #429 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Dawkins talks about altruism (or lack thereof) best in The Selfish Gene. I'm not sure how that argument lends itself to an expansion under which to deny the existence of God and the evil of religion. At very best it's a brick in a wall, but the rest of the wall is philosophical in nature and not scientific. |
Earlier you said, Lewis doesn't mention science and that obviously sits well with you so why are you holding Dawkins to a different standard? Is it because you only see him as just a scientist? Does he have to become a theologian for his philosophical thoughts to hold any weight?
Message edited by author 2010-09-24 16:00:56.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2010 04:04:09 PM · #430 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, these quotes just keep popping up. How's this one?
Morality is "a cultural overlay, a thin veneer hiding an otherwise selfish and brutish nature".
You know who said that? The dude who did Shannon's monkey experiments Frans de Waal. |
Huh. You keep posting them and then marvel about them popping up? It seems like you're responding to Louis or Shannon as if they are Dawkins. Am I missing something here?
Correction, Frans de Waal in this case.
Message edited by author 2010-09-24 16:05:31.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2010 04:11:24 PM · #431 |
To your first comment. I'm not holding anybody to any different standard. I would prefer a person writing a book to speak to his area of expertise. Lewis keeps his book in the philosophical realm. If he were to have written a book on Science, I would not think it would be taken particularly seriously. Would you listen to him? Dawkins is a scientist. I am unaware of any particular qualification of his to be a philosopher other than perhaps a keen interest, but you and I qualify on that front as well. When I ask myself whether I should pay attention to something someone says or writes, I ask myself "why should I listen to him?" What would your answer be for why I should listen to Dawkins when he talks about religion? Answer me that and I may see the error of my ways.
To your second comment. I continue to discredit Shannon's notion that morality is easily explained because we are altruistic beings at heart. People with expertise in sociobiology or evolutionary biology would disagree, including people who's work Shannon uses as evidence to support his case. If he uses the monkey experiments as evidence that we are altruistic at heart, and that this instinct is strong, why would the investigator who did the very experiment seem to disagree? The most likely answer is Shannon is in error rather than Frans de Waal not realizing the true conclusions of his own life's work. Wouldn't you rather bet on the expert?
This stuff seems so elementary. (Expert) Caden has been shooting pictures a bit. I'll send him over to critique your latest work. You tell me how much you pay attention to what he has to say...
Message edited by author 2010-09-24 16:26:24. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 05:10:53 PM · #432 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... I ask myself "why should I listen to him?" What would your answer be for why I should listen to Dawkins when he talks about religion? Answer me that and I may see the error of my ways.... |
Yet you readily believe the contents of book that was written based on unsubstantiated hearsay evidence and have us believe that this is the truth.
While I do admire you for your convictions Doc, I honestly don't believe that the basis for your arguments are any more valid that those of your opponents.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 05:16:55 PM · #433 |
| That's fine. You're a big boy and you can make your own decisions. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 05:26:33 PM · #434 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To your first comment. I'm not holding anybody to any different standard. I would prefer a person writing a book to speak to his area of expertise. Lewis keeps his book in the philosophical realm. If he were to have written a book on Science, I would not think it would be taken particularly seriously. Would you listen to him? Dawkins is a scientist. I am unaware of any particular qualification of his to be a philosopher other than perhaps a keen interest, but you and I qualify on that front as well. When I ask myself whether I should pay attention to something someone says or writes, I ask myself "why should I listen to him?" What would your answer be for why I should listen to Dawkins when he talks about religion? Answer me that and I may see the error of my ways.
|
Why should you listen to him? Because he's talking about a subject you obviously have a strong interest in. Why shouldn't you listen to him? Judging by all your quotes past and present it's pretty clear you DO listen to him. The real issue here is your tendency to dimiss the message based less on its' merits and more on the qualifications of its' messenger.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To your second comment. I continue to discredit Shannon's notion that morality is easily explained because we are altruistic beings at heart. People with expertise in sociobiology or evolutionary biology would disagree, including people who's work Shannon uses as evidence to support his case. If he uses the monkey experiments as evidence that we are altruistic at heart, and that this instinct is strong, why would the investigator who did the very experiment seem to disagree? The most likely answer is Shannon is in error rather than Frans de Waal not realizing the true conclusions of his own life's work. Wouldn't you rather bet on the expert?
