Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

Steve3007 wrote: July 18th, 2019, 5:17 pm
I didn't make the statement "people starve to death in western societies", did I? I asked you why they don't (and hence implicitly stated that they don't). Obviously the main reason why they don't is that governments infringe on the liberties of taxpayers in order to ensure that they don't, in the form of welfare payments. But it's interesting that, despite this, you appear here to think that this was what I was trying to tell you and that, somewhere in what I said, you also seem to think you detected me equating "food insecurity" with starvation.
Ah. I didn't see that as the point you were trying to make.

But your hypothesis --- that government programs prevent people from starving to death --- is false. Those programs enable parasitism, which is another alternative to working or starving, but they don't prevent anyone from starving. They merely deter them from taking crappy jobs. They would not starve in any case; virtually no one in the US starved before they were enacted beginning in the 1960s. Even during the Depression few people starved. "President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger."

110 cases among 8 million people.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_t ... &psid=3434

And others are ineligible for those programs or ignore them, relying on the solutions I mentioned. They don't starve either.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: July 18th, 2019, 7:15 am
Your opinion, above, doesn't recognise relativity. If you did recognise relativity you would understand the individuals have to reach a predominant and relatively enduring consensus about values before a society may be called a society. The predominant and relatively enduring consensus about values is an important part of the society's culture of belief.
Well, I can only repeat my question: On which values is there "relatively enduring consensus"? This consensus you describe exists only in your imagination.
How else can a society be more than just an aggregate of people?
An aggregate of people become a society when they begin to interact. No consensus on anything is necessary, other than a common belief that a social setting is preferable to a hermitic, solitary existence.

The "culture" of a society is simply a gloss upon some characteristics that are prominent among that group --- practices, beliefs, tastes. There is no presumption that they are universal within that group, and none of them ever are.

PS: The diverse beliefs and practices don't share a "family resemblance," either. They are often antagonistic.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Sy Borg »

It's not a matter of starvation but privation, leading to suffering, ill health and reduced mental health.

Do we want huge rumps of a populace who are uneducated and unable to make a good life for themselves? If so, take away those government services and leave people to it.

Societies naturally organise themselves to concentrate power amongst the few. This, as has been demonstrated throughout history, and is the reason for government - to distribute a society's bounty more fairly and thus create a happier, healthier society. Ultimately progressive tax and government programs to help the needy act to somewhat counter the natural advantage gained by economies of scale available only to the very wealthy.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Steve3007 »

GE Morton wrote:But your hypothesis --- that government programs prevent people from starving to death --- is false.
They are the immediate cause of the agent in question not starving. Take them away and the immediate cause might then be the dumpster down the road. Take that away and the immediate cause might be a dumpster that is slightly further away. Take that away and the immediate cause might be the food stolen from someone else, and so on.

Yes, I take your point that starvation for oneself and one's family is so extremely unpleasant that people will, when desperate, do almost anything to alleviate it and that therefore if one source of food is removed they will seek another. And in our societies there are abundant sources of waste food, although perhaps those abundant sources would become more scarce if many more people decided to make use of them.
Those programs enable parasitism, which is another alternative to working or starving, but they don't prevent anyone from starving. They merely deter them from taking crappy jobs.
I think a key point of this debate is whether taxation-funded programs that go beyond the enforcement of contractual agreements and property law are in fact parasitism. A feature of parasitism is that it does not benefit the host. As I've said, one of the arguments in favour of taxpayer funded actions that go beyond contractual and property law is that they do actually benefit the people who are being taxed. You might then counter this by saying that if that is true then these people are free to reap those alleged benefits by donating to charities. But this then goes back to the long-term versus short-term gain issue.
Greta wrote:Societies naturally organise themselves to concentrate power amongst the few. This, as has been demonstrated throughout history, and is the reason for government - to distribute a society's bounty more fairly and thus create a happier, healthier society. Ultimately progressive tax and government programs to help the needy act to somewhat counter the natural advantage gained by economies of scale available only to the very wealthy.
If I were you, and I was arguing against a Libertarian point of view, I wouldn't use the word "fairly" in the context you've used it here because the Libertarian will assert that equality, per se, is not in itself fair. They will say that fairness is about each moral agent getting what they are due. This has been said many times before by GE Morton and I don't think you'll get anywhere by challenging it again. I think the stronger point you make has to do with the role of government in creating an environment that benefits all but which no individual has a short term interest in helping to create.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote: July 19th, 2019, 2:50 am
Greta wrote:Societies naturally organise themselves to concentrate power amongst the few. This, as has been demonstrated throughout history, and is the reason for government - to distribute a society's bounty more fairly and thus create a happier, healthier society. Ultimately progressive tax and government programs to help the needy act to somewhat counter the natural advantage gained by economies of scale available only to the very wealthy.
If I were you, and I was arguing against a Libertarian point of view, I wouldn't use the word "fairly" in the context you've used it here because the Libertarian will assert that equality, per se, is not in itself fair. They will say that fairness is about each moral agent getting what they are due. This has been said many times before by GE Morton and I don't think you'll get anywhere by challenging it again. I think the stronger point you make has to do with the role of government in creating an environment that benefits all but which no individual has a short term interest in helping to create.
True enough, Steve. The unspoken message is, though, is that large uneducated sections of the populace are allowed to build up, then that does away with functional democracy. If the citizenry are not capable of an informed vote then they just follow the loudest voices that resonate with their grievances. Enter Rupert and Lachlan. This is the world being promoted here.

