Kenan Malik - The problem of morality

[@petermeyer6873]

Everything, that is physically possible is thus possible. When it comes to moral, anyone picks and chooses all the time. The misconception, that there is such a thing as a universal moral is in itself just a strong whish and therefor a belief, that all others share ones own moral so one can live safely and doesnt have to fear them. Reality prooves otherwise of course, each and every single time one meets another human...

[@TJtheHuman]

This is like the blend of Objectivism and Ubuntu I have been looking for.

[@ken4975]

If we had free will, nothing could stop us from being who we want to be. In the absence of free will we cannot be anything other than what we are.

[@petermeyer6873]

Havent you there mistaken free will for omnipotency? How should free will change someone into something/-one else?

[@ken4975]

@@petermeyer6873 Firstly: no, but I could be wrong. Secondly: I am assuming free will/no free will would mean different choices which would lead to different outcomes. Not easy (for me at least) to make my point in three sentences. Fun trying though.

[@petermeyer6873]

@@ken4975 Hm, do you mean that free will would be the capability to try all possible choices instead of the one we have to go with, because there is no turning back time?

[@ken4975]

@@petermeyer6873 Well yes, I assume free will would allow absolute freedom of choice regardless of any of the constraints we experience when the will is bent and limited by nature and nurture. To be honest, I find it difficult to imagine free will. It is very difficult to ignore memory and see each new experience with unbiased eyes.

[@petermeyer6873]

@@ken4975 Im afraid your definition of free will and mine are quite non-overlapping :) I define free will as the situation for person A, where his will is not influenced by any other person(s) B in a way, that person A cannot whish to do otherwise than person(s) B want(s) him to. The influence of non-personas aka circumstances like physics, taste, experience etc, thus cannot make will unfree. If it was the other way around and one could have things in any way or rather all ways, then there wouldnt be a free will as there wouldnt be a choice left as one wouldnt live one particular life defined by un-undoable choices but rather sit back and only watch all possible lifes like movies without relevant interaction. In that situation, one would not even be able to develop any taste to judge on the outcome/consequences, as one would have to experience them all, regardless.

[@tmsphere]

In Dostoyevsky's Crime & Punishment they're discussing an article Raskolkov has written & demand he explain the last pessages in which he implies that certain people who are extraordinary “everything is permitted even bloodshed” and Raskolnikov goes on explaining that his view extraorsinary ppl are the likes of Johannes Kepler & Isaac Newton and the prophet Muhamad, if your discovery has within it the possibility to enhance all mankind then ethics shouldnt apply in the goal of enhancing mankind.

[@lpulotu]

Moral miasma? Good talk on morality

[@trevorwongsam9937]

What struck me about that last question in the session and the answer given, is that if everyone has to choose their values, religious and none religious alike, then why have we all chosen not to agree with slavery in this particular century? That is to say that there is a general global consensus that slavery is wrong,when at one time everybody thought that it was the natural order of things, apart from a few rebel slaves. This suggests that if it is wrong now then it must have been wrong in the past at the time that the Bible was written and no doubt it will be wrong in the future no matter what anybody thinks. Does this not suggest an absolute morality which in turn suggests an objective morality? The same could be said about other subjects like the oppression of women or racism. What is left out of the picture in my view is that morality appears to progress, or rather is "uncovered" along with scientific, technological social progress of the human species. This would further suggest that morality is objective with or without God (preferably without). This poses a further question, if God is not the object in this objective, then what is? If we look closely we see that there is only one other possibility and that is the human race itself as a whole and as a single entity, which has interests apart from and despite individual human opinions. Despite the opinions of governments of the past, large collective opinions of the past and even despite many opinions that exist in the world today. Take climate change. Is it not evil, to ignore the realities of global warming in view of the evidence? given the interests and well-being of the human race in the future? I would say yes. Humanism needs to stop navel gazing and take a step back in order to see the big picture. To see the objective wood from the individual and subjective trees.

[@percivalyracanth1528]

