This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I’m an atheist and consider myself a moral relativist, which is to me is quite distinct from being a moral nihilist. Morality, to me, is a subjective human construct but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist; it exists in that same sphere as concepts, ideas and beliefs. It’s based on axioms which are essentially arbitrary; the only thing you can do is point out logical contradictions ensuing from them. In that manner, it’s quite similar to maths, which also don’t materially exist but certainly can be studied.
I find the very concept that morality could ever be objective to be logically incoherent; whatever moral “truth” you come up with, I can immediately just invent another worldview that contradicts it due to having different axioms. Even if God existed, I don’t see why I couldn’t disagree with his morality. The fact that he created me or the universe doesn’t grant him any philosophical authority any more than my parents, and being omnipotent just makes him a cosmic dictator with the power to punish me if I stray from his own personal beliefs.
I think the idea of objective morality might be coherent. There may not be such a thing in practice, or it may not meaningfully distinguish human moral systems, but if it were revealed somehow that there exist logically watertight rules by which our object-level beliefs can correctly unfold into preferences, having something to do with what a preference means, then there'd be a way to say that some preferences are objectively wrong, in the sense that a person could not have legitimately arrived at them and is just spouting confused nonsense that conflicts with his own ultimate priorities (which would presumably be shared between agents, because there is only one objective reality to have beliefs about). As you say, a given moral system can be logically incoherent; this just takes it to another level.
Source: getting high
Right. Did you change your mind about this?
This isn’t a gotcha, let’s not squabble.
No. There is no contradiction. «Objective morality» might be a logically coherent idea/concept (I actually think it is, but that can plausibly be due to my lacking intelligence). I still believe it's not a thing that factually exists in our Universe; and even if it does, it could not be satisfactorily established.
OK. But then when people talk of objective morality, you should treat it as that attempt at coherence. Because in practice, denial of objective morality is used to dismiss every morality out of hand as equally worthless as any other moral system. Much like the denial of objective reality dismisses every epistemology (‘ways of knowing’) as equally worthless.
«Logically coherent» is still a rather weak ontological status. People may try whatever, I just don't think they can succeed, and they certainly cannot positively convince each other (me included) that they have.
Denial of objective morality is objectively correct and a prerequisite for any non-deluded attempt at negotiating social norms. It is exactly because there is a single shared objective reality (presumably) that we can discuss our distinct interests in common terms, instead of immediately concluding that the only solution to disagreement is brainwashing or genocide.
What if it was not ‘rigorously, formally proven’ but useful nonetheless, like objective reality, and most of science?
They can convince each other, just not you. When a guy like me or a christian tells me he won’t murder me for peanuts even in the absence of earthly retribution, I believe him, and he believes me, because I see it as rational, mutually beneficial position. And when people like you tell me they will, I believe them too. Is it not rationally justified for me to treat them differently?
You wear a defector badge, and when you inevitably get defected against, you’ll presumably see that as a vindication of your worldview, knowing you successfully avoided doing the thing that wasn’t proven. While elsewhere, us cooperating morons reap the fruits of our delusions.
Do you twobox newcomb?
Existence or nonexistence of objective morality is fundamentally a question that transcends expedience. Consensus morality, habitual or intuitive morality, game-theoretical morality are different.
When did I tell you this? But of course I did not, you choose to interpret my words about objective morality as proclamation of total absence of moral code. Why? Because you're pissed about being torn to shreds on this anon forum, along with your half-baked moral philosophy. Grow up.
This is of course gaslighting. I do not. I just believe you are an immature coward who's unable to admit his errors of reasoning. This is no grounds to lash out like this and try to save face.
Christians believe that "defecting" against me constitutes adherence to their "objective" morality. People like you defect against others because you worship power and are devoid of any human moral feeling. Your position that you express in this debate is one of a gleeful oprichnik who asks his victims "if you're so right, then why do you stand against the wall? Should have cooperated harder, eh?".
I wouldn't have killed you for peanuts, but for freedom – absolutely. It is my regret that I never did kill one of your kind, as a matter of fact.
It's a stupid intuition pump. If I am in a world where Omega can exist, I onebox. In our world, both boxes will be empty at best.
Isn’t that the straightforward point of the gyges story?
Come on, man. Would you stop? Reasonable people can disagree. Although I’m on the record condoning the murder of any and all authority figures in nazi germany, so if I was who you think I am, we don’t even disagree on that. Nor do our theoretical disagreements on the legitimacy of power translate to actual disagreement on putin or oprichniks.
You know, when I said ‘pal’ originially when you came in guns blazing, that wasn’t sarcastic. As far as I’m concerned, we are pen pals, and I like you. The reason I talk to you here is because I think you could benefit from adopting a less subjective view of morality. And for me there’s always the remote chance that you are correct. I said pretty much the same thing to kulak when he expressed similar views.
In an environment where politeness was less enforced, I would keep talking to you, but I don’t want you to get mod attention like last time, so I’ll make this the last time we talk. Just tell me if you have a change of heart.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link