This stuff seems so elementary. (Expert) Caden has been shooting pictures a bit. I'll send him over to critique your latest work. You tell me how much you pay attention to what he has to say... |
Well I think on this issue Shannon isn't focused on the right thing. It serves no purpose to argue about which is the stronger natural sense, altruism or domination when we should be talking about how these things affect us today. Back when we lived in caves, domination probably was the better instinct to act upon but today, I would argue that altruism holds the greater benefit.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This stuff seems so elementary. (Expert) Caden has been shooting pictures a bit. I'll send him over to critique your latest work. You tell me how much you pay attention to what he has to say... |
By all means do that. I'll listen to what he has to say. You know, for someone who is so hung up on experts you don't strike me as someone who would have listen to a thing Jesus said if you lived in his time.
Message edited by author 2010-09-24 17:28:30.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2010 05:41:37 PM · #435 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Why should you listen to him? Because he's talking about a subject you obviously have a strong interest in. Why shouldn't you listen to him? Judging by all your quotes past and present it's pretty clear you DO listen to him. The real issue here is your tendency to dimiss the message based less on its' merits and more on the qualifications of its' messenger. |
It's not that I dismiss the argument as much as I already know what lies down that road. I've been asking these questions and talking to people like you (or Dawkins) for a long time. Dawkins' lack of expertise in the field leads me to make the very rational conclusion that he has little new to add to the equation. Look at his second chapter, for example, or the different views about God. Do I have any reason to believe that there is going to be anything within that chapter that can't be had by reading a wiki article (which, we'll remember, can be written by just about anybody)? Nope. No reason at all. I just don't have enough time to listen to every Tom, Dick, and Harry, and I especially don't have enough time when it is laced with vitriol. If I'm a lesser man for having such an attitude, so be it.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well I think on this issue Shannon isn't focused on the right thing. It serves no purpose to argue about which is the stronger natural sense, altruism or domination when we should be talking about how these things affect us today. Back when we lived in caves, domination probably was the better instinct to act upon but today, I would argue that altruism holds the greater benefit. |
Fine. Just realize that this change is certainly not based on any evolutionary change in your genome and that even though you view altruism to be of "greater benefit" (whatever that means), that your baser instincts still hold sway when we get down to brass tacks.
Originally posted by yanko:
By all means do that. I'll listen to what he has to say. You know, for someone who is so hung up on experts you don't strike me as someone who would have listen to a thing Jesus said if you lived in his time. |
That would be a really interesting experiment. :) Nice brave face to pretend you'd listen to my 10-year-old. I don't believe you though.
Have you read any Lewis? And if not, why not?
Message edited by author 2010-09-24 17:47:23. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 06:17:36 PM · #436 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well I think on this issue Shannon isn't focused on the right thing. It serves no purpose to argue about which is the stronger natural sense, altruism or domination when we should be talking about how these things affect us today. Back when we lived in caves, domination probably was the better instinct to act upon but today, I would argue that altruism holds the greater benefit. |
Fine. Just realize that this change is certainly not based on any evolutionary change in your genome and that even though you view altruism to be of "greater benefit" (whatever that means), that your baser instincts still hold sway when we get down to brass tacks.
[/quote]
...and of course you would have some empirical evidence to support the validity of this statement.
The sad truth Doc is that if I buy your argument, then every point you have ever made relative to religion falls flat since that too is a learned behaviour and when the doo doo hits the fan...guess what...we all resort to the basest of instincts.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 07:11:10 PM · #437 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well I think on this issue Shannon isn't focused on the right thing. It serves no purpose to argue about which is the stronger natural sense, altruism or domination when we should be talking about how these things affect us today. Back when we lived in caves, domination probably was the better instinct to act upon but today, I would argue that altruism holds the greater benefit. |
Fine. Just realize that this change is certainly not based on any evolutionary change in your genome and that even though you view altruism to be of "greater benefit" (whatever that means), that your baser instincts still hold sway when we get down to brass tacks.
|
...and of course you would have some empirical evidence to support the validity of this statement.
The sad truth Doc is that if I buy your argument, then every point you have ever made relative to religion falls flat since that too is a learned behaviour and when the doo doo hits the fan...guess what...we all resort to the basest of instincts.
Ray [/quote]
Well, not empiric, but rational. Evolution does not tend to occur over a span of five thousand years unless there are bottlenecks, etc. Is it impossible? It's hard to ever say "impossible", but there are other options (morality is culturally learned and influenced) that are far more plausible.
What you describe, as far as behavior, is "human nature" and certain systems like J-C are fully aware of it and encourage us to transcend our instincts. J-C would say this is possible and we are not prisoners to our base insticts.