Our democracies are already stitched up in favour of Tories who were "born to rule", and this is the case globally. Once you fail to educate large portions of voters, then only authoritarianism is possible.

The German existentialists are back in fashion, their patriarchal views (rebranded as Libertarianism or the "prosperity gospel") speak of operating "in accordance with nature", ie. natural hierarchies, ruled unchallenged by older Caucasian (Aryan?) males.

By contrast, Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, spoke of the human capacity to rise above our base impulses, our "selfish" genes. He saw altruism as possible, based on the human capacity to choose.

The argument against egalitarianism (or even lending others a helping hand) is that it creates weakness. If you are weak, bad luck. The agenda is ultimately about culling "the weak links" gradually through neglect. There is a fair utilitarian argument to do so, just ask Xi.

However, lack of empathy in leadership filters down, creating societies that may be militarily strong, but they are also ugly, stressful, corrupt, violent, untrustworthy and unkind.

Perhaps in the new world, living in a powerful but awful place will be as good as it gets? Maybe survival will be all that matters, with morality becoming a cast-off relic of more naive and idealistic days?
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Felix »

GE Morge: In Western societies virtually all malnutrition results from poor eating habits, not lack of food. Obesity is a much more common problem than malnutrition from food insufficiency (obesity is itself the major type of malnutrition). -- https://www.heritage.org/welfare/report ....
You don't know what you're talking about, that article you linked to is inaccurate and misleading. It's not only a matter of the amount of food eaten but the quality of that food. Poor people will eat the foods they can afford and prepare, which will tend to be lower quality foods. It's true they may be ignorant about nutrition and how they could perhaps make wiser food choices with the income they have but they can't be faulted for their lack of nutritional knowledge or lack of access to fresh food.
A classic example is the evolution of the British coal industry at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The "coal barons" are frequently excoriated by 20th century leftists for "exploiting" young boys to work in the mines (they were small, and could crawl through tight tunnels). The job was dangerous, unhealthy, arduous. So why did they do it? Why did their parents allow it?
The "why" does not matter, since in civil society, children do not have the legal authority to consent to employment contracts, for obvious reasons. Oh, I forgot, you do not consider children to be "moral agents," so there's no need for them to be protected by child labor or abuse laws.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote:
An aggregate of people become a society when they begin to interact. No consensus on anything is necessary, other than a common belief that a social setting is preferable to a hermitic, solitary existence.
But they can't interact unless they agree about common goals and aims. For example "At the age of twelve a boy is old enough to participate in men's work": "It's all right for the young people to leave the village life and work in towns because independence is a good thing": " When we go to the shop we need to be honest and not steal the goods as we need the shopkeeper to continue to sell goods to us tomorrow": " When i see somebody else's child in danger I will act to save the child ".



