I said that *I* could be difficult, and ask a question I find to be very problematic. Why is the quest the important thing? Why isn't the grail the important thing? Hah! You suppose that we could end our quest, and survive (so that we could go looking for something else). I'm not so sure about this. * * * Good idea -- if only every criminal could and would be caught!! * * * You mean in the second or in the first sense? Eventually, both have to be addressed. The first one -- moral relativism is due to there being no absolute morals -- is about a certain noetic theory. It seems the solution is to move into another noetic theory. If it only were so simple ... To compare: Realism proved to be too simplistic; relativism is eventually paralyzing; constructivism seems to be consistent, but all floating in the air. A "reformed realism" seems to be the best solution. As for the second sense -- moral relativism is about not having a moral judgement about a phenomenon, or withdrawing that moral judgement. This one can actually be fixed, effectively. If a person's moral system is coherent and consistent (these two criteria seem to be crucial), then this person is likely to not exhibit moral relativism. Coherence and consistency can be pursued, actively. To visualize: write down your beliefs, and check them for possible contradictions. If you notice there to be contradictions, you will also be able to come up with a resolution of the contradiction. However, this is a somewhat demanding task, and it is reasonable to doubt that many people would be/are willing to do it. Which is surprising -- if people deem themselves to be rational, and believe pursuing the rational course of thought is best, why then do they refuse to do that with their own moral system? Why are there genuine-leather-wearing vegetarians who have become vegetarians because they believe it is wrong to kill animals? Why are there smokers who believe smoking is bad, but who also believe they want to live? Why do people who deem themselves rational go on complaining about the same thing? . . . * * * I haven't read Rand myself, but from what I have heard of her, yes, what you say applies exactly. Not just to her, but to many others who think that humans are essentially rational. These theorists take human rationality for granted.
I'm entirely sure that's true. It could be that these theorists take human rationality to be irrelevant, as one man's rationality is another's insanity. It could be that the most efficient distribution of human resources is ultimately garnered via absolute selfishness. "we can all be trusted to make objective selfish decisions". Hmm. Ultimately, our selfish decisons are objective, in that at the invidual level, the subjective and objective are perhaps impossible to distinguish from one another. One's subjective perspective is their objective perspective. Rand's point seemed to be that by definition, selfish decisions are how the "good" is aquired for society - given that society is comprised of individuals. Rand seems to have faith that through selfishness, the system of human interaction reaches maximal utility. I have to say that I mostly agree... but I think selfishness includes things like empathy.
Why praise something one finds irrelevant? Why base one's whole theory on something one finds irrelevant? Thats a really stupid thing to do, ain't it? Hm? Hm? And? Sooner or later, they' ll have to cooperate if they want more. This will decrease their selfishness, but probably only seemingly. That's just saying that underlying everything is objective reality. We haven't said much by that. It's more about defining what human nature is. Any such definition is a statement of ethics, unprovable.
Yeah. I was trying to get at "people are rational, from their own perspective", so debating their rationality is pointless in the context of assuming people's rationality. Assuming that people are rational according to their own perspective cannot really be questioned IMO, in that "people perform their function" regardless of what internal inconsistencies escape or are embraced by their conscious minds. Perhaps I've unwittingly bastardized definitions, but IMO.. that is still rational objective selfishness. Cooperation is necessary for survival, thus if I - selfishly - desire to survive, it is selfish of me to cooperate. We say something by noting observational distance no? We also say something by hypothesizing that the "subjective approximation of reality, which leads to value, which is selfishness (in that you seek what you value, even if it's "selflessness" you have to value it and selfishly seek it), when allowed to interact - will lead to the most efficient form of society". Ethics is certainly unprovable, but I think you can make assertions about human nature that are provable... regarding psychology, etc. Actually from time to time I entertain the thought that "thought is a component of abstract space" and "abstract space has properties" and ponder the consequences or facets thereof.
I havent had the opportunity to read all of the responses in this thread yet, but when I do, I might be back to resond. To me religion, as well as all of the other abstract concepts that humanity has created are variables that are used to try to define a purpose (which may in fact not even exist). Maybe its quite possible that we, everything in existence is a single point that is, by human perception, differentiated into everything we observe or rather what we define as reality. Is it possible that we are all part of a system that is really something greater struggling to define a "purpose" or rather understand everything or how everything became. Now for the aspect of religion, I have to agree w/ [wesmorris]. Everything he stated in his first post (all that Ive really read so far) is how I have percieved religion and society: a concept that has helped keep humanity sane and somewhat stable based on what people believe. It is unfortunate that, in my opinion, society tends to stick to what they believe and not what they know. Even the concept of science itself, may be completely flawed and that everything is of some sort of integrated illusion, who knows, but until we do, we need to follow what we know. People tend to follow what they believe because doing so (the opposite) invades their comfort level (and thats when science causes controversy). But anywho, like Arthur C. Clark stated in 3001 maybe the empire of religion will fall and maybe one day society will realize its flaws(if its not too late by that time). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
the human purpose, from a biological standpoint, is to reproduce. thats it. once you pass on your seed and contribute to the human race, your purpose is over. biologically, anyway. personally- your purpose is whatever you want. for me its the pursuit of happiness, pleasure, and knowledge. as long as i acquire these things without interfering with anyone elses rights or privacy, im a happy camper.
