5 ms·

The principle of relativity is for velocities not morality.

by dmfdmf 11y ago

CamperBob2 11y ago
So, do you have an objective source of morality for us to refer to?
- stcredzero 11y ago
  Most human beings and human societies agree on the same general points of morality. - Killing -- Try really, really hard not to do this! - Lying -- Please try really, really hard not to do this! Or there's George Carlin's formulation: "Really try hard to not be a jerk!" I think everyone has a pretty good idea of what this means, and most people agree on the broad outlines. The devil is in the details, of course. Then there's "Love thy neighbor as thyself." A pretty good general principle that most would agree on in the broad outlines. Again: Devil is in the details. But the points I am making in these comments aren't really about details. In the broad outlines of morality, when someone starts proclaiming loudly that they are justified in being a jerk -- it's time to start getting very skeptical! This applies just as well to people, governments, and "activist" groups. And by all means, please take some time to be a bit skeptical about yourself! Again, this applies just as well to people, governments, and "activist" groups.
  - vlehto 11y ago
    I'd go bit further. Let's assume everybody agreed with the "Really try hard to not be a jerk!" and everybody would have 100% similar general picture of what is moral. Two people still interpret a situation from two points of view. Both making the judgement that the other guy is out of bounds. Which justifies some apprehension. But they both experience wrongful apprehension, which justifies pretty big apprehension. Which could result in full riot. My point is that you cannot talk about ethics from individual point of view and expect to solve problems. You have to take into account societies as whole. Then consider with how it's done in practice. Ethical society cannot exist without good laws and good guardians for those laws. (And with 99% of population behaving good 99% of the time.) Skeptical is not enough. Society has to be a instant jerk towards individuals who try to jerk around. Clear cut boundaries are needed, so you know to stay inside them. I'd say there is no place for moral relativism inside a country. But between countries it's even necessary.
    - cousin_it 11y ago
      My favorite example: 1) Randomly divide people into two groups. 2) Ask everyone in the first group this question: "If someone sues you and loses, is it fair that they should pay your legal costs?" Most people will say yes. 3) Ask everyone in the second group this question: "If you sue someone and lose, is it fair that you should pay their legal costs?" Most people will say no. Even though it's the same fucking question. That's why we need shared enforced norms :-)
      - stillsut 11y ago
        I like this example and might steal it. But I'd offer you a [bayesian] counter-argument: Say an HIV test is 99% accurate and responds positive on a randomly selected person. What's the chance they actually have HIV? About 5%! [0]. However, if you have prior reasons to believe you may have HIV, the chances are a lot higher than 5% given a positive test. To tie that back to lawsuits, your participants in the study have their priors set so that they don't expect to engage in frivolous lawsuits towards anyone. However they will likely recognize that they could fall victim to a frivolous lawsuit, and if they're normal, then the only type of lawsuits they could imagine being forced on them is a frivolous suit. Another way to say that is: probably 90% of the ridiculous lawsuits originate from 1% of the population. Then 99% of your participants will mentally model themselves as a sincere plaintiff (thus they shouldn't have to pay even if they lose), while a 1% frivolous rate is certainly high enough to make plausible the threat of being the defendant, and thus worthy of protection through legal fee reimbursement. [0]: http://cs.wellesley.edu/~cs199/lectures/34-bayes-rule.html http://cs.wellesley.edu/~cs199/lectures/34-bayes-rule.html
        cousin_it 11y ago
        Yes, fair enough.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  - scotty79 11y ago
    I think people have much more relaxed stance towards lying than you think.
  - karmacondon 11y ago
    I feel like you missed the point of the article. While the world agrees that killing, or generally being a jerk is bad, we are hopelessly divided on the issues like the death penalty, honor killing of rape victims, applying the death penalty to the mentally disabled, use of drones in armed conflicts, etc. As the grandparent comment pointed out, there is no objective source of morality on any issue. As the OP pointed out, most people don't loudly proclaim themselves to be jerks. Outside of sociopaths and those with mental disorders, most people lie, kill and hate because they think it's somehow the right thing to do. Or because they can rationalize acting in their own self interest to be somehow fair or in the greater good. Though the article tried to end on a positive tone, I found it to be pretty disheartening. It's easy to say "Don't be hateful", but much more difficult to say "Don't do what you think is right". Ain't no solution for that.