The "culture" of a society is simply a gloss upon some characteristics that are prominent among that group --- practices, beliefs, tastes. There is no presumption that they are universal within that group, and none of them ever are.
True.
PS: The diverse beliefs and practices don't share a "family resemblance," either. They are often antagonistic.
When a society's diverse beliefs and practices become divisive to a significant extent it ceases to be a society and may fall into dissolution, revolution , or civil war.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

Felix wrote: July 19th, 2019, 4:36 am
You don't know what you're talking about, that article you linked to is inaccurate and misleading.
Well, then, please point out the inaccuracies.
It's not only a matter of the amount of food eaten but the quality of that food. Poor people will eat the foods they can afford and prepare, which will tend to be lower quality foods.
That is false; indeed, nonsense. Anyone who can afford a Big Mac can also afford enough bulk beans and rice to eat for a week (beans and rice eaten together provide complete proteins). Anyone who can afford a large bag of Doritos can also afford enough green beans, carrots, peaches, potatoes, etc., for several meals. They can also afford enough flour and yeast to bake several loaves of bread and a stick of butter. And if they have a kitchen stove with an oven they have the means to prepare them. Virtually all "poor" in the US have that appliance. If they go for the Big Mac and Doritos is is not because that is all they can afford; they do so because they prefer them --- largely because they require no effort.
It's true they may be ignorant about nutrition and how they could perhaps make wiser food choices with the income they have but they can't be faulted for their lack of nutritional knowledge or lack of access to fresh food.
Why can't they be faulted? Are they sentient beings? Are they moral agents? If so, then they can indeed be faulted for making poor choices, including remaining ignorant when knowledge is readily available. As for access, they have the same access as everyone else. The supermarket is no further away for them.
The "why" does not matter, since in civil society, children do not have the legal authority to consent to employment contracts, for obvious reasons. Oh, I forgot, you do not consider children to be "moral agents," so there's no need for them to be protected by child labor or abuse laws.
The "why" does matter. It was the question posed.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Felix »

Felix: You don't know what you're talking about, that article you linked to is inaccurate and misleading.
GE Morton: Well, then, please point out the inaccuracies.
There are too many to count and counter.
GE Morton: That is false; indeed, nonsense. Anyone who can afford a Big Mac can also afford enough bulk beans and rice to eat for a week (beans and rice eaten together provide complete proteins). Anyone who can afford a large bag of Doritos can also afford enough green beans, carrots, peaches, potatoes, etc., for several meals. They can also afford enough flour and yeast to bake several loaves of bread and a stick of butter. And if they have a kitchen stove with an oven they have the means to prepare them. Virtually all "poor" in the US have that appliance. If they go for the Big Mac and Doritos is is not because that is all they can afford; they do so because they prefer them --- largely because they require no effort.
As I said, you are speaking from ignorance (that is what "ignoramus" means by the way), your conclusions are based on unwarranted assumptions. The daily routines of low income people often involve long days of sometimes grueling work, perhaps second and even third jobs, tedious bus rides, and neither the time to shop nor money to use delivery services. All of this can make cooking a big challenge.
GE Morton: As for access, they have the same access as everyone else. The supermarket is no further away for them.
Wrong again. Studies have shown that low income neighborhoods usually have few if any fresh food markets, but plenty of 7/11's and fast food outlets.
GE Morton: The "why" does matter. It was the question posed.
You need me to explain to you why we have child labor laws?
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Belindi »

That is false; indeed, nonsense. Anyone who can afford a Big Mac can also afford enough bulk beans and rice to eat for a week (beans and rice eaten together provide complete proteins). Anyone who can afford a large bag of Doritos can also afford enough green beans, carrots, peaches, potatoes, etc., for several meals. They can also afford enough flour and yeast to bake several loaves of bread and a stick of butter. And if they have a kitchen stove with an oven they have the means to prepare them. Virtually all "poor" in the US have that appliance. If they go for the Big Mac and Doritos is is not because that is all they can afford; they do so because they prefer them --- largely because they require no effort.
Why don't people in affluent countries from all social classes not cook much or with skill? I notice there is a growing problem in cities that the residential districts especially poorer districts don't have shops where cheap fruit and vegetables are sold, yet there are plenty of takeaways. Some people have to take two buses to shop for food.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

Felix wrote: July 19th, 2019, 2:47 pm
Felix: You don't know what you're talking about, that article you linked to is inaccurate and misleading.
GE Morton: Well, then, please point out the inaccuracies.
There are too many to count and counter.
That is lamest response from you yet. I'll take that as an abandonment of your "inaccuracies" claim.
As I said, you are speaking from ignorance (that is what "ignoramus" means by the way), your conclusions are based on unwarranted assumptions. The daily routines of low income people often involve long days of sometimes grueling work, perhaps second and even third jobs, tedious bus rides, and neither the time to shop nor money to use delivery services. All of this can make cooking a big challenge.
That is almost as lame. >60% of those in poverty do not work. Only 12% worked full-time, year-around. That excuse doesn't wash. Stop grasping for excuses for poor choices and bad behaviors, Felix.

