Moral Relativism

POSTED BY: reaverman
UPDATED: Monday, May 8, 2006 01:43
VIEWED: 6596
PAGE 5 of 5

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 6, 2006 4:09 AM

Social Darwinism leads to the betterment of society like capitalism leads to the betterment of "the economy" and Darwinsim leads to the betterment of a species. At least that's the explanation we're given. Sacrifice now for the better of all.

So, to define "greatest good"

What do people think is "good"? Well, what does "heaven" look like? (that's a reliable indicator of "good" I think). Neanderthals and early "man" buried some of their dead with flowers, tools, beads and bones. Primitive societies' view of heaven revolved around lots of mead or beer, food, and fun. Islam's view is pretty much the same: water and houris. The capitalist view of "heaven" -as depicted in advertising- is sexy young people playing with expensive toys. Egyptians buried their famous dead with a whole society - at least in pictographs- taking care of the necessities of life: sowing, reaping, writing etc. (But not defecating or having babies.) Buddhists aim towards the elimination of pain and disappointment through the elimination of desire. Some views hold that "knowing god" is a source of joy. What you DON'T see is pain, misery, privation, or insecurity.

So, for the most part "good" is like real life but with the bad parts removed: probably very much like Maslow's hierarchy of needs: physiological, safety, acceptance etc. http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html

NOTE: Most religions and philosophies stop at the first two! So I don't think that defining "good" is terribly difficult for most people. DO you think that this is a near-universal definition of "good"??

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 6, 2006 2:32 PM

And now to define "greatest number".

I think this is harder to define because it depends on who is protected w/in your code of "right" and "wrong". We see this when someone says "kill all Muslims" but then agitates against abortion. It's not that his moral system is inconsistent, it's just that Muslims, Jews, criminals, women fill in the blank are not considered "people" and are not afforded protections and benefits. There are real distinctions between various moral systems on this point. Almost all include men, some (primarily civil code) include women and children, some include the unborn or future generations, some only refer to "the fittest", and some even include insects or "the environment".

However, I think there is one thing we can say about most systems of right and wrong- they include the power structure.

Going back to my previous point about people accepting a system of right and wong only if they benefit (or think they benefit).... a system of right and wrong is a socially negotiated system. If it wasn't accepted by a certain minimum it would cease to exist. But some systems exclude whole swaths of society. A system of right and wrong that excludes women, for example, excludes a population majority, and if you excluded children and slaves as well it could be that the VAST majority is formally excluded. Clearly, the social negotiation can ignore people who don't have enough power to change the negotiation.

And where does that power come from? How does a group dominate society so they can define what's right and wrong? I think that power rests on three points. The first is propaganda. Certain people get to say- over and over- what they think "the world" is like and how "people" fit in. In the past that would be the shamans, storytellers, priests, emperors etc. There would be a real distinct advantage to being able to write: not only could you communicate at a distance, you could also communicate through time.

The second is economic. A group of people who can produce more efficiently or who can produce more advanced items, or who can disperse those items through trade has a natural advantage over others.

And finally there is force. Laws, religion, social mores and economic relations, slavery, sacrifice, and the unequal distribution of reward are imposed through force of arms when persuasion and reward aren't sufficient.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

JMB9039

Saturday, May 6, 2006 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Social Darwinism is at it's heart the same thing as the old idea that it's easier for a poor man to get into heaven -- a mechanism that supports the status quo by discouraging the numberous "have nots" from overthrowing the "haves" by force of numbers.

In the religious case you have a shitty life while others live in luxury but you will be rewarded after you die. In the case of Social Darwinism it's the idea that you should accept uneven distribution of wealth in the hope that someday you yourself will be wealthy.

I'm not sure if you have that right. The "poor man gets to heaven" issue is a call to socialism (to an extent) saying that personal wealth at the expense of others is a sin. It argues that we all must take care of each other equally. Social Darwinism is basically to take care of yourself. I don't think the religious doctorine calls for you to accept a "shitty life" but rather for those with wealth to take care of those who have none and for those who have none to worry about their moral and physical life rather than material goods.

SIGNYM

Saturday, May 6, 2006 3:09 PM

I know it seems like I've gone far afield from the initial topic, so I'm going to circle back and try to make this all fit together.

Our moral systems may not be able to be passed on rationally but they certainly can be studied objectively.

Although moral systems have different specifics, they have certain nearly-universal features. They:

1) control behavior of the members of society
2) define "good" primarily in positive materialistic terms or material-analog terms
3) argue that the system's purpose is for "good"
4) must benefit at least the more powerful members of society
5) rest on propaganda, production, and force of arms.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, May 6, 2006 3:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
I apologise ahead of time if there has already been a thread about this, but I thought it was worth discussing.

I personally believe that in the grand universal scheme of things, that 'right' and 'wrong' simply dont exist. They are illusions created by our culture and biology. Things like 'killing is wrong'() and 'nurturing children is right'() are examples of morals that exist because during our evolution, those that didn't have these instincts died out by killing each other off or letting their young starve. I choose to follow certain morals because its easier that way (it's what I've been taught through my upbringing and genetics), but I don't believe that those concepts exist outside our heads.

