3 ms·

i don't know what that means, but I still think the strong shouldn't take advantage of the weak, and I think all humans know that's true

kelseyfrog 1y ago
I can see how that's appealing. One of the most common human behaviors is creating rules or in this case moral rules, and then doing a mental switcheroo where they forget that they made the rules and attribute them to universal principles, reality, truth, etc. In general, the process of believing concepts are real objects - simply observations of reality - is called reification. Every society does it and the result is that human constructs feel as if they are inalienable truths about how reality works. The only problem is that it's culturally specific and as we know, each culture works differently and yet feels as if they've gotten it right - their concept of how things works happens to match reality. One of the downsides to this is that we often project our own ideas of reality onto strangers especially from other societies. "Of course they protect the weak," we tell ourselves, when in fact, they're operating on a completely different set of moral relations. When our projects override objectivity, we deny ourselves the beauty of seeing the world in a new way. We rob ourselves of appreciating the magnificence of the diversity of human experience.
- recursivedoubts 1y ago
  Is the powerful taking advantage of the weak part of the magnificence of the diversity of human experience? I mean, I can see the powerful claiming such a thing. To return to my original quote, which is certainly a consistent philosophy: "strong do what they like the weak suffer what they must" Athens was quite magnificent I understand.
  - kelseyfrog 1y ago
    I agree, it feels absolutely true that the strong shouldn't exploit the weak. But here's the thing, most societies have felt that way about something, and often, the "something" turns out to be radically different each time. Romans felt it was universally true that honor must be defended with blood. Medieval Christians believed letting heretics speak freely was morally wrong. Victorians were convinced it was immoral not to civilize "savages." They didn’t think they were rationalizing cruelty. They thought they were being good. The discomfort comes from realizing that we're not standing outside history, just inside a different historical moral context that feels just as inevitable. The desire to protect the weak might be deeply human, but even how we define "weak" or "harm" changes more than we like to admit. What if we recognize our certainty is also part of this context, not part of the conclusion?
    - recursivedoubts 1y ago
      i'm not saying it feels that way i'm saying it is that way, and i also think you know it to be true, but don't want acknowledge that due to further conclusions that can be drawn from that truth so we aren't agreeing at all, in any way: you don't want to believe in an objective morality for your own reasons, I acknowledge it despite the inconveniences it presents me
      - kelseyfrog 1y ago
        The point is that I sometimes wonder, if I were born in ancient Rome, wouldn't I have also felt, just as deeply, that defending family honor with violence was righteous? Not in a barbaric way, just in a 'this is obviously the right thing to do' kind of way? It's not that there's no such thing as right and wrong, it's that what counts as 'moral clarity' seems to shift, and everyone thinks they're the ones seeing it clearly. That includes people we now think were totally wrong. What do we do with that? Imagine someone 500 years from now looking back at us with horror and clarity, seeing our blind spots as clearly as we see slavery or witch-burning. Don't you ever worry, like me, that you might be the one taking a stand for what will one day be unthinkable? Not because we didn't believe that right and wrong didn't exist, but because we were so certain that we had it correct?
        recursivedoubts 1y ago
        _shrug_ Pointing out the lack of precision and accidental aspects of custom in discussing morality is typically used as an excuse for immoral behavior, often personal. Today, I don't view moral certainty as a primary or even secondary moral problem. Instead, I view it our primary moral problem as the idea that: "there are no absolute moral principles." This is a self-contradictory statement, as a moments reflection will make apparent. Most people who advocate it either haven't thought about it or are sophists attempting to smuggle in a different absolute moral principle: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Say what one will about this latter absolute moral principle, but at least it's a self-consistent ethos. I can understand why the rich, powerful and debased should prefer to see it established, as they have. A (bad) part of me certainly prefers it.

kelseyfrog 1y ago

I can see how that's appealing. One of the most common human behaviors is creating rules or in this case moral rules, and then doing a mental switcheroo where they forget that they made the rules and attribute them to universal principles, reality, truth, etc. In general, the process of believing concepts are real objects - simply observations of reality - is called reification. Every society does it and the result is that human constructs feel as if they are inalienable truths about how reality works. The only problem is that it's culturally specific and as we know, each culture works differently and yet feels as if they've gotten it right - their concept of how things works happens to match reality. One of the downsides to this is that we often project our own ideas of reality onto strangers especially from other societies. "Of course they protect the weak," we tell ourselves, when in fact, they're operating on a completely different set of moral relations. When our projects override objectivity, we deny ourselves the beauty of seeing the world in a new way. We rob ourselves of appreciating the magnificence of the diversity of human experience.

recursivedoubts 1y ago
Is the powerful taking advantage of the weak part of the magnificence of the diversity of human experience? I mean, I can see the powerful claiming such a thing. To return to my original quote, which is certainly a consistent philosophy: "strong do what they like the weak suffer what they must" Athens was quite magnificent I understand.
- kelseyfrog 1y ago
  I agree, it feels absolutely true that the strong shouldn't exploit the weak. But here's the thing, most societies have felt that way about something, and often, the "something" turns out to be radically different each time. Romans felt it was universally true that honor must be defended with blood. Medieval Christians believed letting heretics speak freely was morally wrong. Victorians were convinced it was immoral not to civilize "savages." They didn’t think they were rationalizing cruelty. They thought they were being good. The discomfort comes from realizing that we're not standing outside history, just inside a different historical moral context that feels just as inevitable. The desire to protect the weak might be deeply human, but even how we define "weak" or "harm" changes more than we like to admit. What if we recognize our certainty is also part of this context, not part of the conclusion?
  - recursivedoubts 1y ago
    i'm not saying it feels that way i'm saying it is that way, and i also think you know it to be true, but don't want acknowledge that due to further conclusions that can be drawn from that truth so we aren't agreeing at all, in any way: you don't want to believe in an objective morality for your own reasons, I acknowledge it despite the inconveniences it presents me
    - kelseyfrog 1y ago
      The point is that I sometimes wonder, if I were born in ancient Rome, wouldn't I have also felt, just as deeply, that defending family honor with violence was righteous? Not in a barbaric way, just in a 'this is obviously the right thing to do' kind of way? It's not that there's no such thing as right and wrong, it's that what counts as 'moral clarity' seems to shift, and everyone thinks they're the ones seeing it clearly. That includes people we now think were totally wrong. What do we do with that? Imagine someone 500 years from now looking back at us with horror and clarity, seeing our blind spots as clearly as we see slavery or witch-burning. Don't you ever worry, like me, that you might be the one taking a stand for what will one day be unthinkable? Not because we didn't believe that right and wrong didn't exist, but because we were so certain that we had it correct?
      - recursivedoubts 1y ago
        _shrug_ Pointing out the lack of precision and accidental aspects of custom in discussing morality is typically used as an excuse for immoral behavior, often personal. Today, I don't view moral certainty as a primary or even secondary moral problem. Instead, I view it our primary moral problem as the idea that: "there are no absolute moral principles." This is a self-contradictory statement, as a moments reflection will make apparent. Most people who advocate it either haven't thought about it or are sophists attempting to smuggle in a different absolute moral principle: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." Say what one will about this latter absolute moral principle, but at least it's a self-consistent ethos. I can understand why the rich, powerful and debased should prefer to see it established, as they have. A (bad) part of me certainly prefers it.