Message edited by author 2010-09-24 19:13:39. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 07:26:57 PM · #438 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I continue to discredit Shannon's notion that morality is easily explained because we are altruistic beings at heart. |
You have yet to do so. I've said from the beginning that we've got two instincts at issue here: self-interest is the strongest and altruism is second. As long as self-interest is not threatened, we'll naturally favor altruism. This is empirically observable (and toddlers going out of their way to help others irrefutably demonstrates the inherent nature of altruism). You're waving your arms over quotes that self-interest is our strongest instinct as if it were a rebuttal despite being an important element of the claim you're attempting to refute. If self-interest isn't threatened, then it makes no difference how MUCH stronger it is than altruism. It's like saying diamonds and corundum are very hard minerals, and if diamonds aren't around corundum is the hardest. Sure, diamonds are much harder than corundum, but in the absence of diamond, rubies are harder than pretty much anything else. When we aren't looking out for ourselves, we naturally look out for each other. None of your quotes or sources dispute this, yet you're bragging about how much harder diamonds are than rubies. So what?
This is what: I've recently noticed a peculiar pattern in your posts that I hadn't really paid attention to before. You've been adamant that morality is absolute, so your frequent appeals to authority in place of reason are no doubt an extension of that belief. Where it gets interesting is that you only seem to consider arguments in terms of appeal to authority, too:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would be interested in Shannon's argument that equality of the sexes is a fundamental right without resorting to what he defines as a tautology. What authority is this claim rooted in? |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
why we should listen to our "instinct of fairness" when considering Burqas? It is merely one instinct among many competing instincts. What directs us to favor this instinct over the others in this situation? You tell us this is what we should do, but you fail to say why. |
You're not interested in weighing the relative merits of one choice over another. You only want to know which one is RIGHT... which authority we should listen to. So when I make an observation that we have a natural (though secondary) preference for altruism, it's to explain why I'm reasoning the merits of the issue in those terms (i.e.- that the self-interest of one's own personal religious expression isn't really threatened by a ban on forced submission, therefore we ought to favor the altruistic option of freeing those compelled to wear it OR that gay marriage is not harmful to one's own marriage, so we should prefer to let others live as they see fit). Such pros and cons (or "oughts") are meaningless to you because you're asking which one is right. So you pass over the reasoning and keep trying to identify the shepherd that all the sheep should follow so to speak. The two approaches are incompatible: I'm never going to be able to explain authoritatively why a moral choice is "right," and you're not going to be satisfied unless I do. Conversely, I can't accept your appeals to authority alone because the premise usually relies on a "special pleading" fallacy in the absence of reasoning. Some of your more familiar arguments listed as specific examples of this particular fallacy:
"In the Thomistic cosmological argument argument for the existence of God, everything requires a cause. However, proponents of the argument then create a special case where God doesn't need a cause, but they can't say why in any particularly rigorous fashion."
That gay people can't marry each other, just because. While gay people are different to straight people - by virtue of being gay - this isn't sufficient reasoning to count them as an exception to people who don't believe in the rhetorical statement "marriage is between one MAN and one WOMAN." I'll concede that you've expressed a willingness to accept this one, but only under the absolute authority of the Supreme Court rather than on any rational basis.
Biblical morality takes massive amounts of special pleading from Biblical literalists who insist that morality can only come from the Bible. They are very happy to follow some rules (shunning gay men) but not others (selling their daughters into slavery, stoning disobedient children, eschewing shellfish) - even though the Bible, which they claim can be the only source of their moral decision making is quite silent on what parts of it you can happily ignore.
Thus, we are at an impasse. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 07:54:07 PM · #439 |
Well, I agree with your last five words. :)
Here's where I'm coming from. I very much understand your two-pronged moral compass of self-interest and altruism. I also understand that you believe the first is stronger than the second. I then have one question and one observation.
I continue to question the description of our altrusitic instincts as being "strong". You've gotten away from it so maybe you are softening your position. It's important to point out that you say altruism only plays a role when the self-interest is absent. Why does this matter? That leads me to my observation.
The most popular and common moral systems in general (and we could specifically limit ourselves to Western Civ) champion altruistic activity over self-interested ones. I continue to observe that this is not what we would expect. If we have two competing instincts, self-preservation and altruism, and one is much stronger than the other, and we assume that it is that way because the forces of survival have favored it (ie. self-preservation behavior is more apt to lead to reproduction, a la The Selfish Gene), then why do we have a moral system that praises altruism? It is quite counter-intuitive if this is the whole story. I am arguing that it is NOT the whole story.
In other words, if evolutionists are correct that morality is simply based on our instinctual tug of war between self-interest and altruism, we would expect a moral system almost exactly the opposite of what we find.
I don't think I'm making any fallacy as you've claimed and you claim so many fallacies that at this point it's a case of the boy who cried wolf. I also never got an example of where I quoted the bible to argue about biology, geology, sociology. Do you take that back?
