And that’s a sharp counter: "The universal moral rejection of moral universalism is itself an imposition of moral universalism." It’s a strong point. So-called moral relativists can’t resolve their argument so easily. We live in a moral universe, no matter how you look at it.
Bismarck got it wrong in his conclusions about the logical consequences of moral universalism. It doesn’t lead to a more fractured society, but rather the opposite. History shows that it’s moral relativism that erodes social cohesion, not to mention undermines objective meaning, value, purpose, and morality.
Thankfully, there is an objective foundation for what is right and wrong.
You just state that with all your preassumptions taken as a priori.
"The universal moral rejection of moral universalism is itseld an imposition of moral universalism" -> OK, then what?
It only nulls the moral relativist argument and that's it. Plus you are thinking in analytic philosophy way of thinking, which completely misses the mark of why Bismarck think that way in the first place.
Bismarck' purpose of shaming moral universalism is for creating a framework of interacting in a genuinely pluralist world. Pluralism is not about taco clog dancing & exotic dances! It's about dealing with people who has completely different a priori assumptions about EVERYTHING.
Point being it's all about whether it's the correct way to interpret & analyze the world. If a philosophical thought cannot be realistically held by everyone, or is unsatisfactory to explain the world, it's useless.
If it doesn't specifically exist in biopsychology / neuroscience and if it doesn't specifically exist in the book "Human Universals" by Donald J. Brown, morality is intersubjectivist - something is considered true when the norm in society thinks it's true and that's it.
Help me here - did you just assert here that there is no universal "truth" outside of human thoughts holding to them in some majority wins kind of consensus? If I heard that correctly, would you then assert that if all the humans died, that math would no longer hold the same potential unchanging laws, even though not being thought about by anyone?
You are confusing "Is" and "Ought" and you're confusing the purpose of moral intersubjectivism.
Let's began from the article. The article talks about Walt Bismarck and his refutation of moral universalism. The article rebuts that, but thing is the article misses the point.
Walt's entire purpose of refuting moral universalism came from the need to live in a pluralist society (and fighting for one's interest in it). Culture, pluralism, conceptions about the world etc is not just exotic clothes and taco clog dancing - it's an entire conception about the world, pressuposition, sense of right and wrong etc that when you dig long enough it always starts from some preassumptions you take as a priori assumptions no matter how irrational.
Moreover, Walt's preassumptions is that "If people can't ACTUALLY, IN REAL LIFE, AS REVEALED PREFERENCE, large-scale adopt that, it's useless". This is basically some sort of pragmatism - it's worldview for politics in a pluralist society, not for looking out at the truth.
--------
> There's no objective truth other than what the majority think it's true
It's kind of like this:
Today only lunatics believe slavery is good, but during the Roman Empire only fringes believe slavery is bad. So societal view of slavery is really depending on how the majority sees slavery.
That's it.
> If that's so, if humanity dies and there's no more ____
It doesn't matter. Because this moral intersubjectivism is not for science, it's for fighting fot one's interest in a pluralist society.
Would you agree that an individual, a family, a community, a nation, or, the world at large, needs to conform thoughts and actions to reality, or there are consequences?
As in, group A can all agree on ice cream only for a diet, but no matter their ideas and beliefs, they will die young, fat, and diseased?
You've missed my point. I am not talking about is/ought here - I only asked "if group A wishes to conform to reality for the sake of living a healthy and long life, does it matter what they think about a diet of ice cream?"
Since this is a rhetorical question, I will answer for both of us, "yeah." If A wishes to achieve longevity, they must abandon their beliefs about a diet of solely ice cream, simply enough.
And you are discussing, a la Walt Bismarck, that "oughts" don't matter beyond what allows one's group to survive. We ought to survive, so we ought to do whatever benefits us in that regard, correct?
Looks like you took on Grok and won—well done!
And that’s a sharp counter: "The universal moral rejection of moral universalism is itself an imposition of moral universalism." It’s a strong point. So-called moral relativists can’t resolve their argument so easily. We live in a moral universe, no matter how you look at it.
