Should We Be Moral Relativists?

[@howtoappearincompletely9739]

At 38:38, Prof. Boghossian mentions another philosopher in attendance, whose name the subtitles give as "John bankson" [sic]. The man's name is actually John Bengson, co-editor of the 2013 "Knowing How: Essays on Knowledge, Mind, and Action" and co-author of the 2022 "Philosophical Methodology: From Data to Theory". I post this in case anyone else who watched this video is interested in finding out about Bengson's work, as I am.

[@subjectt.change6599]

I’m sorry, but all I can think of is Henri Bergson…

[@DaKoopaKing]

The problem with categorical oughts isn't so much that they're metaphysically spooky, it's that they're metaphysically groundless. He gives the example to the students along the lines of "You ought to believe that you're in the room right now." OK, here's my symmetrical counterexample: "You ought not believe that you're in the room right now." What, in principle, could determine the truth or falsity of either of these statements? An antirealist/nihilist can ground the use of ought here in many ways - if you care about having true beliefs, then you "ought" (it is consistent with your prior beliefs/desires/goals/motivations/etc) to believe that you are in the room. If you want to agree with everything I say, then you ought to affirm my statement that you are presently in the room. If you are bored and like saying "Yes," then you ought to answer "Yes" to my "Are you in the room?" question. The realist/absolutist on the other hand has no such option available to them because they don't have a grounding for their concept. "Oughts" detached from agents' goals and interests is like talking about the intrinsic economic worth of a dollar, independent of any economic system. The concept is just incoherent - the dollar's economic worth is grounded in the economy; get rid of the economy and there is no more economic worth to the dollar. Why an agent ought to do something is grounded in their goals and interests; the reason I ought not drink poison is grounded in my goal of not dying. To unground "ought" from my goal of not dying would mean there is no longer any fact of the matter about what I ought or ought not to do in regards to drinking poison (is there any fact of the matter about whether I ought or ought not go to the airport if I have no desire to walk there but walking there also wouldn't conflict with any of my other desires? "Oughts" are grounded in agents desiring to pursue a set of actions.).

[@subjectt.change6599]

The key difference between the realist and the antirealist/nihilist is that the realist can point to and verbally describe the world that he believes is real. The nihilist can only reply “Nuh uh!”

[@subjectt.change6599]

The nihilist is a unfunny version of “The Treachery of Images” by Magritte. Except whereas in the painting, the pipe truly isn’t a pipe, the nihilist wants to put an actual pipe under glass, point to it, and say “This is not a pipe.”

[@subjectt.change6599]

The nihilist is, minimally, guilty of a violation of the ethics of terminology, because he denies the veracity of his own sense data, and then appeals to that same unreliable data to prove his point.

[@Philosophy_Overdose]

How are hypothetical oughts any less spooky than categorical oughts? They aren't. They're exactly on a par.

[@DaKoopaKing]

@@Philosophy_Overdose Hypothetical oughts reduce to descriptive facts, the speaker's "relativization to codes." A better way of putting my original comment is that all "ought-talk" reduces to picking out factual statements that are grounded in agents' goals and desires, or moral codes that they want to follow, reasoning that they wish to deploy, etc. Treating "oughts" as sui generis things in themselves leads to the grounding problem where I can just negate what you take to be a true categorical ought and we're left with nothing in principle to resolve our dispute.

[@charlesroberts3650]

That depends.

[@subjectt.change6599]

Okay, that’s pretty good.

[@Tfwest9337]

Bravo

[@tangerinesarebetterthanora-v8k]

I never thought about it that way....

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

If morality did not exist, mankind would have to invent it. (A paraphrase of Voltaire)

[@brunolowpers5059]

That's exactly what humanity has been doing.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

@@brunolowpers5059 You are probably right about that... Of course, the fact that mankind has invented something doesn't mean it isn't necessary for the continuance of a civilized society. As I am sure you know, mankind also invented money, laws, and government. Modern society, for better or worse, is almost entirely the product of mankind's invention.

