Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gymmarty · 12-04-2002, 07:37 PM

It seems to me chip, that perhaps some study into evolutionary theory and its sub branches (especially evolutionary epistomology and evolutionary psychology) and perhaps a little study into game theory as applied in ecological systems and also a look into the behaviour of algorithmic systems may shed a little light on your problem with moral relativism.

Chip · 12-05-2002, 07:51 AM

Beoran, yup, oil is thought by some to be worth millions of dollars per barrel (it would take that much energy and special tech to make it from scratch) and water is given virtually no value in the scheme of things. I hold that our present social structure does not give value where value is wanting but the virtue is still there despite the mass denial.

Gymmarty, would love to hear some direct references rather than just allusion. How about that game theory stuff? Can we only equate things to zero sum games? I hold that other game modelling is more appropriate and hope we can pursue designing human communication systems to emulate "all-sum" scenario's where everyone is a winner. In the game that is an online forum you have the client/server software making little if any attempt at matching wits and the subsequent definitions of critical thinking and rational discourse appear quite ridiculous in the nonquestioning believer and their crowd psychology "might makes right" belief necessity. Gee, evolutionary epistomolgy and psychology, how about some hard science rather than these interpretative branches which can be argued as being the foundations of social Darwinism rather than collaborative effort, which has a big place in the hard science that is evolution. Just some ramblings but I would love to see some direct comments rather than just the beating around the Bush (capitalized as that name seems to epitomize the philosophical believer of the "you are either with us or against us" cowboy mentality).

Regards, Chip

Beoran · 12-05-2002, 10:29 AM

Well, this as an non-metaphorical aside, but I doubt crude oil is really worth that much. It is actually possible to make products similar to the ones we gain from crude oil from renewable resources. Colza oil replaces diesel fuel, sugar alcohol replaces gasoline and wood can be used for making plastics. It would only be twice as expensive to use these resources in stead of cruse oil. But I digress.

I think I see your point. The Tao Te Ching also says "Water occupies the lowest place, that people seem to hate." In that sense, virtue is also much like water. People are annoyed when it's pouring down on them, and ignore it when it's flowing around them. But, when people come into a situation where there is none, or where all of it is soiled, they suddenly realise how much it is worth. The value of common things is often taken for granted.

However, it's a bit strong to call this disregard for the common "denial". Rather, I'd call it "carelessness". In a sense it is good that people are not concerned about virtue, as that means it is still present in sufficient qualities, at least for now. Of course, we may be in for a rude surprise when it suddenly runs out...

Anyway, I wonder wether my metaphor was clear, though. I hope I made it clear that even if naturalistic materialism makes it so that all things are meaningless, it doesn't mean that all things are worthless. Worth and value come from human need. Objective and subjective, or absolute and relative are only fake dualisms that don't help the issue in any way. If we want virtue, virtue becomes valuable.

gymmarty · 12-05-2002, 09:27 PM

Sorry if I wasn't being very specific chip. I'm new here and I wasn't sure exactly the best way to start conversation here.
Let me start my reply firstly with this:
While I'll agree that evolutionary epistomology and psychology are certainly not hard 'sciences' by any stretch of the imagination, do you have any 'harder' alternatives to them?
I'd be happy to use any that are, let me assure you!
So let me restate my point a little more clearly:
Human morals are simply emergent phenomena from the algorithmic rules that govern evolution. Simple huh?

Chip · 12-09-2002, 09:18 AM

Thanks Gymmarty. I find no problem with considering such. If what emerges as human morals does include inductive considerations rather than just deduction, then I find it quite possible that the problem I see with moral relativism may become more resolved with time and maybe in accordance with my concept that it can be used as a defense of virtually any thing anywhere and may consequently be rejected as useless.

Regards, Chip

Jayhawker Soule · 12-12-2002, 04:21 AM

I hate to dumn down the discussion, but I really do not understand what it means to speak of objective value. Also (I ask tentatively) what is the difference between (a) finding meaning in the universe, and (b) finding purpose in the universe? I'm certainly not opposed to finding meaning in the universe, but, then again, I'm not opposed to finding unicorns either. I simply have no reason to think it likely.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-04-2002, 07:37 PM	#41
gymmarty Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: sydney Posts: 8	It seems to me chip, that perhaps some study into evolutionary theory and its sub branches (especially evolutionary epistomology and evolutionary psychology) and perhaps a little study into game theory as applied in ecological systems and also a look into the behaviour of algorithmic systems may shed a little light on your problem with moral relativism.