Religion isn't the only holistic control mechanism, but you might find Plato's quest for the same enlightening if you read his later works. :m:
Wes, All fine and well -- but imagine espousing such subjectivity: How are you to run a state then, declare laws? Either the subjectivity of rationality is all there is, and thus, there can be no mutually obligating laws. Or the subjectivity of rationality is limited, and there is a common ground, an objective rationality which is interpersonal. Mutually obligating laws can exist. But as soon as you come to that notorious objective common ground, things get sticky. P.S. A semantic booboo is coming up: We experience everything subjectively, as this is the only way experience exists. But the term "subjective" can also be used as "there is nothing else to adhere to than the self" -- such an outlook supposes that all laws that don't come form the self, are immoral. Of course. But what is selfishness? Is a person ever unselfish, esp. in the light of the above consideration? A person is unselfish when she gives up on herself? Yes, but where does this get us? There is observational distance. What are the consequences of it, how do we deal with those consequences? Yes, and such a selfishness demands cooperation, which is utterly unselfish -- oh, the irony. "If I want my best, I also have to wish and work for the best of others." Observation tells you what *is* there. Ethics tells you what *ought* to be. How do you get from the *is* to the *ought*?
I'll take that as rhetorical? Realization of subjectivity doesn't relieve the practical responsibility of getting through the day, so you do the best you can given what you think you know. Consensus seems to be popular as a means of determining "what is real". Obviously however, it has its downside. We make due with whatever we must. .... OR.... The subjectivity of rationality is all there is, and we battle it out for the authority to subject each other to our laws.... or simply agree on some set that seems appealing to the highest percentage of people... (AFTERTHOUGHT: which could/should be viewed as memes battling it out for superiority. the winning meme overtakes the minds of those remaining from the battle. its strength is aided by the will of those with whom it resonates) You mean "who is qualified to say what is objective"? Perhaps the scientists uses truly objective means by which to gather evidence and calculates perfectly the possibility of error in his observation. If for some reason I find his method subjective (and I'm commited to that premise), how can it be shown to me that he is correct? It can't eh? Committment to the irrational can be a strong position, as strong as the will of the one committing. Not necessarily. It could be that morality has little to do with it, or that my morals compensate for this apparent reality. Acting in one's own interest... to satisfy one's function. Never "unselfish", just more or less selfish where more selfish is generally better. Hmm.. the more selfish one is, the more apt they are to flawlessly perform their function. The question becomes, what is one's best interest? That's where things become interesting to me. I'd say that person's actions have become divergent with their function at that point. They are at a selfish minimum in that they have minimized the likelihood of attaining their interest by having lost interest. She who gave up on herself has no interest to pursue and thus, nothing to selfishly pursue. Back to the source of that exchange: "Ultimately, our selfish decisons are objective, in that at the invidual level, the subjective and objective are perhaps impossible to distinguish from one another. One's subjective perspective is their objective perspective. Rand's point seemed to be that by definition, selfish decisions are how the "good" is aquired for society - given that society is comprised of individuals. " Consequences abound. For one, we should note the fallability of our particular senses and perception. Each has their own perceptive strengths and weaknesses. One must learn their limitations. Thus we should seek to verify what we percieve to the best of our ability. Finding the balance between spending all your time verifying and acting upong knowledge/information is tricky. I think thought's nature is ironic. As such it bleeds through to most fundamental concepts of being. Via value.
Wes, What is that we indeed *must*? Consequent subjectivists oppose the existence of any laws obligating all members of a society. On what grounds do we oppose such a view? Hah! Might makes right. Yes, consensus. What is the counterargument against consequent subjectivists who oppose any kind of consensus? Of course. Yes, who has the say. Traditionally, it was the elites. True. But what ethics can we derive from observation? That violence is good? Why science is yet another form of consensus, and to be treated as such. But this is also a commitment to the destructive (but not just the destructive). Then everyone is selfish. Then, again, everyone is selfish, and the term is redundant. Sticky. How can you know what is your best interest? You can know that only in retrospect. We're at the logic of a suicider again. I'm sorry, but I see nothing being said in this, it's just tautologies. Must, should ... Why? Why must we something, why should we something? Funny. I've read a couple of heated debates about how to get from the is to the ought, and all the participants were stuck. I thought the other day how useful and powerful the concepts of values and preferences are -- they can be derived based on experience, and that's how we get from the is to the ought. There is an extrapolation problem though: How do we get from observation and experience to those totally wildly nebulous ethics as promoted by humanism, for example? Or those of nihilism?
Ayn Rand and others have provided a sound framework for the ethics of running a society of intelligent people. Unfortunately, not enough people have both the patience and the understanding to recognize a rational system of ethics. The sad fact is that many who are exposed to a rational system and are capable of understanding it are not rational enough to accept a good system. To be very brief, fundamental rights should be reciprocal, and based on the converse of the golden rule. I should have no right that I am unwilling to allow another person to exercise. All proper actions of the government should be based on individual rights. Do not force a person to adhere to some standard of “good behavior,” merely prevent him/her from using force and/or fraud. For example, the criminal justice system is based on an individual’s right to defend himself against those who would steal, cheat or assault him. Surely, the right of self defense is a reciprocal right. In a confrontation which escalated, it might not be possible to identify the aggressor (even with a video tape), but the concept of the aggressor being wrong and subject to restraint or retaliation is surely valid. Note that a constitutional republic is fundamentally better than an unrestricted democracy. An ethically run absolute Monarchy (if such could exist) is likely to be better than an unrestricted democracy. Consensus or unrestricted democracy is a subtle form of mob rule. If my mob is bigger than your mob, I get my way. Consensus or unrestricted democracy replaces superior might with superior numbers.