I want this to be a calm, reasoned, honest discussion of what ya'll think. Lets try not to have any flame wars or snarkin' please(no matter how fun they may be ). Also, if your argument is a religious one, please dont bother posting. We should be arguing facts, not faith.

So, what are your thoughts?

P.S. If your user name happens to be 'Piratenews', please just move on to the next thread. This isn't a discussion of how British-Commie-Nazi-Alien-Jews are ruining America.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

I don't disagree on any particular point. I think that, as humans have evolved, common themes arise during the course of our interaction w/ others. Over time, some have been able to step back and say ' that's not a very productive action or view point because of x,y, or z reason '. I say 'some', because if ALL had such a capacity, murder, rape and a host of other 'bad' acts would have ceased long ago. But we are animals, and sometimes we're more inclined to return to that default state. It's then that meeting the REAL YOU isn't always so pretty.

Things run smoother in society when we aren't acting on every impulse.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

FLETCH2

Saturday, May 6, 2006 4:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jmb9039:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Social Darwinism is at it's heart the same thing as the old idea that it's easier for a poor man to get into heaven -- a mechanism that supports the status quo by discouraging the numberous "have nots" from overthrowing the "haves" by force of numbers.

In the religious case you have a shitty life while others live in luxury but you will be rewarded after you die. In the case of Social Darwinism it's the idea that you should accept uneven distribution of wealth in the hope that someday you yourself will be wealthy.

I'm not sure if you have that right. The "poor man gets to heaven" issue is a call to socialism (to an extent) saying that personal wealth at the expense of others is a sin. It argues that we all must take care of each other equally. Social Darwinism is basically to take care of yourself. I don't think the religious doctorine calls for you to accept a "shitty life" but rather for those with wealth to take care of those who have none and for those who have none to worry about their moral and physical life rather than material goods.

I see your point, but that comes from other religious aspects like the importance of charity. Looking specifically at church teachings through most of the middle ages the message seems clear. Your king rules because God says he should and the holy church is used to legitimise that authority. Do as the church says and you'll get into heaven, a shiny happy place, when you die.

In effect it's "play the game our way now and you'll be rewarded after you die." I think this aspect of political/religious control is why Marx saw religion as the opium of the people.

Moving on to the American brand of social Darwinism and we see a similar secular game being played that can be translated as"the system favours a rich minority but YOU have the opertunity to join them, in which case the system will work for you."

In both cases the masses are encouraged to support systems that benefit a few with the promise that if they dont rock the boat they too will be rewarded, if not in this life then the next.

JMB9039

Sunday, May 7, 2006 3:10 PM

Quote:
I see your point, but that comes from other religious aspects like the importance of charity. Looking specifically at church teachings through most of the middle ages the message seems clear. Your king rules because God says he should and the holy church is used to legitimise that authority. Do as the church says and you'll get into heaven, a shiny happy place, when you die.

In effect it's "play the game our way now and you'll be rewarded after you die." I think this aspect of political/religious control is why Marx saw religion as the opium of the people.

Moving on to the American brand of social Darwinism and we see a similar secular game being played that can be translated as"the system favours a rich minority but YOU have the opertunity to join them, in which case the system will work for you."

In both cases the masses are encouraged to support systems that benefit a few with the promise that if they dont rock the boat they too will be rewarded, if not in this life then the next.

OK, I see your point, although I'm not completely sure you understand Marx fully and your interpretation of religious and social aspects is still a bit off - however, I'm not sure it is something easily discussed and dissimilated over a message board. I'll just say that religion and "spirituality" are often two different things. Or not, sometimes they mix. I don't believe the "poor man entering heaven" has much to do with religion but more to do with social importance and spirituallity on how to treat our fellow man. The same as the "golden rule." I will say this however, the social darwinists lack the forsight to understand the complex symbiotic nature of society. What effects a few effects many. And, having the opportunity to join them, in my opinion, is the greatest marketing lie ever created. The larger the gap between the rich and poor the harder it is to move up the latter. I'm not sure where we were going with this discussion, but it has been interesting - and i'm glad, quite civil.

--JMB9039

RUE

Monday, May 8, 2006 1:43 AM

SignyM:

Quote:
Although moral systems have different specifics, they have certain nearly-universal features. They:

1) control behavior of the members of society
2) define "good" primarily in positive materialistic terms or material-analog terms
3) argue that the system's purpose is for "good"
4) must benefit at least the more powerful members of society
5) rest on propaganda, production, and force of arms.

I accept your analysis though I don't like the societies so formed. And I think the technological age has changed the equation (though people don't see it - yet). This is an age where material survival and comfort for all can be GUARANTEED. But it happenes if and only if society reformulates it compact with its members. With that kind of benefit possible for almost all (excluding the small fraction of uber-wealthy whose lifestyle would drop), it's only a matter of time before people see the possibility en masse. And the notion of 'good' then changes.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5