Postmodernism and moral relativism?

[lostone]

I’m not sure the question even makes sense.

Why not? The same argument of Euthyphro is active in virtue ethics: what qualities make virtues "virtuous", and what argument exists that these virtues are "well founded and actually inform correct ethics"?

an evolved social species

I provided a whole very long post investigating this, and this indicates that evolved-ness is worthless in the discussion.

My point of my previous post, the one before I questioned virtue ethics, specifically indicates that "evolved" doesn't actually vindicate the system as "evolved to be ethical" rather than evolved to be an efficient zero sum game player.

Evolution (at least if the Darwinian sense) is as suspect as religion in providing "ought", for the same reason as it brought bedbugs "obligatory violent rape" wherein all reproduction is achieved that way. And that's far from the most horrific model.

morality is not a matter of what we “ought” to do, either objectively or subjectively

This is back to the OP, and I reject this position entirely.

morality is entirely about determining in some context what "ought" be done, and that either happens subjectively when looking at an individual ought or objectively when looking at general oughts.

How can you even argue this when you JUST brought up Euthyphro in discussing the 'oughts' of Greek piety?

Because I think the Euthyphro is a reductio on the entire concept of “ought” — and, as Hume noted, you can’t logically derive an “ought” from an “is.”

It just is a fact that we are an evolved social species, and such species in general exhibit predispositions and behaviors that language-bearing social creatures like ourselves later come along and retroactively label “moral.”

Language bearing species evolve differing moral systems, within each culture, and from that, we derive moral relativism. Although most of those systems have many common elements.

 

[NoHolyCows]

And as I point out, those common elements appear identical to the structure derived from my "symmetry" approach.

While all arbitrary Oughts are arbitrary, they all contain non-negotiable features from which further study may be made through abstraction.

In this way, the relative features can be reduced to simply being a local standard of the "harmlessness" which consent would be required for exceeding, and the failure to allow consensual activities that do not direct higher than that risk of harm outward is simply a feature itself is a harm, specifically the one featured in our sensibilities about fascism.

Ideally, relativism is only a necessary element because of how harmless we all know we aren't and can't be, because some situations end up zero-sum. This is, I think, the idea behind "all are sinners". So we muddle through and forgive the small stuff because if we didn't, we wouldn't survive.

How do you account for moral obligations to non-reciprocating beings?

NHC

 

[Jarhyn]

And as I point out, those common elements appear identical to the structure derived from my "symmetry" approach.

While all arbitrary Oughts are arbitrary, they all contain non-negotiable features from which further study may be made through abstraction.

In this way, the relative features can be reduced to simply being a local standard of the "harmlessness" which consent would be required for exceeding, and the failure to allow consensual activities that do not direct higher than that risk of harm outward is simply a feature itself is a harm, specifically the one featured in our sensibilities about fascism.

Ideally, relativism is only a necessary element because of how harmless we all know we aren't and can't be, because some situations end up zero-sum. This is, I think, the idea behind "all are sinners". So we muddle through and forgive the small stuff because if we didn't, we wouldn't survive.

How do you account for moral obligations to non-reciprocating beings?

NHC

"That which denies the rights of another thing denies those rights for itself".

In according to all physical forces rather than restricting those to harmless outcomes, they deny the rights of others to be unharmed.

They can't recognize my personhood so it lacks personhood from my perspective, whereas I and "people in general" are on the lookout for it.

It also is specific to a survival group dedicated to horizontal transfer and support; anything outside that regime puts itself outside the protections of the system of symmetry by degrees owing first to mercy.

As pointed out by @Bronzeage elsewhere, though, "food" remains a zero sum game for every system, and there is nothing "moral" of the food chain.

This is actually one of the reasons I think humanity needs to move off of meat and onto silicon, to build civilizations at legrange points in space, and simulate any planetary and physical life which we wish to experience, or to make it possible to commute between meat and metal ala "Altered Carbon"; it is ethical to eat the emissions of a star, most certainly, and to participate in life we make such as it wishes to be as it is.

Still, the cow is not so capable at being as "Neo-Lamarckian" as is required to truly break from things such as the sexual slavery of a heard of cattle to a single bull in the wild, for instance. There is no grand and expansive bovine language or culture, no grand bovine inventors or thinkers or philosophers, and there haven't ever been, best we can tell. It's a system that's on some end of the scale where if the mechanisms of technological capability exist across the entirety of the species, none are proximal enough to the others to really keep "the flame" going.

