6 ms·

This seems like relativism run amok. All political positions are not equal except in a completely unmoored ethical system.

by hsod 9y ago

ogre_magi 9y ago
I don't subscribe to an objective morality. There are things that I value and attempt to maximize, but I don't feel the need to compel all sentients in the universe to adopt my position. I'm willing to "live and let live," with the understanding that conflict will still happen sometimes and that's okay.
- hsod 9y ago
  There need not be an objective morality for us to bring our values into our politics. Politics is the way we make collective decisions about things of mutual importance. What's important to you? What would a society full of people who refuse to advocate for their own values out of a sense of meta-ethical relativism look like?
  - ogre_magi 9y ago
    I'm not telling you not to bring your values into politics. I'm not some kind of relativism evangelist. That's a strawman that multiple commenters here are standing up. This all started with one commenter saying that his outgroup is uniquely evil, and me replying that it was a matter of perspective. Both sides get to bring their values into politics.
    - hsod 9y ago
      Saying evil is a matter of perspective is relativism.
      - ogre_magi 9y ago
        This is going to drift into a problem of definitions, as value conflicts often can. If your deontology considers me "evil," there's nothing I can do about that. I'm not going to complain about your use of the word. People are going to have conflicts, and some of them are going to become holy wars. Best of luck in the wars to come.
        hsod 9y ago
        "People are going to have conflicts, and some of them are going to become holy wars. Best of luck in the wars to come." What does this mean? I'm genuinely interested in your perspective, not trying to play gotcha or argue semantics.
  - hitekker 9y ago
    If I recall correctly, the leadership of LessWrong espouses "Politics is the mindkiller". Consequently, their followers will find all manners of justification to avoid applying their rationality to political subjects, in the guise of some holier-than-thou enlightenment. Ironically, this actually helps to sustain their membership. Broaching politics would risk schisms within their enervated movement, as a group who believes "Global Warming is irrational" but wouldn't otherwise discuss it, would be forced to confront an opposing group which does.
- yesenadam 9y ago
  The language is tricky in this area; I'll try to be clear. There seems some confusion in your concepts; at least I'm confused about them. I don't claim to have this stuff all worked out; sorry if it's not helpful. It sounds like, for you, 'subscribing to an objective morality' would involve feeling the need to make everyone 'adopt your position' - share your beliefs? do as you do? I don't think there are actually many ethical or social relativists at all. Even the most self-proclaimedly relativist academics may talk like that professionally, but in their everyday lives have quite another standard, and evidently believe in objective ethics/morality/reality etc. That's the thing about ethics; it's not like favourite ice cream flavour, where you might think lemon is best, chocolate awful, but understand it's just your personal taste. Believing something is ethically wrong means it's not just 'wrong for you', but 'wrong, full stop.' It doesn't mean you go around forcing people to think/act the same. (Although probably means you wish they would.) I think you have described tolerance, an understanding that people think differently, not everyone has the same values etc. But to go from that to thinking there is no right and wrong, good or bad - only right-for-you, wrong-for-you - well, that's an abysmal step. I suppose you don't mean that; I hope not. Well, even in your "I don't feel the need to compel all sentients in the universe to adopt my position" it sounds like you think it's simply a better way of acting than others who need to compel etc. Not just better-for-you, but better for anyone, better for everyone i.e. objectively better.
  - ogre_magi 9y ago
    You talk about something being: 'wrong, full stop' How can you tell if this full stop "wrongness" is occurring? Any answer you give is going to be an explanation of how the full stop "wrong" thing violates some set of principles or reduces something you value. Not all people will agree on which principles or values to privilege as the arbiters of right and wrong. The whole thing will become a game of definitions. To your last point: No. My way of looking at things is not "better" in any cosmic sense. My question would be: "Better at what?" I value what I value. You value what you value. There's a whole planet of people with their values. Many will align, many will conflict. This is normal. I don't believe those with values different from mine are "wrong, full stop" or "evil, full stop."
hitekker 9y ago
It's less a system of thought and more a way to think less. If truth does not exist for a person, then that person can stand, sneering on the sidelines at those who dare stand up for whatever this or whatever that. Or they can squirrel themselves away, safe in their own make believe world. Some people need that illusory superiority or distance to get through life. At least until they hear a knock at the door at night.
- ogre_magi 9y ago
  This is a cutting attack on those who fail to support your ingroup. Well done. I recommend steelmanning my comment and seeing if there's another interpretation of my position you can find. Me not sharing your values is not equal to me disbelieving in objective reality.