[@tylerhulsey982]

That’s what anti-realist contend.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

@@tylerhulsey982 Yes,I was already aware of that... But thanks for the comment anyway.

[@earthjustice01]

They did!

[@subjectt.change6599]

Relativism is the ethics of a stoner who’s idea of philosophical discourse is saying “Do whatever, man, it’s all good.”

[@lugus9261]

Idk seems like the philosophy of most people. Which is worse

[@tylerhulsey982]

That would only be the ethos of the most extreme form of relativism, one which I presume most relativists don’t subscribe to.

[@trevorcrowley5748]

I suspect that the answer yes. Edward O. Wilson wrote an excellent essay for the Atlantic called "The Biological Basis of Morality"

[@Sara-wo3sl]

That’s not moral relativism. If it’s tied to biology then it’s objective

[@trevorcrowley5748]

@@Sara-wo3sl Thank you, Sara. I stand corrected. But if biological is "objective in the sense of being independent of people's moral views and their particular desires and preferences", does this put it in the absolute or relative camp?

[@rodolfo9916]

Rationally isn't facts about what you ought to believe, it is facts about what is true, it is purely descriptive.

[@tomevans6945]

That morality is a human construct should be blindingly obvious. We're not discovering facts of the universe that just-so-happen to apply only to humans, not to other animals. Such thinking is tempting, given the scientific progress humankind has made, but it is wrong. I think most (myself included!) would agree that we've made moral progress too, but this does not imply the existence of a discoverable, absolute moral code. A convincing argument is that of Gilbert Harman, who suggests that morality arises when a group of people have an implicit agreement in intentions, and acts can be morally right or wrong relative to this agreement. A snippet of his argument regarding (or, hinting at) society's progression from slavery is copied below, where 'basic moral agreement' refers to this agreement in intentions: "Let us consider a society in which there is a well-established and long-standing tradition of hereditary slavery. Let us suppose that everyone accepts this institution, including the slaves. Everyone treats it as in the nature of things that there should be such slavery. Furthermore, let us suppose that there are also aspects of the basic moral agreement which speak against slavery. That is, these aspects together with certain facts about the situation imply that people should not own slaves and that slaves have no obligation to acquiesce in their condition. In such a case, the moral understanding would be defective, although its defectiveness would presumably be hidden in one or another manner, perhaps by means of a myth that slaves are physically and mentally subhuman in a way that makes appropriate the sort of treatment elsewhere reserved for beasts of burden. If this myth were to be exposed, the members of the society would then be faced with an obvious incoherence in their basic moral agreement and might come eventually to modify their agreement so as to eliminate its acceptance of slavery." In other words, the progress made was to do with coherence rather than the discovery of an absolute moral code. The discovery was that slaves were not sub-human. The subsequent change in moral attitudes arose due to the ironing-out of something so at-odds with an agreement in intentions which includes notions such as 'do not harm others'.

[@briangarrett2427]

Calling moral realism 'absolutism' seems a bit tendentious! It might be terminological, but there can be bad terminology.

[@subjectt.change6599]

See “The ethics of terminology” by C.S. Peirce.

[@Perchumovic]

All the terms used here are extremely flawed. For instance, my personal position is what he dubbed 'absolutist relativism'-a literal blend of two positions which I oppose! Before the lecture I didn't know what I should call my position-after it, I'm not so sure I want to call it anything at all.

[@subjectt.change6599]

@@Perchumovic You know that Common-Sense Realism is always a live option, right?

[@Perchumovic]

@@subjectt.change6599 Define it. I don't believe that 'common-sense' or 'realism' wholly describes my belief (nor does a blend of the two). I believe that if all relevant facts to a particular circumstance are laid bare its 'particular' moral truth becomes immediately discoverable by any moral agent (so long as they're not hypocritical, dishonest, self-deceiving, stupid, etc.)--For reference: 18:20 to 18:40. If that fits what you mean by 'common-sense realism' then I'm afraid it's one more flawed descriptor.