https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-ar ... ing-adults
Wrong again. Studies have shown that low income neighborhoods usually have few if any fresh food markets, but plenty of 7/11's and fast food outlets.
Supply follows demand. Not the other way around.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: July 19th, 2019, 3:32 pm
Why don't people in affluent countries from all social classes not cook much or with skill? I notice there is a growing problem in cities that the residential districts especially poorer districts don't have shops where cheap fruit and vegetables are sold, yet there are plenty of takeaways.
As I said to Felix, merchants set up shop where they perceive there to be a demand. Similarly, convenience stores carry merchandise they know they can sell in that neighborhood. Hence few of them carry fresh fruits or vegetables, but they all carry beer, potato chips, snack crackers, packaged pastries, candy bars and ice cream, perhaps some frozen dinners, and a few canned goods.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by GE Morton »

Greta wrote: July 19th, 2019, 3:37 am
True enough, Steve. The unspoken message is, though, is that large uneducated sections of the populace are allowed to build up, then that does away with functional democracy. If the citizenry are not capable of an informed vote then they just follow the loudest voices that resonate with their grievances.
Informed votes are as scarce as palm trees in Antarctica, in any democracy. Always have been. Voter ignorance is nothing new. Here's a seminal paper on the subject:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=3007987

(Full paper downloadable)
Our democracies are already stitched up in favour of Tories who were "born to rule", and this is the case globally. Once you fail to educate large portions of voters, then only authoritarianism is possible.
Aren't you overlooking something? Namely, that 86% of voters have allegedly been "educated," in public schools? (86% is the average high school graduation rate among the 22 OECD countries).
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Gertie »

GE
Why is this a problem? Because if our ultimate consequentialist goal is well-being, then we also have to take into account the different situations people find themselves in. Which are myriad and messy. And most importantly here, affect people's well-being.
But the ultimate goal is well-being for all agents. Which precludes advancing the welfare of some at others' expense. Doing so explicitly contradicts the goal. (Remember, by hypothesis we have no independent measure of welfare; we only have the myriad subjective measures employed by each agent). We must assume --- because we have no basis for assuming otherwise --- that Alfie's goals, whatever they may be, are as important to him as Bruno's, whatever they may be, are to him. You can only justify an unequal priority of goals by assuming that some interests, some goals, have higher priority per some indpendent, "objective" standard. Which contradicts the above premises. Per your own formula: "People's notions of well-being differ."

But people can and do communally prioritise goals. As Subjects we can still recognise we have much in common, and we can tell each other what our well-being priorities are. Sorted. (We can even make such communal decisions about the welfare of other species, based on much less information and insight).

There will be clear uncontroversial cases, and muddier ones which we communally sort out by methods like democratic votes. Sometimes we communally prioritise individual freedom, sometimes we prioritise some sacrifice of that, for improved individual or overall well-being.


Only by ignoring this, can you theoretically justify your own prioritisation of Libertarian individualism and ignore the resultant harms to overall well-being.


This is where the theoretical justification for your position fails imo. I hope you'll give it some more thought, rather than go straight to rebuttal.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Are we forced to accept moral relativism?

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote: July 19th, 2019, 6:59 pm
Belindi wrote: July 19th, 2019, 3:32 pm
Why don't people in affluent countries from all social classes not cook much or with skill? I notice there is a growing problem in cities that the residential districts especially poorer districts don't have shops where cheap fruit and vegetables are sold, yet there are plenty of takeaways.
As I said to Felix, merchants set up shop where they perceive there to be a demand. Similarly, convenience stores carry merchandise they know they can sell in that neighborhood. Hence few of them carry fresh fruits or vegetables, but they all carry beer, potato chips, snack crackers, packaged pastries, candy bars and ice cream, perhaps some frozen dinners, and a few canned goods.
Demand creates supply, true.

I wonder why so many affluent and well educated people are still not vegetarians. I wonder why cookery and nutrition is not a core subject in schools.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021