If apes are a population that occasionally sees limited "fire of the mind" owing to proximity of fuel, heat, and oxygen, metaphorically speaking, humans are fields of bales of hay on a dry, hot day with the wind blowing gently, all out in the open sun: fires happen frequently, for all spontaneous combustion is still fairly rare.

So I feel less bad about not trying to be Prometheus and ignite the bovines with the fires of language and the ability to participate and grow... Mostly because leather and beef and milk. If we can figure those things out, maybe then we can work on connecting cows to the benefits of ethics?

It's not that we can't have empathy... But I say this elsewhere: if my empathy can only be held in the frame of roleplaying the person I'm considering as a Nazi, then I'm going to use that act of empathy as a good reason to apply that "they decided to be unreasonably harmful against consent" as a reason to think "they have set their bar of harmfulness high enough that I have the right to return force or the threat of force."

Bulls infamously set the bar of harmfulness very low for others, and very high for themselves, to the threat of dismemberment and death for being anywhere nearby, after all, indicating that if they are going to proclaim violent contest, that they will "fuck around and find out".

Of course, many other species could be used in exchange of bovines, and farming is still gross and I wish we could quit it, but this does provide a general view of the breakdown in ethics of a non-reciprocating species or agent as far as how it seems to work on practice.

That said, we could be a LOT less gross with how we farm things, and with sufficient technology, we can invent our own species which actually enjoy their existence as food, and that's probably on the horizon.

 

[excreationist]

I once discussed online this subject with a creationist who had bought Pascal’s Wager lock, stock and barrel. He invited non-believers to consider a world in which Nazi Germany won World War II and the Nazi “ethic” ultimately prevailed over the entire world. His challenge was that if you reject a God-centered morality, would it not then follow that an entire world believing in things like racial purity and superiority and genocide would actually be moral, simply because it was believed by all?

Deuteronomy 20:16-17
"However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you."

Christians would often believe the genocide in that passage is perfectly just and moral - even loving.

 

[NoHolyCows]

And as I point out, those common elements appear identical to the structure derived from my "symmetry" approach.

While all arbitrary Oughts are arbitrary, they all contain non-negotiable features from which further study may be made through abstraction.

In this way, the relative features can be reduced to simply being a local standard of the "harmlessness" which consent would be required for exceeding, and the failure to allow consensual activities that do not direct higher than that risk of harm outward is simply a feature itself is a harm, specifically the one featured in our sensibilities about fascism.

Ideally, relativism is only a necessary element because of how harmless we all know we aren't and can't be, because some situations end up zero-sum. This is, I think, the idea behind "all are sinners". So we muddle through and forgive the small stuff because if we didn't, we wouldn't survive.

How do you account for moral obligations to non-reciprocating beings?

NHC

"That which denies the rights of another thing denies those rights for itself".

In according to all physical forces rather than restricting those to harmless outcomes, they deny the rights of others to be unharmed.

They can't recognize my personhood so it lacks personhood from my perspective, whereas I and "people in general" are on the lookout for it.

It also is specific to a survival group dedicated to horizontal transfer and support; anything outside that regime puts itself outside the protections of the system of symmetry by degrees owing first to mercy.

As pointed out by @Bronzeage elsewhere, though, "food" remains a zero sum game for every system, and there is nothing "moral" of the food chain.

This is actually one of the reasons I think humanity needs to move off of meat and onto silicon, to build civilizations at legrange points in space, and simulate any planetary and physical life which we wish to experience, or to make it possible to commute between meat and metal ala "Altered Carbon"; it is ethical to eat the emissions of a star, most certainly, and to participate in life we make such as it wishes to be as it is.

Still, the cow is not so capable at being as "Neo-Lamarckian" as is required to truly break from things such as the sexual slavery of a heard of cattle to a single bull in the wild, for instance. There is no grand and expansive bovine language or culture, no grand bovine inventors or thinkers or philosophers, and there haven't ever been, best we can tell. It's a system that's on some end of the scale where if the mechanisms of technological capability exist across the entirety of the species, none are proximal enough to the others to really keep "the flame" going.

If apes are a population that occasionally sees limited "fire of the mind" owing to proximity of fuel, heat, and oxygen, metaphorically speaking, humans are fields of bales of hay on a dry, hot day with the wind blowing gently, all out in the open sun: fires happen frequently, for all spontaneous combustion is still fairly rare.

So I feel less bad about not trying to be Prometheus and ignite the bovines with the fires of language and the ability to participate and grow... Mostly because leather and beef and milk. If we can figure those things out, maybe then we can work on connecting cows to the benefits of ethics?