[@subjectt.change6599]

@@Perchumovic Well, the preferred terminology is usually Naive Realism or Direct Realism, but I prefer the common-sense phrasing because it emphasizes the fact that regular people who aren’t philosophers typically get along in life just fine with the presumption of realism. It’s only the academics who have any doubts about brute facts.

[@catherinepeter5231]

Reason and senses???

[@briangarrett2427]

V clear, though ending on a very hopeful note .... (Think of the differences between the moral case & the case of logic, maths etc.)

[@TheAtheist22]

This is great to listen to.

[@brunolowpers5059]

You can try to mock the idea that morality is based on subjectivity by making the simplistic comparison with the preference for ice cream flavors but... Morality IS based on subjectivity. I'm sorry if that fact is hard to accept.

[@vanessali1365]

Many hold the view that 'what feels right is right'. Debate?

[@subjectt.change6599]

It’s moments like these that lead me to wonder whether the Logical Positivists were right, and whether it was wise to surrender the academy to the obscurantist postmodern afterbirth of Hegel…

[@tylerhulsey982]

Not sure how this is the takeaway from this talk 🤷‍♂️

[@wmradar]

Disorganized thoughts: * My personal view comes closest to 'relativist to circumstances' - no one moral act (donating to charity, say) will be 100% moral in every circumstance (is the charity trustworthy? is charity what's called for, or is more direct action needed?), but certain patterns of circumstance can show themselves to need similar responses (an abused child needs a strong support system outside of their abuser[s]). That said, I do think I have some affinity with the moral nihilist position (as stated here, anyway; there might be other materials I wouldn't agree with), namely an automatic suspicion of anyone who's claimed to have *the* moral truth (cough cough Harris, cough cough Molyneux, cough cough any religious apologist who claims their morals come from God) and an aversion to putting things in inherently moral language ("you are a good person" vs. "I like you"). * There's an interesting (if potentially untrue) argument by professor Alec Ryrie that most of us get our moral standards from the aftermath of WWII. The argument as I understand it goes: 1, the role of the Christian religion was to provide a moral ideal for people in Europe and its nations' (ex-)colonies. 2, centuries of institutional corruption had led to philosophical arguments attacking the idea of there being a God, but had not led to a rebuking of its moral framework. 3, during WWII, a lot of Christian churches either failed to adequately condemn the Nazi's actions or had endorsed them. We all know the aftermath of that, I should hope. 4, the visceral images of the insides of Nazi concentration camps or of the cities they invaded showed an arresting image of human suffering and gave the people fighting them a moral anti-ideal. Therefore, most of us get our morals from avoiding the Nazis at all cost. If you're curious, the video he makes the argument in is called "Jesus, Hitler and the Abolition of God." * A part of me worries that this "should we be moral relativists" talk is a bit anthropocentric. I could list all the actions that are commonplace among other animals, but that all goes without saying and I'm sure the absolutists have a reply to that. Rather, our human existence is in part dependent on the existence of animals who do not subscribe to any of our human moral standards and have seemed to survive through the epochs without them. And according to the Theory of Evolution, every organism shares a common ancestor with each other. So where does the line between "these beings don't follow our morality" and "these beings have no morality to think of" lie? And if, say, letting a species where rape is the dominant reproductive strategy continue to exist near us so that there are fewer insects, that through no fault of their own, spread fatal diseases to humans (just as a hypothetical) is a valid moral dilemma, what sorts of worm cans does that open up? (I know that last one is a bit half-baked, but I did say these thoughts were disorganized!) * I think it's only fair that y'all get someone who's a moral nihilist to give their perspective on the topic, so I'll wrap up with a post by Hans-Georg Moeller (of fellow philosophy channel Carefree Wandering fame) where he responds to common pro-moral realist arguments. kzbin.info/www/bejne/h5XWda2QebKtga8

[@mojdemarvast2366]

Thank You... Morality is preliminary to law If i want to comment I should be able to read and obey the rule: “Remember to keep comments respectful and to follow our community guidelines “

[@ching-tseli8281]

That’s a good metaphor. But when it comes to contractarianism, your obligation is unconditional.