Message edited by author 2010-09-24 20:02:15. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 07:59:28 PM · #440 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
You're not interested in weighing the relative merits of one choice over another. You only want to know which one is RIGHT... which authority we should listen to. So when I make an observation that we have a natural (though secondary) preference for altruism, it's to explain why I'm reasoning the merits of the issue in those terms (i.e.- that the self-interest of one's own personal religious expression isn't really threatened by a ban on forced submission, therefore we ought to favor the altruistic option of freeing those compelled to wear it OR that gay marriage is not harmful to one's own marriage, so we should prefer to let others live as they see fit). Such pros and cons (or "oughts") are meaningless to you because you're asking which one is right. So you pass over the reasoning and keep trying to identify the shepherd that all the sheep should follow so to speak. The two approaches are incompatible: I'm never going to be able to explain authoritatively why a moral choice is "right," and you're not going to be satisfied unless I do. |
So if I can boil down your method of "weighing the relative merits" of a situation, it is as follows:
1) Is there a case of self-interest?
1a) Yes. Then the self-interested activity has merit.
1b) No. Then the altruistic alternative has merit.
I would say this is a moral system that is very antithetical to anything we have in the western world and could lead us to some very uncomfortable conclusions.
If this isn't your method, then I need you to explain it better because, to me, that's what it looks like you are saying. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 08:02:08 PM · #441 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we have two competing instincts, self-preservation and altruism, and one is much stronger than the other, and we assume that it is that way because the forces of survival have favored it (ie. self-preservation behavior is more apt to lead to reproduction, a la The Selfish Gene), then why do we have a moral system that praises altruism? It is quite counter-intuitive if this is the whole story. I am arguing that it is NOT the whole story. |
Because "moral systems" tend to be created by the oppressed, not the oppressors? Whoever's in a dominant position has no "need" of what we call "morality", arguably?
Just thinking out loud here...
R. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 08:05:33 PM · #442 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we have two competing instincts, self-preservation and altruism, and one is much stronger than the other, and we assume that it is that way because the forces of survival have favored it (ie. self-preservation behavior is more apt to lead to reproduction, a la The Selfish Gene), then why do we have a moral system that praises altruism? It is quite counter-intuitive if this is the whole story. I am arguing that it is NOT the whole story. |
Because "moral systems" tend to be created by the oppressed, not the oppressors? Whoever's in a dominant position has no "need" of what we call "morality", arguably?
Just thinking out loud here...
R. |
You'll have to put a little more flesh on those bones for me to weigh it. I think I follow your thinking, but I'd need examples. Off the top of my head I would complicate things to say most people are both oppressor and oppressed. That is, we occupy more than one sphere of influence and our morality does not seem to change from one to the other depending on our position.
EDIT: I'll also add that whatever we think about the merits of your idea, it falls under the rubric of cultural morality. The culture of oppression specifically shapes the look of the morality.
Message edited by author 2010-09-24 20:47:55. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 09:00:27 PM · #443 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we have two competing instincts, self-preservation and altruism, and one is much stronger than the other, and we assume that it is that way because the forces of survival have favored it (ie. self-preservation behavior is more apt to lead to reproduction, a la The Selfish Gene), then why do we have a moral system that praises altruism? It is quite counter-intuitive if this is the whole story. I am arguing that it is NOT the whole story. |
Because "moral systems" tend to be created by the oppressed, not the oppressors? Whoever's in a dominant position has no "need" of what we call "morality", arguably?
Just thinking out loud here...
R. |
You'll have to put a little more flesh on those bones for me to weigh it. I think I follow your thinking, but I'd need examples. Off the top of my head I would complicate things to say most people are both oppressor and oppressed. That is, we occupy more than one sphere of influence and our morality does not seem to change from one to the other depending on our position.
|
Example? The beginnings of Judaism? Christianity? The oppressors with all the power wouldn't have a need for a messiah to save them and certainly no need for ten commandments.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
EDIT: I'll also add that whatever we think about the merits of your idea, it falls under the rubric of cultural morality. The culture of oppression specifically shapes the look of the morality. |
Well I think we are getting back to the notion that morality is relative, not absolute.
Message edited by author 2010-09-24 21:07:04.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2010 09:29:32 PM · #444 |
Sorry but I skipped through all the biblical arguing and stuff - just wanted to say that a 10 year old's opinion on something is really VERY valuable. They have yet to become too jaded and simply "like what they like" with no justification, no rationale. I'd definitely listen to his comments (not critique - does a 10 year old really "critique"?) any day!
Carry on with the rest of the stuff. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 09:47:25 PM · #445 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So if I can boil down your method of "weighing the relative merits" of a situation, it is as follows:
1) Is there a case of self-interest?