    - stcredzero 11y ago
      How about, "The ends don't justify the means?" What was done under the leadership of MLK and Gandhi had an acute awareness of how the instincts around "othering" could take hold of an activist group. I wish there was much more of that today.
  - tremon 11y ago
    There may be a moral concensus on lying, but that's probably more because the word itself has a negative connotation, not the act. The lies that are permitted are called "white lies" or "plausible deniability" (insert many other forms of political speech here). As another example (from what I've understood about some Asian cultures), "no" is considered rude in some cultures. It's quite acceptable in those cultures to end a business conversation with "I'll get back to you on that" and then never do. They wouldn't even consider it lying, they would consider it "the right thing to do".
- drdeca 11y ago
  By source do you mean way to know what is moral, or reason that there is a fact of the matter as to whether something is moral? I don't think one necessarily must claim to know /why/ there is a fact of the matter as to what things are moral, in order to be justified in one's claim that there /is/ a fact of the matter? Moral nihilism can fall down a well. (Note: I mean moral nihilism, not moral nihilists. Rhetoric. I don't have much against nihilists, except that I believe they are incorrect, and it is sometimes kind of scary to need to trust them?)
- imron 11y ago
  'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', does a pretty good job of covering things.
danharaj 11y ago
The principle of relativity arises from observer dependence in measured quantities. Human experience is observer dependent. Morality is a logical system based on human observations. Therefore morality has a logic of relativity. Relativity comes up in mathematics all the time. Relativity isn't the idea that there is no one truth, it is the idea that there is one truth but it cannot be described from a single point of view. The points of view are relative, but they are all views into the same truth. Morality can be the same way. You can be a moral realist and still acknowledge that apprehension of morality is observer dependent. Then the game becomes figuring out the rules of relativity for morality. That is, figuring out how to communicate moral perceptions and judgments between people.
- Joeri 11y ago
  Morality is not purely a matter of opinion, not more so than say the theory of evolution. You can say that evolution is just an opinion of how things work, but you have to be willing to take very unreasonable or illogical assumptions for your reasoning. It is the same with morality. To say that all morality is relative requires unreasonable assumptions, like saying that minimizing harm is sometimes harmful. Let's say that morality aims to minimize harm, well, we can make some definitive conclusions from that, like saying that killing people is bad unless it is to prevent further harm they or others would do. That throws a completely different light on the death penalty, where it is hard to argue that it is morally justified, unless you again force your way through contrived reasoning. I think the biggest cause of immorality is that we assume morality cannot be treated logically and scientifically, and instead call it the province of faith. Faith has proven itself wholly unsuited as arbitrator of morality. Maybe it's time to give science and logic a go at it.
  - stcredzero 11y ago
    To say that all morality is relative requires unreasonable assumptions Moral relativism is invoked almost exclusively by people trying to justify their own actions, after they find that many object to their actions. Faith has proven itself wholly unsuited as arbitrator of morality. Maybe it's time to give science and logic a go at it. Any evidence-based system would be better than any system that ignores evidence. We have scientific evidence that the psychology of hate is tangible and specific in how it manifests. We have literally thousands of years of observations and ruminations on this topic, including the teachings of the major world religions. Culture and society can be surprisingly good at dealing with largely invisible and quite subtle psychology. (Example: love/lust/dating -- Average people are actually quite sophisticated in how they perceive and deal with this.) But societies and cultures are constructed in such a way as to make group psychology around group membership invisible. Group psychology is part of what societies are made out of so the products of group psychology are promulgated as truth. It's no accident that two different activist movements that are praised for their moral understanding -- those of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. -- were effectively structured around the prevention of pathological group-think and othering. I think a subtle societal understanding of such group-think is the last great barrier to humanity's "Waking up from History."