[@mojdemarvast2366]

@@ching-tseli8281 True. Thank you ...

[@jamesbarlow6423]

Is it rational NOT to be relativist?

[@ragingchimera8021]

You think you decide that? We just are.

[@catherinepeter5231]

Absolute and nihilism???

[@catherinepeter5231]

Deep philosophical problems???

[@catherinepeter5231]

Facts about what you ought to believe???

[@notanemoprog]

We should not.

[@notanemoprog]

@@TheWorldTeacher Because relativism is bad.

[@Molecular-Brainwaves-Translate]

Relativism can be bad in certain circumstances.

[@notanemoprog]

@@Molecular-Brainwaves-Translate That's a relativistic statement, therefore a bad one. Relativism is _always_ bad

[@notanemoprog]

@@saimbhat6243 We are not.

[@notanemoprog]

@jacobb3573 "Slavery is bad." Um you dummy that is an _absolute_ statement.

[@rodolfo9916]

It is obvious that there's no moral relativism that scape from the commitment to absolute moral facts since even if you relativize morality to one's moral code, and you belive that there's no moral code that it is privileged over the others, you still believe that it is universally true that each person ought to act in the morally right way according to his or her own moral code. If the supposed "moral relativists" also believe in universally true moral norms, then they are moral realist just like any other moral realist, they just disagree about what is the universally true moral norms. And I don't see anything logically incoherent in saying that the universally true moral norm is that each person ought to act in the morally right way according to his or her own moral code.

[@earthjustice01]

There really is no such thing as an individual moral code. Morality is always about what we owe to others. Moral obligations come from our living in and growing up in a society, not from adopting a moral code according to one's individual preferences.

[@prophetrob]

You've got no choice whether or not you are but some people also might not be able to realize that they really are, instead just pretending morality is objective because of their socialization and lack of critical thinking ability

[@subjectt.change6599]

If we have no choice, how do we pretend?

[@subjectt.change6599]

You can’t deny free will, and then blame free will for people having the wrong ethics.

[@subjectt.change6599]

Didn’t your epistemology 101 prof explain that relativism is self-refuting?

[@prophetrob]

@@subjectt.change6599 you pretend in a determined manner. It's not free will that makes them incorrect, they're determined to be incorrect. Doomed to be incorrect by circumstances if you will. It's not self-refuting, it just doesn't come with reasons to hold specific values.

[@subjectt.change6599]

@Jacob B So, before we get into the meat and potatoes, I gotta know; is Debs still getting his name on the ballot, or have the socialists finally joined the 21st century?

[@yp77738yp77739]

If one analyses the current state of knowledge of the world ie the empirical truths, then it is wholly incoherent to take any position other than that of a moral nihilist. So, I always distrust those whom I know to be capable of abstract thought, when they claim otherwise.

[@ArcusDraco]

You sound like an absolute prick. Rethink your position

[@yp77738yp77739]

@@ArcusDraco It is you whom needs to do just the smallest amount of thinking and perhaps you may realise the obvious.

[@ArcusDraco]

@@yp77738yp77739 It is you who* 'Whom' is used in the oblique cases, 'who' is subject. "It is you who" is grammatically correct because 'who' is a predicate. The verb is equating 'it' and 'who' and so they are both subjects. And to say you distrust those who don't share your own personal views is an incredibly selfish position to hold. It is incredibly closed-minded, and you're simply making Ad Hominem attacks on others. By saying "Everyone is stupid who doesn't think like I do" is logically incoherent and is ultimately circular. So no, in fact it is you who need to do smallest amount of thinking to realize the illogical holes in your thought. Prick

[@subjectt.change6599]

No.

[@Zagg777]

The Woke bias of the speaker prejudices his talk.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Can you not just listen without your own bias screaming? Boring….

[@notanemoprog]

@jacobb3573 LOL what a hysteric you are.

[@howtoappearincompletely9739]

Those were just examples he was giving and weren't a basis for his argument, so they can be ignored. However, I'm surprised that girls' education and not abusing children for fun are objectionably woke moral preferences.