1a) Yes. Then the self-interested activity has merit.
1b) No. Then the altruistic alternative has merit.
I would say this is a moral system that is very antithetical to anything we have in the western world and could lead us to some very uncomfortable conclusions. |
Yeah, like it's exactly what we have now, or have you forgotton how you and I (or our kids/grandkids) are paying billions to bail out multimillionaire investment bankers? I've always wondered, can you please explain how unregulated western capitalism and Judeo-Christian values are not antithetical at their core, one being based on love for one's fellows and the other that the best motivation is personal greed? |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 09:54:52 PM · #446 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Sorry but I skipped through all the biblical arguing and stuff - just wanted to say that a 10 year old's opinion on something is really VERY valuable. They have yet to become too jaded and simply "like what they like" with no justification, no rationale. I'd definitely listen to his comments (not critique - does a 10 year old really "critique"?) any day!
Carry on with the rest of the stuff. |
Yeah -- any feedback on my print gallery or my regular portfolio would be appreciated -- I do think a 10 year old can criticize (critque is a noun) -- they just have to be able to say why they like/don't like something, preferrably some of each ...
Message edited by author 2010-09-24 21:55:57. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 10:00:10 PM · #447 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
they just have to be able to say why they like/don't like something, preferrably some of each ... |
Many adults can't do that.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2010 10:57:37 PM · #448 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
they just have to be able to say why they like/don't like something, preferrably some of each ... |
Many adults can't do that. |
Well sure, partly because, as Deb pointed out, they've (we've) been taught that there can be negative consequences to negative remarks, and are routinely taught what is "right" or "good" rather than being presented with examples to must analyze -- there's a reason it's called "critical thinking" rather than "negative thinking."
Message edited by author 2010-09-24 22:58:33. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 11:18:50 PM · #449 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Well I think we are getting back to the notion that morality is relative, not absolute. |
I can see where you think that, but I'm not. I'll offer an analogy. Blackjack strategy. In blackjack, statistics will tell us that for every starting hand there is a best move. If you have a pair of tens, the best move is to stand. Now, it's possible that different people or groups have felt differently and that the best move is to split or double down or even hit (the crazy fringe). We can talk about these groups and we can even talk about their origins and reasoning, but it doesn't change the fact that there is still a best move and that this move remains the same no matter what groups happen to think.
I view morality along these lines. In any given situation there is a best move. (Things are probably a little more complicated than blackjack; they may be more like chess.) There can be a difference of opinion on what the best move should be among groups and we can discuss these groups and the reasoning or origin of their ideas. It doesn't change the fact there is still a best move. This is moral universalism. This is my position. A true relativist, in contrast, would not believe there is a best move. The best move depends very much on what you think the best move is. We can still discuss groups and opinions and reasoning and origins, but we can never use comparators like "better" or "worse" because no gold standard or best move exists.
Shannon, I believe (and he can correct me), is somewhat of a universalist and would point to our genetic imperatives as the source for determining the best move. You, on the other hand (and you can also correct me), are a relativist (if not a nihilist) and would think that no such source exists.
Message edited by author 2010-09-24 23:20:41. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 11:51:13 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Well I think we are getting back to the notion that morality is relative, not absolute. |
I can see where you think that, but I'm not. I'll offer an analogy. Blackjack strategy. In blackjack, statistics will tell us that for every starting hand there is a best move. If you have a pair of tens, the best move is to stand. Now, it's possible that different people or groups have felt differently and that the best move is to split or double down or even hit (the crazy fringe). We can talk about these groups and we can even talk about their origins and reasoning, but it doesn't change the fact that there is still a best move and that this move remains the same no matter what groups happen to think.
I view morality along these lines. In any given situation there is a best move. (Things are probably a little more complicated than blackjack; they may be more like chess.) There can be a difference of opinion on what the best move should be among groups and we can discuss these groups and the reasoning or origin of their ideas. It doesn't change the fact there is still a best move. This is moral universalism. This is my position. A true relativist, in contrast, would not believe there is a best move. The best move depends very much on what you think the best move is. We can still discuss groups and opinions and reasoning and origins, but we can never use comparators like "better" or "worse" because no gold standard or best move exists.
Shannon, I believe (and he can correct me), is somewhat of a universalist and would point to our genetic imperatives as the source for determining the best move. You, on the other hand (and you can also correct me), are a relativist (if not a nihilist) and would think that no such source exists. |
I can see how you would say that but what if it's more like a game of Tic Tac Toe? What is the best move? Is there one?
Message edited by author 2010-09-24 23:55:54.
|
|
