Miscellaneous Chatter > Philosophy & Science
The Gamification of Public Discourse
H:
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on February 29, 2020, 11:27:21 am ---I mean I do think people are gaming the "system" - see all the political pundits whoring themselves out to whatever mob will have them on Patreon - but I am not sure the issue is complexity. For example is the complexity of fetal biology really what makes someone pro-choice or pro-life? For the former the complexity is all the varied examples where delivering a baby would likely result in adverse outcomes whereas for the latter any argument for complexity is equivalent to trying to justify killing babies.
--- End quote ---
Well, IIRC, I think the speaker's point was that engagement with morality is generally complex, unless you just take a "my way or the highway" approach. So, anyone, or anything, offering up a "simplified" view on it can "game" the system, because that sort of approach has a good bit of "intrinsic" value to many people. That value being, in part, the "pleasure" of not having to think things through, or bear the often uncomfortable results of seeing the world as thoroughly ambiguous, or at least not in some way "objectively" clear.
sciborg2:
--- Quote from: H on March 02, 2020, 12:49:10 pm ---
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on February 29, 2020, 11:27:21 am ---I mean I do think people are gaming the "system" - see all the political pundits whoring themselves out to whatever mob will have them on Patreon - but I am not sure the issue is complexity. For example is the complexity of fetal biology really what makes someone pro-choice or pro-life? For the former the complexity is all the varied examples where delivering a baby would likely result in adverse outcomes whereas for the latter any argument for complexity is equivalent to trying to justify killing babies.
--- End quote ---
Well, IIRC, I think the speaker's point was that engagement with morality is generally complex, unless you just take a "my way or the highway" approach. So, anyone, or anything, offering up a "simplified" view on it can "game" the system, because that sort of approach has a good bit of "intrinsic" value to many people. That value being, in part, the "pleasure" of not having to think things through, or bear the often uncomfortable results of seeing the world as thoroughly ambiguous, or at least not in some way "objectively" clear.
--- End quote ---
I guess this depends on what we mean by complexity - is it that situations are complex or morality is complex? I think most people have principles they feel are important with some of these being shifted depending on context. For example "stealing is wrong" can be mitigated by circumstance, whereas "raping a child is wrong" is one of those things that is wrong no matter context.
I do think where we go wrong is assuming morality that is clear to us now is somehow evident across ages, versus the flip side that morality is relative. As a "Hermeticist" w.r.t morality I think moral truths are out there but obfuscated. [So the relativist is wrong but so is the Platonist to an extent.]
To give an example, was reading a murder mystery written in the 50s where the characters end up debating homosexuality. While the authorial tone seems to suggest being gay isn't "Evil" with a capital E it is an erroneous choice. At first glance I could say, "wow what a homophobe!" but my own opinions about homosexuality started with believing gays were as fictional as unicorns to thinking it was some odd lifestyle [of the mentally ill]. I only figured homosexuality was something worthy of civil rights after watching the movie Philadelphia.
So this author's moral grasp in 1950 would, arguably, be better than my own as he could see farther through greater fog. But it also gets into the question of moral transference - since morality is always a set of qualia how do we even convert people to the right way of thinking? What does it mean to instill moral principles?
H:
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on March 03, 2020, 12:19:12 am ---I guess this depends on what we mean by complexity - is it that situations are complex or morality is complex?
--- End quote ---
Well, I think I mean, more so, that both are complex, because Being is complex. That simply flows from the issue that the Universe itself (whatever that is) is complex. It's all complex, we just do all sorts of things to "flatten" it, by heusitics, by concepts, and so on, so that we can get anything done at all.
--- Quote ---I do think where we go wrong is assuming morality that is clear to us now is somehow evident across ages, versus the flip side that morality is relative. As a "Hermeticist" w.r.t morality I think moral truths are out there but obfuscated. [So the relativist is wrong but so is the Platonist to an extent.]
--- End quote ---
I don't know, I'm not sure how to summarize my views. I do agree with you final point, that the relativist and the Platonist are both incorrect, because I don't think there are "moral truths" just waiting "out there" but I also do not think that it's just a fun-to-go where everything is "relative" and there isn't anything to Ground anything.
For example, I read this paper: Why I am an Objectivist about Ethics (And Why You Are, Too) and while I was agreeing at points, I disagree in the end (I think). But I am probably working with a different notion of what "Objective" means. Really, I'd take more of a hard-line and say Objective as the paper wants to use it, isn't an opposite of Subjective, but rather means something more of "reaching an objective" that is, a goal.
In that sense, I could see the point being made then.
--- Quote ---To give an example, was reading a murder mystery written in the 50s where the characters end up debating homosexuality. While the authorial tone seems to suggest being gay isn't "Evil" with a capital E it is an erroneous choice. At first glance I could say, "wow what a homophobe!" but my own opinions about homosexuality started with believing gays were as fictional as unicorns to thinking it was some odd lifestyle [of the mentally ill]. I only figured homosexuality was something worthy of civil rights after watching the movie Philadelphia.
