4 ms·

Who gets to define what is right? Indeed this is the right question to be asking. I think moral relativism has a lot to offer here. As SSC put it, you have to

by Y_Y 9y ago

Who gets to define what is right? Indeed this is the right question to be asking. I think moral relativism has a lot to offer here. As SSC put it, you have to think about whether people with different moral aims than you are just not clever enough to see you're right, or know they're wrong but hope to profit (mistake vs. conflict). Too rarely does anyone consider that from where the other party stands, things might look different. You can have two good-faith actors with good (but not totally overlapping) information take up totally opposed positions because they don't see the same thing as being "right".

gowld 9y ago
You missed the most common answer: most people don't care if they are right or wrong, they just live their lives. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair
thaumasiotes 9y ago
> you have to think about whether people with different moral aims than you are just not clever enough to see you're right, or know they're wrong but hope to profit > You can have two good-faith actors with good (but not totally overlapping) information take up totally opposed positions because they don't see the same thing as being "right" (mistake vs. conflict) The second quote describes a conflict, but it doesn't describe a conflict where one side knows it's wrong but is hoping to get away with it anyway. It describes an intractable conflict, one where no one is wrong. The two choices you highlight in the first quote are a very small fraction of the possibilities, and are not a good reflexive thought to have, because if your first thought is "OK, it's one of these two options", you may not notice that you're going through life assuming, based on nothing, that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
xg15 9y ago
Though if you want to take moral relativism seriously, you'd also have to consider if your own moral standards might be too lax and what it means if you overstep the boundaries of others. Just saying "well who knows what's right and what's wrong anyway?" and use that as an excuse to invalidate others' objections is cheap.
Torwald 9y ago
I've found your comment very interesting: "As SSC put it, you have to think about whether people with different moral aims than you are just not clever enough to see you're right, or know they're wrong but hope to profit (mistake vs. conflict)." Regarding "dumb v. evil", I've lately encountered this distinction: "dumb people don't use moral concepts to get their way. They just sort of use brute force, bullying, you know they'll call names. But the smart people are the people, who use moral concepts in the service of evil. " I've heard it in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0V-gUuvW8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0V-gUuvW8 (at 18:15 min) I transcribed the segment at my blog over here: http://tribeone.net/morality/how-to-malice-stupidity/ http://tribeone.net/morality/how-to-malice-stupidity/ (If you like reading better.)

by Y_Y 9y ago

gowld 9y ago

You missed the most common answer: most people don't care if they are right or wrong, they just live their lives. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair

thaumasiotes 9y ago

> you have to think about whether people with different moral aims than you are just not clever enough to see you're right, or know they're wrong but hope to profit > You can have two good-faith actors with good (but not totally overlapping) information take up totally opposed positions because they don't see the same thing as being "right" (mistake vs. conflict) The second quote describes a conflict, but it doesn't describe a conflict where one side knows it's wrong but is hoping to get away with it anyway. It describes an intractable conflict, one where no one is wrong. The two choices you highlight in the first quote are a very small fraction of the possibilities, and are not a good reflexive thought to have, because if your first thought is "OK, it's one of these two options", you may not notice that you're going through life assuming, based on nothing, that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

xg15 9y ago

Though if you want to take moral relativism seriously, you'd also have to consider if your own moral standards might be too lax and what it means if you overstep the boundaries of others. Just saying "well who knows what's right and what's wrong anyway?" and use that as an excuse to invalidate others' objections is cheap.

Torwald 9y ago

I've found your comment very interesting: "As SSC put it, you have to think about whether people with different moral aims than you are just not clever enough to see you're right, or know they're wrong but hope to profit (mistake vs. conflict)." Regarding "dumb v. evil", I've lately encountered this distinction: "dumb people don't use moral concepts to get their way. They just sort of use brute force, bullying, you know they'll call names. But the smart people are the people, who use moral concepts in the service of evil. " I've heard it in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0V-gUuvW8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-0V-gUuvW8 (at 18:15 min) I transcribed the segment at my blog over here: http://tribeone.net/morality/how-to-malice-stupidity/ http://tribeone.net/morality/how-to-malice-stupidity/ (If you like reading better.)