It's not that we can't have empathy... But I say this elsewhere: if my empathy can only be held in the frame of roleplaying the person I'm considering as a Nazi, then I'm going to use that act of empathy as a good reason to apply that "they decided to be unreasonably harmful against consent" as a reason to think "they have set their bar of harmfulness high enough that I have the right to return force or the threat of force."

Bulls infamously set the bar of harmfulness very low for others, and very high for themselves, to the threat of dismemberment and death for being anywhere nearby, after all, indicating that if they are going to proclaim violent contest, that they will "fuck around and find out".

Of course, many other species could be used in exchange of bovines, and farming is still gross and I wish we could quit it, but this does provide a general view of the breakdown in ethics of a non-reciprocating species or agent as far as how it seems to work on practice.

That said, we could be a LOT less gross with how we farm things, and with sufficient technology, we can invent our own species which actually enjoy their existence as food, and that's probably on the horizon.

Let’s simplify this. Suppose a person in a coma is entirely unaware, cannot justify anything, cannot recognize anyone’s personhood, and is completely dependent on others. Under your framework, is it morally wrong to torture that person for amusement—yes or no? And if so, what principle inside your system makes it wrong, given they can’t reciprocate, object, or participate in any symmetry?

NHC

 

[excreationist]

I asked DeepSeek about what Peter Singer

IDGAF what Singer has to say about it.

I'll remind you about this:
"In 2004, Singer was recognised as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies. In 2005, The Sydney Morning Herald placed him among Australia's ten most influential public intellectuals."
I guess you're mainly interested in your own ideas.

Also that talks about the concept of consent which I thought was central to your post.

I explained very carefully and clearly why you are wrong from an objective viewpoint.

So you say. So can you apply your objective viewpoint to morality in general? Is yours the true and correct objective morality?

 

[WAB]

The following is related to abortion but I thought it was more relevant to this thread rather than my (anti) abortion threads.

Death with a Happy Face: Peter Singer’s Bold Defense of Infanticide | Christian Research Institute

www.equip.org

In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 1st ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 122–23.

Peter Singer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 2004, Singer was recognised as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies. In 2005, The Sydney Morning Herald placed him among Australia's ten most influential public intellectuals.

I am sorry Singer was awarded these accolades. He strikes me as pretty much the opposite of a humanist, however loosely or broadly defined that term is. Most people — apart from ethicists, maybe — would instinctively recoil at killing a newborn for any reason, because of the following fact: while it may be true that a newborn is not a full person in the sense of total development, that fact inspires in most people the urge to be protective of the newborn. That it does not do so in Singer says much more about him that I would think he would like to reveal.

Seems to me Singer should have been drowned at birth.

 

[excreationist]

You are yet again falling into this trap that you or anyone else can have "accelerated" maturity compared to everyone else, but that is impossible for you or anyone else to validate.

There are other things to consider though regarding what kind of maturity we're talking about for serfs:

From Copilot:
Most serfs lived under harsh conditions with limited access to formal education. Their daily lives revolved around practical, hands-on tasks like farming, trade, and survival. This suggests that many would have primarily operated within the concrete operational stage (ages 7–11), where logical thinking about tangible concepts is developed. They would have understood cause-and-effect relationships, basic arithmetic, and practical problem-solving.
However, some serfs—especially those who had exposure to religious teachings, storytelling, or interactions with more educated individuals—might have developed formal operational thinking (ages 12 and up). This would allow them to think abstractly about justice, morality, and broader societal structures.

So their level of maturity could have only involved the Concrete Operational Stage in Piaget's theory of cognitive development. In modern societies it would take many years to fully develop the Formal Operational Stage but they'd master the Concrete Operational Stage at a lower age.
I'd rather not go into how bad the middle ages were morally. I mean I don't really have anything that good to add on the topic.

 

[excreationist]

The following is related to abortion but I thought it was more relevant to this thread rather than my (anti) abortion threads.

Death with a Happy Face: Peter Singer’s Bold Defense of Infanticide | Christian Research Institute

www.equip.org

In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 1st ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 122–23.

Peter Singer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 2004, Singer was recognised as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies. In 2005, The Sydney Morning Herald placed him among Australia's ten most influential public intellectuals.

I am sorry Singer was awarded these accolades. He strikes me as pretty much the opposite of a humanist, however loosely or broadly defined that term is. Most people — apart from ethicists, maybe — would instinctively recoil at killing a newborn for any reason, because of the following fact: while it may be true that a newborn is not a full person in the sense of total development, that fact inspires in most people the urge to be protective of the newborn. That it does not do so in Singer says much more about him that I would think he would like to reveal.