The problem with your thinking here is that we 'agreed' to not like slavery, which means there is a subjective will behind this new shaping of morality, and this will was shapen by impositions by governments and by mass movements, which in kind influenced one another. Moreover, this is not an agreed-upon thing the world over, there are many countries who still see slavery as 'natural' or 'not of much interest morally'. You can say they are wrong, but that still means there is a relative morality with a non-objective basis. They would say you are wrong and make a whole list of whys, as much as you can. If there are any two differing moralities in the world (and there are many disagreements as to morality within the standing Western tradition even today), then there is no 'objective' morality shaping these moralities, but rather historical conditions (economic, mostly). Moreover, there are many things which you might call 'evil', say, female servitude and arranged marriages, but some cultures like the Romani are grounded genealogically and morally on this servitude and arrangement, and if you were to *impose* your morality upon them, you might end up blowing up their culture wholly (oh, but I am a righteous man! you say, as the Romani men *and* women weep at the truth that they no longer have a culture they connect to personally, as they bow to yours and grovel at the West's superior, ontologically absolute morality). Your morality would then be an imperialistic (and not all that humane) imposition of what mostly happens to be a historically contingent morality. This isn't some 'relativism', where there are a bunch of sundry 'absolute' moralities, somehow conjured from the sheer will of man, but rather a moral realism- that morality isn't some magical thing conjured from the sheer will of man, or somehow tapped into by (Western) men. 'Evil' is little more than a thing which you, as a historically determined will, or rather as a historical 'hunger', happen to not like/want. Which is why you see dudes on 4chan calling someone an immoral degenerate for liking one anime girl over 'their' anime girl, the one *they* want. (See: Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, or Spinoza's Ethics) To say that there is some 'guiding force/invisible hand of history' which just so happens to be pointing the way Europe and the USA (but maybe not the rest of the world) want to go is eurocentrist and ahistorical, as even now the so called 'bounds' of morality are breaking down within Europe and America- if 'progress' was truly a thing, then there would be no so-called 'backsliding' (even though these 'backslides' are less backslides from some airy, empty Ideal, and more akin to reactions and critiques towards the economic and social conditions Western 'morality' has brought about). The End of History is a lie, and History's 'going on'' in a way you don't like shows that bright and clearly.

[@bdnnijs192]

@@percivalyracanth1528 "If there are any two differing moralities..." You just demonstarted in your own comment there exist differing moralities, using slavery as an example. "even now the so called 'bounds' of morality are breaking down within Europe and America" Yeah, like, not only is slavery is abolished they let blacks vote now. They even allow blacks to sit next to whites on a bus. That wouldn't have happened in the good old days.

[@petermeyer6873]

@@bdnnijs192 Where and when did we all choose on the topic of slavery in this century? Nobody was asked. Neither now nor back then. This is simply not how societies work.

[@bdnnijs192]

@@petermeyer6873 What is not how societies work?

[@petermeyer6873]

@@bdnnijs192 My comment above wasnt meant as an answer to yours but to the original one from Trevor Wongsam - I just clicked on the wrong "answer" button. However, to answer your question: Societies dont adapt to the average of individual opinions found by survey - its the individuals who (have to) adapt to the constantly told story just called consensus (old) and trends (new) of those individuals, who form the loudest groups.

[@mattincinci]

if god does or does not exist everything is permitted , ask any believer! :-)

[@almilligan7317]

Because God exists all things are permissible. It’s called Freedom. But not all things are good, and there are consequences for murdering your neighbor. Dostoyevsky did have Ivan Karamazov argue if God doesn’t exist all things are permissible. But that wasn’t what Dostoyevsky believed. He was an Eastern orthodox Christian. He saw that the argument was a contradiction for the argument is arguing that if God didn’t exist it would be immoral to believe in him. So not all things would be permissible. I think.

[@turtlenoheart]

Why anyone thinks that morality and virtue isn't connected with physical reality is an idea that constantly elludes me... Do you not have to go to sleep with your own feelings and thoughts?

[@Never-mind1960]

"I distrust those people who know so well what god wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." --- Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906) More simply: Secular morality basis: reality/ Theistic morality basis: Pull out of rectum If there were a god who fit the description that most believers claim, that being would be able to make its existence and plans totally and unambiguously clear to everyone, everywhere, and there would be no argument. The fact that hardly anyone can agree, and belief is primarily based on geography, is proof enough to me that it's all fantasy. Even if there were a cosmic big-brother, his morality would be subjective too. Theists are looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Come on theists. Santa Claus and magic dragons are for children and FX movies. Philosophy is looking for a non-existent black cat in a dark room. Theism claims to have found the cat. Too bad apologists don't actually apologize, instead of rationalize.

[@aslanb.1966]

Roger Foster You are so wise.

[@percivalyracanth1528]

Have you ever marked that your own atheistic morality happens to exactly coincide with your desires? And play as if it has some ideal, absolute grounding? Truly makes you think...

[@Never-mind1960]

@@percivalyracanth1528 So you admit that imaginary beings, such as gods, make no difference?

[@almostafa4725]

@@Never-mind1960 God is not imaginary, you’re just delusional

[@petermeyer6873]

More correct: "Theistic morality: Pulled out of a theistic rectum / Secular morality: Pulled out of a secular rectum"