Bismarck got it wrong in his conclusions about the logical consequences of moral universalism. It doesn’t lead to a more fractured society, but rather the opposite. History shows that it’s moral relativism that erodes social cohesion, not to mention undermines objective meaning, value, purpose, and morality.
Thankfully, there is an objective foundation for what is right and wrong.
Are you, a moral relativist, saying I’m… ‘wrong’?
You just state that with all your preassumptions taken as a priori.
"The universal moral rejection of moral universalism is itseld an imposition of moral universalism" -> OK, then what?
It only nulls the moral relativist argument and that's it. Plus you are thinking in analytic philosophy way of thinking, which completely misses the mark of why Bismarck think that way in the first place.
Bismarck' purpose of shaming moral universalism is for creating a framework of interacting in a genuinely pluralist world. Pluralism is not about taco clog dancing & exotic dances! It's about dealing with people who has completely different a priori assumptions about EVERYTHING.
Point being it's all about whether it's the correct way to interpret & analyze the world. If a philosophical thought cannot be realistically held by everyone, or is unsatisfactory to explain the world, it's useless.
If it doesn't specifically exist in biopsychology / neuroscience and if it doesn't specifically exist in the book "Human Universals" by Donald J. Brown, morality is intersubjectivist - something is considered true when the norm in society thinks it's true and that's it.
Help me here - did you just assert here that there is no universal "truth" outside of human thoughts holding to them in some majority wins kind of consensus? If I heard that correctly, would you then assert that if all the humans died, that math would no longer hold the same potential unchanging laws, even though not being thought about by anyone?
You are confusing "Is" and "Ought" and you're confusing the purpose of moral intersubjectivism.
Let's began from the article. The article talks about Walt Bismarck and his refutation of moral universalism. The article rebuts that, but thing is the article misses the point.
Walt's entire purpose of refuting moral universalism came from the need to live in a pluralist society (and fighting for one's interest in it). Culture, pluralism, conceptions about the world etc is not just exotic clothes and taco clog dancing - it's an entire conception about the world, pressuposition, sense of right and wrong etc that when you dig long enough it always starts from some preassumptions you take as a priori assumptions no matter how irrational.
Moreover, Walt's preassumptions is that "If people can't ACTUALLY, IN REAL LIFE, AS REVEALED PREFERENCE, large-scale adopt that, it's useless". This is basically some sort of pragmatism - it's worldview for politics in a pluralist society, not for looking out at the truth.
--------
> There's no objective truth other than what the majority think it's true
It's kind of like this:
Today only lunatics believe slavery is good, but during the Roman Empire only fringes believe slavery is bad. So societal view of slavery is really depending on how the majority sees slavery.
That's it.
> If that's so, if humanity dies and there's no more ____
It doesn't matter. Because this moral intersubjectivism is not for science, it's for fighting fot one's interest in a pluralist society.
Would you agree that an individual, a family, a community, a nation, or, the world at large, needs to conform thoughts and actions to reality, or there are consequences?
As in, group A can all agree on ice cream only for a diet, but no matter their ideas and beliefs, they will die young, fat, and diseased?
You are confusing "Is" and "Ought" again.
In this context:
The "Is":
- Science says if you only eat ice cream as diet, you die quick
- Group A believes that diet should only consist of ice cream
But that's it.
The problem is that your saying "Group A NEEDS to conform to science that if you only eat ice cream you die" is an "OUGHT", not an "IS".
It doesn't matter whether you or I believe that Group A should conforms to science or not.
You've missed my point. I am not talking about is/ought here - I only asked "if group A wishes to conform to reality for the sake of living a healthy and long life, does it matter what they think about a diet of ice cream?"
Since this is a rhetorical question, I will answer for both of us, "yeah." If A wishes to achieve longevity, they must abandon their beliefs about a diet of solely ice cream, simply enough.
And you are discussing, a la Walt Bismarck, that "oughts" don't matter beyond what allows one's group to survive. We ought to survive, so we ought to do whatever benefits us in that regard, correct?
It is much better to focus on what I can do about it
- If I'm ice cream maker I'll stuff Group A with ice cream to earn money
- If I hate with Group A then I'll found people who hate Group A as allies
- If I'm a scientist I'll propagate to people who believe in science in the first place, let Group A die due to their own diet
And so on