I asked Copilot about the history of infanticide:

Infanticide—the intentional killing of infants—has been practiced throughout human history for various reasons, often tied to societal, economic, and cultural factors.
Ancient and Prehistoric Societies
- In many early human societies, infanticide was used as a form of population control or to eliminate weak or disabled offspring.
- Some cultures abandoned infants to die of exposure, while others deliberately killed them.
- Estimates suggest that in prehistoric times, 15–50% of children may have been victims of infanticide.
Classical Antiquity
- Ancient Greece and Rome: Infanticide was widely accepted, particularly for children born with disabilities or in families that could not afford to raise them.
- China and Japan: Infanticide was practiced, often favoring male children over females.
- Pre-Islamic Arabia: Female infanticide was common until Islam prohibited the practice in the 7th century.
Medieval and Early Modern Periods
- Christianity strongly opposed infanticide, leading Roman emperors like Constantine the Great to ban it in the 4th century.
- In India, British colonial authorities attempted to eliminate female infanticide, but the practice persisted in some regions.
Modern Era
- Infanticide has become rare in industrialized societies due to contraception, abortion, and social welfare systems.
- However, in some parts of the world, female infanticide still occurs due to cultural preferences for male children.

References:

Infanticide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Infanticide | Definition, Reasons, Societies, & Facts | Britannica

Infanticide is the killing of a newborn child.

www.britannica.com

The human brain does not fully develop until the early to mid 20s, which probably accounts for a lack of impulse control many young people exhibit.

Check out what I wrote in my previous post about Piaget's theory of cognitive development.

 

[TomC]

I asked Copilot about the history of infanticide:

Why would you ask a computer program about something like that?
Why not ask your wife, family, or community a question like that?

Is it because your computer tells you what you want to hear? That's my guess.

Tom

 

[excreationist]

I asked Copilot about the history of infanticide:

Why would you ask a computer program about something like that?
Why not ask your wife, family, or community a question like that?

Is it because your computer tells you what you want to hear? That's my guess.

Tom

Yes I wanted to hear a very compact, in depth and easy to understand summary. My wife isn't capable of that. Plus it was easy to copy and paste but it would involve typing if someone else produced it. BTW I added the references now.

 

[pood]

I asked Copilot about the history of infanticide:

Why would you ask a computer program about something like that?
Why not ask your wife, family, or community a question like that?

Is it because your computer tells you what you want to hear? That's my guess.

Tom

Yes I wanted to hear a very compact, in depth and easy to understand summary. My wife isn't capable of that. Plus it was easy to copy and paste but it would involve typing if someone else produced it.

Even though it could be riddled with errors, as AI so often is.

 

[excreationist]

Yes I wanted to hear a very compact, in depth and easy to understand summary. My wife isn't capable of that. Plus it was easy to copy and paste but it would involve typing if someone else produced it.

Even though it could be riddled with errors, as AI so often is.

It is apparently based on the following references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide
https://www.britannica.com/topic/infanticide
So if you don't trust the AI summary you can refer to the links...
So it seems infanticide isn't such an unthinkable thing amongst the history of morality - but Christian morality was a key exception.

 

[pood]

Yes I wanted to hear a very compact, in depth and easy to understand summary. My wife isn't capable of that. Plus it was easy to copy and paste but it would involve typing if someone else produced it.

Even though it could be riddled with errors, as AI so often is.

It is apparently based on the following references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide
https://www.britannica.com/topic/infanticide
So if you don't trust the AI summary you can refer to the links...

What does the history of infanticide, even on the doubtful premise that the AI summary is accurate, have to do with what I wrote — the post you responded to?

 

[excreationist]

What does the history of infanticide, even on the doubtful premise that the AI summary is accurate, have to do with what I wrote — the post you responded to?

You wrote:
"Most people — apart from ethicists, maybe — would instinctively recoil at killing a newborn for any reason"

That is true in our culture but like I showed that isn't necessarily the case in other cultures - e.g. "Estimates suggest that in prehistoric times, 15–50% of children may have been victims of infanticide". Note it is based on Wikipedia and Britannica. Surely those two references are accurate.
Maybe they'd still "instinctively recoil" but they'd kill the baby anyway. In a similar way I think most people would "instinctively recoil" when killing an animal and preparing it for eating.

 

[pood]

What does the history of infanticide, even on the doubtful premise that the AI summary is accurate, have to do with what I wrote — the post you responded to?

You wrote:
"Most people — apart from ethicists, maybe — would instinctively recoil at killing a newborn for any reason"

Obviously, I was speaking of most people and most cultures in the present day.