The principle of relativity is for velocities not morality.

by dmfdmf 11y ago

The principle of relativity is for velocities not morality.

CamperBob2 11y ago

So, do you have an objective source of morality for us to refer to?

stcredzero 11y ago
Most human beings and human societies agree on the same general points of morality. - Killing -- Try really, really hard not to do this! - Lying -- Please try really, really hard not to do this! Or there's George Carlin's formulation: "Really try hard to not be a jerk!" I think everyone has a pretty good idea of what this means, and most people agree on the broad outlines. The devil is in the details, of course. Then there's "Love thy neighbor as thyself." A pretty good general principle that most would agree on in the broad outlines. Again: Devil is in the details. But the points I am making in these comments aren't really about details. In the broad outlines of morality, when someone starts proclaiming loudly that they are justified in being a jerk -- it's time to start getting very skeptical! This applies just as well to people, governments, and "activist" groups. And by all means, please take some time to be a bit skeptical about yourself! Again, this applies just as well to people, governments, and "activist" groups.
- vlehto 11y ago
  I'd go bit further. Let's assume everybody agreed with the "Really try hard to not be a jerk!" and everybody would have 100% similar general picture of what is moral. Two people still interpret a situation from two points of view. Both making the judgement that the other guy is out of bounds. Which justifies some apprehension. But they both experience wrongful apprehension, which justifies pretty big apprehension. Which could result in full riot. My point is that you cannot talk about ethics from individual point of view and expect to solve problems. You have to take into account societies as whole. Then consider with how it's done in practice. Ethical society cannot exist without good laws and good guardians for those laws. (And with 99% of population behaving good 99% of the time.) Skeptical is not enough. Society has to be a instant jerk towards individuals who try to jerk around. Clear cut boundaries are needed, so you know to stay inside them. I'd say there is no place for moral relativism inside a country. But between countries it's even necessary.
  - cousin_it 11y ago
    My favorite example: 1) Randomly divide people into two groups. 2) Ask everyone in the first group this question: "If someone sues you and loses, is it fair that they should pay your legal costs?" Most people will say yes. 3) Ask everyone in the second group this question: "If you sue someone and lose, is it fair that you should pay their legal costs?" Most people will say no. Even though it's the same fucking question. That's why we need shared enforced norms :-)
    - stillsut 11y ago
      I like this example and might steal it. But I'd offer you a [bayesian] counter-argument: Say an HIV test is 99% accurate and responds positive on a randomly selected person. What's the chance they actually have HIV? About 5%! [0]. However, if you have prior reasons to believe you may have HIV, the chances are a lot higher than 5% given a positive test. To tie that back to lawsuits, your participants in the study have their priors set so that they don't expect to engage in frivolous lawsuits towards anyone. However they will likely recognize that they could fall victim to a frivolous lawsuit, and if they're normal, then the only type of lawsuits they could imagine being forced on them is a frivolous suit. Another way to say that is: probably 90% of the ridiculous lawsuits originate from 1% of the population. Then 99% of your participants will mentally model themselves as a sincere plaintiff (thus they shouldn't have to pay even if they lose), while a 1% frivolous rate is certainly high enough to make plausible the threat of being the defendant, and thus worthy of protection through legal fee reimbursement. [0]: http://cs.wellesley.edu/~cs199/lectures/34-bayes-rule.html http://cs.wellesley.edu/~cs199/lectures/34-bayes-rule.html
      - cousin_it 11y ago
        Yes, fair enough.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- scotty79 11y ago
  I think people have much more relaxed stance towards lying than you think.
- karmacondon 11y ago
  I feel like you missed the point of the article. While the world agrees that killing, or generally being a jerk is bad, we are hopelessly divided on the issues like the death penalty, honor killing of rape victims, applying the death penalty to the mentally disabled, use of drones in armed conflicts, etc. As the grandparent comment pointed out, there is no objective source of morality on any issue. As the OP pointed out, most people don't loudly proclaim themselves to be jerks. Outside of sociopaths and those with mental disorders, most people lie, kill and hate because they think it's somehow the right thing to do. Or because they can rationalize acting in their own self interest to be somehow fair or in the greater good. Though the article tried to end on a positive tone, I found it to be pretty disheartening. It's easy to say "Don't be hateful", but much more difficult to say "Don't do what you think is right". Ain't no solution for that.
  - stcredzero 11y ago
    How about, "The ends don't justify the means?" What was done under the leadership of MLK and Gandhi had an acute awareness of how the instincts around "othering" could take hold of an activist group. I wish there was much more of that today.
- tremon 11y ago
  There may be a moral concensus on lying, but that's probably more because the word itself has a negative connotation, not the act. The lies that are permitted are called "white lies" or "plausible deniability" (insert many other forms of political speech here). As another example (from what I've understood about some Asian cultures), "no" is considered rude in some cultures. It's quite acceptable in those cultures to end a business conversation with "I'll get back to you on that" and then never do. They wouldn't even consider it lying, they would consider it "the right thing to do".
drdeca 11y ago
By source do you mean way to know what is moral, or reason that there is a fact of the matter as to whether something is moral? I don't think one necessarily must claim to know /why/ there is a fact of the matter as to what things are moral, in order to be justified in one's claim that there /is/ a fact of the matter? Moral nihilism can fall down a well. (Note: I mean moral nihilism, not moral nihilists. Rhetoric. I don't have much against nihilists, except that I believe they are incorrect, and it is sometimes kind of scary to need to trust them?)
imron 11y ago
'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', does a pretty good job of covering things.