This seems like relativism run amok. All political positions are not equal except in a completely unmoored ethical system.

by hsod 9y ago

This seems like relativism run amok. All political positions are not equal except in a completely unmoored ethical system.

ogre_magi 9y ago

I don't subscribe to an objective morality. There are things that I value and attempt to maximize, but I don't feel the need to compel all sentients in the universe to adopt my position. I'm willing to "live and let live," with the understanding that conflict will still happen sometimes and that's okay.

hsod 9y ago
There need not be an objective morality for us to bring our values into our politics. Politics is the way we make collective decisions about things of mutual importance. What's important to you? What would a society full of people who refuse to advocate for their own values out of a sense of meta-ethical relativism look like?
- ogre_magi 9y ago
  I'm not telling you not to bring your values into politics. I'm not some kind of relativism evangelist. That's a strawman that multiple commenters here are standing up. This all started with one commenter saying that his outgroup is uniquely evil, and me replying that it was a matter of perspective. Both sides get to bring their values into politics.
  - hsod 9y ago
    Saying evil is a matter of perspective is relativism.
    - ogre_magi 9y ago
      This is going to drift into a problem of definitions, as value conflicts often can. If your deontology considers me "evil," there's nothing I can do about that. I'm not going to complain about your use of the word. People are going to have conflicts, and some of them are going to become holy wars. Best of luck in the wars to come.
      - hsod 9y ago
        "People are going to have conflicts, and some of them are going to become holy wars. Best of luck in the wars to come." What does this mean? I'm genuinely interested in your perspective, not trying to play gotcha or argue semantics.
- hitekker 9y ago
  If I recall correctly, the leadership of LessWrong espouses "Politics is the mindkiller". Consequently, their followers will find all manners of justification to avoid applying their rationality to political subjects, in the guise of some holier-than-thou enlightenment. Ironically, this actually helps to sustain their membership. Broaching politics would risk schisms within their enervated movement, as a group who believes "Global Warming is irrational" but wouldn't otherwise discuss it, would be forced to confront an opposing group which does.
yesenadam 9y ago
The language is tricky in this area; I'll try to be clear. There seems some confusion in your concepts; at least I'm confused about them. I don't claim to have this stuff all worked out; sorry if it's not helpful. It sounds like, for you, 'subscribing to an objective morality' would involve feeling the need to make everyone 'adopt your position' - share your beliefs? do as you do? I don't think there are actually many ethical or social relativists at all. Even the most self-proclaimedly relativist academics may talk like that professionally, but in their everyday lives have quite another standard, and evidently believe in objective ethics/morality/reality etc. That's the thing about ethics; it's not like favourite ice cream flavour, where you might think lemon is best, chocolate awful, but understand it's just your personal taste. Believing something is ethically wrong means it's not just 'wrong for you', but 'wrong, full stop.' It doesn't mean you go around forcing people to think/act the same. (Although probably means you wish they would.) I think you have described tolerance, an understanding that people think differently, not everyone has the same values etc. But to go from that to thinking there is no right and wrong, good or bad - only right-for-you, wrong-for-you - well, that's an abysmal step. I suppose you don't mean that; I hope not. Well, even in your "I don't feel the need to compel all sentients in the universe to adopt my position" it sounds like you think it's simply a better way of acting than others who need to compel etc. Not just better-for-you, but better for anyone, better for everyone i.e. objectively better.
- ogre_magi 9y ago
  You talk about something being: 'wrong, full stop' How can you tell if this full stop "wrongness" is occurring? Any answer you give is going to be an explanation of how the full stop "wrong" thing violates some set of principles or reduces something you value. Not all people will agree on which principles or values to privilege as the arbiters of right and wrong. The whole thing will become a game of definitions. To your last point: No. My way of looking at things is not "better" in any cosmic sense. My question would be: "Better at what?" I value what I value. You value what you value. There's a whole planet of people with their values. Many will align, many will conflict. This is normal. I don't believe those with values different from mine are "wrong, full stop" or "evil, full stop."

hitekker 9y ago

It's less a system of thought and more a way to think less. If truth does not exist for a person, then that person can stand, sneering on the sidelines at those who dare stand up for whatever this or whatever that. Or they can squirrel themselves away, safe in their own make believe world. Some people need that illusory superiority or distance to get through life. At least until they hear a knock at the door at night.

ogre_magi 9y ago
This is a cutting attack on those who fail to support your ingroup. Well done. I recommend steelmanning my comment and seeing if there's another interpretation of my position you can find. Me not sharing your values is not equal to me disbelieving in objective reality.