I don’t understand your point. It almost seems like you a running the naturalistic fallacy. We know that animals in the wild frequently abandon their young, kill them, and even eat them. So it’s OK for us to do that because it happens in nature?

I really don’t understand your point.

 

[excreationist]

What does the history of infanticide, even on the doubtful premise that the AI summary is accurate, have to do with what I wrote — the post you responded to?

You wrote:
"Most people — apart from ethicists, maybe — would instinctively recoil at killing a newborn for any reason"

Obviously, I was speaking of most people and most cultures in the present day.

But the question is whether or not there is an absolute objective morality - rather than only talking about the morality in our current culture. Or even whether there are things that most cultures agree on. But infanticide is not an example.

I don’t understand your point. It almost seems like you a running the naturalistic fallacy. We know that animals in the wild frequently abandon their young, kill them, and even eat them. So it’s OK for us to do that because it happens in nature?

You talked about "instinctively recoiling" as if our instincts suggest what kind of morality we should have. And infanticide is common amongst human cultures. You suggested that Peter Singer was saying something immoral when in fact it has been fairly normal in a lot of cultures. Note the references said that infanticide has been outlawed in history due to Christian ideas. Also modern abortion techniques have made it unnecessary to wait until the baby is born in order to kill them.

 

[pood]

What does the history of infanticide, even on the doubtful premise that the AI summary is accurate, have to do with what I wrote — the post you responded to?

You wrote:
"Most people — apart from ethicists, maybe — would instinctively recoil at killing a newborn for any reason"

Obviously, I was speaking of most people and most cultures in the present day.

But the question is whether or not there is an absolute objective morality - rather than only talking about the morality in our current culture. Or even whether there are things that most cultures agree on. But infanticide is not an example.

I don’t understand your point. It almost seems like you a running the naturalistic fallacy. We know that animals in the wild frequently abandon their young, kill them, and even eat them. So it’s OK for us to do that because it happens in nature?

You talked about "instinctively recoiling" as if our instincts suggest what kind of morality we should have. And infanticide is common amongst human cultures. You suggested that Peter Singer was saying something immoral when in fact it has been fairly normal in a lot of cultures. Note the references said that infanticide has been outlawed in history due to Christian ideas. Also modern abortion techniques have made it unnecessary to wait until the baby is born in order to kill them.

First, there is no such thing as an unborn baby. A baby is post-natal. So, no, abortion is not the killing of a baby.

Second, I never said there was an objective, absolute morality. Obviously, if I think infanticide is wrong and Peter Singer or whoever thinks it is right, there is no impartial judge who can say who is correct — that was my point in bringing up Euthyphro, which is a reductio on establishing any objective morality. It was my point in referring to Ken Ham’s claim that there is an objective morality, when in reality his personal point of view is not shared by me or untold numbers of others — and my larger point was that his example validates, not invalidates, post-modernism. It was my point in bringing up Rorty who denied that there can be any “view from nowhere.”

But I also made the point that because we are evolved social animals, we have certain drives and predilections that motivate what we retroactively label moral behavior. On this view morality is neither objective nor subjective, but intersubjective. And, in fact, most people intersubjectively think infanticide is wrong today, even if was practiced sometimes in the past. I suspect most people have always thought it wrong. And yes, “recoiling” from the idea of killing in an infant is built in, like the maternal instinct, by evolution, which is why most of us retroactively label infanticide immoral.

Of course, we are not entirely gene machines, so culture, politics, custom, political and social history will invariably lead to a wide proliferation of views on moral behavior — again validating post-modernism, which holds that there is no overarching meta-narrative about matters of this nature.

 

[excreationist]

And yes, “recoiling” from the idea of killing in an infant is built in, like the maternal instinct, by evolution,

People might also recoil when killing and preparing for eating some animals. Does that mean meat is immoral? People could also recoil from seeing an abortion.

which is why most of us retroactively label infanticide immoral.

The original reason why infanticide was banned in our culture was apparently because of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Note it can involve leaving a baby out in the cold so that it dies which isn't very shocking compared to other methods.
I agree that the recoiling would be the reason people would justify the banning of infanticide.

 

[pood]

And yes, “recoiling” from the idea of killing in an infant is built in, like the maternal instinct, by evolution, which is why most of us retroactively label infanticide immoral.

People might also recoil when killing and preparing for eating some animals. Does that mean meat is immoral?

People could also recoil from seeing an abortion.

You missed my point entirely. Most important, you see to continue to miss the fact that I am not arguing for a point-of-view independent morality. And you have largely ignored all the points I made.