So this author's moral grasp in 1950 would, arguably, be better than my own as he could see farther through greater fog. But it also gets into the question of moral transference - since morality is always a set of qualia how do we even convert people to the right way of thinking? What does it mean to instill moral principles?
--- End quote ---
That is the crux though, right? Is there a "right way" of thinking? Isn't it all just sorts of "normative claims" all the way down?
See, what is why, above, I can't take "Objective" to mean anything like a thing-in-itself, a non-Subjective. Rather, I can only really take it seriously as a "goal-orientation." So, where the 1950's wanted to make the claim that homosexuality is an "error" based on the normative stance that a romantic relationship's "objective" (read: goal) is procreation. From that line of thinking, you can surely make the case that is rational to then conclude it is an "error."
The thing is, what if we don't share that goal? What if we have different "objectives?" What happens to that "Objective" morality?
OK, this is probably a bit too much for a pre-coffee rant. Hopefully there is something lucid in here that can be salvaged.
sciborg2:
--- Quote from: H on March 03, 2020, 01:12:51 pm ---
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on March 03, 2020, 12:19:12 am ---I guess this depends on what we mean by complexity - is it that situations are complex or morality is complex?
--- End quote ---
Well, I think I mean, more so, that both are complex, because Being is complex. That simply flows from the issue that the Universe itself (whatever that is) is complex. It's all complex, we just do all sorts of things to "flatten" it, by heusitics, by concepts, and so on, so that we can get anything done at all.
--- Quote ---I do think where we go wrong is assuming morality that is clear to us now is somehow evident across ages, versus the flip side that morality is relative. As a "Hermeticist" w.r.t morality I think moral truths are out there but obfuscated. [So the relativist is wrong but so is the Platonist to an extent.]
--- End quote ---
I don't know, I'm not sure how to summarize my views. I do agree with you final point, that the relativist and the Platonist are both incorrect, because I don't think there are "moral truths" just waiting "out there" but I also do not think that it's just a fun-to-go where everything is "relative" and there isn't anything to Ground anything.
For example, I read this paper: Why I am an Objectivist about Ethics (And Why You Are, Too) and while I was agreeing at points, I disagree in the end (I think). But I am probably working with a different notion of what "Objective" means. Really, I'd take more of a hard-line and say Objective as the paper wants to use it, isn't an opposite of Subjective, but rather means something more of "reaching an objective" that is, a goal.
In that sense, I could see the point being made then.
--- Quote ---To give an example, was reading a murder mystery written in the 50s where the characters end up debating homosexuality. While the authorial tone seems to suggest being gay isn't "Evil" with a capital E it is an erroneous choice. At first glance I could say, "wow what a homophobe!" but my own opinions about homosexuality started with believing gays were as fictional as unicorns to thinking it was some odd lifestyle [of the mentally ill]. I only figured homosexuality was something worthy of civil rights after watching the movie Philadelphia.
So this author's moral grasp in 1950 would, arguably, be better than my own as he could see farther through greater fog. But it also gets into the question of moral transference - since morality is always a set of qualia how do we even convert people to the right way of thinking? What does it mean to instill moral principles?
--- End quote ---
That is the crux though, right? Is there a "right way" of thinking? Isn't it all just sorts of "normative claims" all the way down?
See, what is why, above, I can't take "Objective" to mean anything like a thing-in-itself, a non-Subjective. Rather, I can only really take it seriously as a "goal-orientation." So, where the 1950's wanted to make the claim that homosexuality is an "error" based on the normative stance that a romantic relationship's "objective" (read: goal) is procreation. From that line of thinking, you can surely make the case that is rational to then conclude it is an "error."
The thing is, what if we don't share that goal? What if we have different "objectives?" What happens to that "Objective" morality?
OK, this is probably a bit too much for a pre-coffee rant. Hopefully there is something lucid in here that can be salvaged.
--- End quote ---
Question - do you think the statement "It's wrong to rape a child" is dependent on cultures and goals or is it as true today as it was in antiquity and will be as true in when we're past the Singularity?
H:
--- Quote from: sciborg2 on March 03, 2020, 08:44:50 pm ---Question - do you think the statement "It's wrong to rape a child" is dependent on cultures and goals or is it as true today as it was in antiquity and will be as true in when we're past the Singularity?
--- End quote ---
You bait me with a loaded question, ;D
I think it does depend on something. Now, if we want to call whatever that is culture, then sure. The thing, to me, is that it depends on whatever it is that "tells" us that children are valuable things to be protected. I mean, consider, if somehow someone was a member of a society of people for whom there was no value to children for some reason, then it would likely not be normative to ascribe any particular sentiment or moral value to your given case, right?
In the end though, I think we are probably working with differing ideas of Objective though. To me, we might be able to get at something "objective seeming" but never the Objective in-itself. In this way, morals might seem objective, in so far as they lack the distinct subjective quality. To me, though, that doesn't make morals objective, rather something more like a collective or shared subjective ground (maybe).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version