danharaj 11y ago

The principle of relativity arises from observer dependence in measured quantities. Human experience is observer dependent. Morality is a logical system based on human observations. Therefore morality has a logic of relativity. Relativity comes up in mathematics all the time. Relativity isn't the idea that there is no one truth, it is the idea that there is one truth but it cannot be described from a single point of view. The points of view are relative, but they are all views into the same truth. Morality can be the same way. You can be a moral realist and still acknowledge that apprehension of morality is observer dependent. Then the game becomes figuring out the rules of relativity for morality. That is, figuring out how to communicate moral perceptions and judgments between people.

Joeri 11y ago
Morality is not purely a matter of opinion, not more so than say the theory of evolution. You can say that evolution is just an opinion of how things work, but you have to be willing to take very unreasonable or illogical assumptions for your reasoning. It is the same with morality. To say that all morality is relative requires unreasonable assumptions, like saying that minimizing harm is sometimes harmful. Let's say that morality aims to minimize harm, well, we can make some definitive conclusions from that, like saying that killing people is bad unless it is to prevent further harm they or others would do. That throws a completely different light on the death penalty, where it is hard to argue that it is morally justified, unless you again force your way through contrived reasoning. I think the biggest cause of immorality is that we assume morality cannot be treated logically and scientifically, and instead call it the province of faith. Faith has proven itself wholly unsuited as arbitrator of morality. Maybe it's time to give science and logic a go at it.
- stcredzero 11y ago
  To say that all morality is relative requires unreasonable assumptions Moral relativism is invoked almost exclusively by people trying to justify their own actions, after they find that many object to their actions. Faith has proven itself wholly unsuited as arbitrator of morality. Maybe it's time to give science and logic a go at it. Any evidence-based system would be better than any system that ignores evidence. We have scientific evidence that the psychology of hate is tangible and specific in how it manifests. We have literally thousands of years of observations and ruminations on this topic, including the teachings of the major world religions. Culture and society can be surprisingly good at dealing with largely invisible and quite subtle psychology. (Example: love/lust/dating -- Average people are actually quite sophisticated in how they perceive and deal with this.) But societies and cultures are constructed in such a way as to make group psychology around group membership invisible. Group psychology is part of what societies are made out of so the products of group psychology are promulgated as truth. It's no accident that two different activist movements that are praised for their moral understanding -- those of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. -- were effectively structured around the prevention of pathological group-think and othering. I think a subtle societal understanding of such group-think is the last great barrier to humanity's "Waking up from History."