12-05-2002, 07:51 AM	#42
Chip Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 382	Beoran, yup, oil is thought by some to be worth millions of dollars per barrel (it would take that much energy and special tech to make it from scratch) and water is given virtually no value in the scheme of things. I hold that our present social structure does not give value where value is wanting but the virtue is still there despite the mass denial. Gymmarty, would love to hear some direct references rather than just allusion. How about that game theory stuff? Can we only equate things to zero sum games? I hold that other game modelling is more appropriate and hope we can pursue designing human communication systems to emulate "all-sum" scenario's where everyone is a winner. In the game that is an online forum you have the client/server software making little if any attempt at matching wits and the subsequent definitions of critical thinking and rational discourse appear quite ridiculous in the nonquestioning believer and their crowd psychology "might makes right" belief necessity. Gee, evolutionary epistomolgy and psychology, how about some hard science rather than these interpretative branches which can be argued as being the foundations of social Darwinism rather than collaborative effort, which has a big place in the hard science that is evolution. Just some ramblings but I would love to see some direct comments rather than just the beating around the Bush (capitalized as that name seems to epitomize the philosophical believer of the "you are either with us or against us" cowboy mentality). Regards, Chip

12-05-2002, 10:29 AM	#43
Beoran Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 75	Well, this as an non-metaphorical aside, but I doubt crude oil is really worth that much. It is actually possible to make products similar to the ones we gain from crude oil from renewable resources. Colza oil replaces diesel fuel, sugar alcohol replaces gasoline and wood can be used for making plastics. It would only be twice as expensive to use these resources in stead of cruse oil. But I digress. I think I see your point. The Tao Te Ching also says "Water occupies the lowest place, that people seem to hate." In that sense, virtue is also much like water. People are annoyed when it's pouring down on them, and ignore it when it's flowing around them. But, when people come into a situation where there is none, or where all of it is soiled, they suddenly realise how much it is worth. The value of common things is often taken for granted. However, it's a bit strong to call this disregard for the common "denial". Rather, I'd call it "carelessness". In a sense it is good that people are not concerned about virtue, as that means it is still present in sufficient qualities, at least for now. Of course, we may be in for a rude surprise when it suddenly runs out... Anyway, I wonder wether my metaphor was clear, though. I hope I made it clear that even if naturalistic materialism makes it so that all things are meaningless, it doesn't mean that all things are worthless. Worth and value come from human need. Objective and subjective, or absolute and relative are only fake dualisms that don't help the issue in any way. If we want virtue, virtue becomes valuable.

12-05-2002, 09:27 PM	#44
gymmarty Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: sydney Posts: 8	Sorry if I wasn't being very specific chip. I'm new here and I wasn't sure exactly the best way to start conversation here. Let me start my reply firstly with this: While I'll agree that evolutionary epistomology and psychology are certainly not hard 'sciences' by any stretch of the imagination, do you have any 'harder' alternatives to them? I'd be happy to use any that are, let me assure you! So let me restate my point a little more clearly: Human morals are simply emergent phenomena from the algorithmic rules that govern evolution. Simple huh?

12-09-2002, 09:18 AM	#45
Chip Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 382	Thanks Gymmarty. I find no problem with considering such. If what emerges as human morals does include inductive considerations rather than just deduction, then I find it quite possible that the problem I see with moral relativism may become more resolved with time and maybe in accordance with my concept that it can be used as a defense of virtually any thing anywhere and may consequently be rejected as useless. Regards, Chip

12-12-2002, 04:21 AM	#46
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	I hate to dumn down the discussion, but I really do not understand what it means to speak of objective value. Also (I ask tentatively) what is the difference between (a) finding meaning in the universe, and (b) finding purpose in the universe? I'm certainly not opposed to finding meaning in the universe, but, then again, I'm not opposed to finding unicorns either. I simply have no reason to think it likely.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.