Relativistic Morality Videos

0ThouArtThat0 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - So expanding our moral frame is basically synonymous with our expanding out mind to identify with wider and wider "bodies." As we develop morally, we are basically enlarging the scope of what we consider to be our body. First it includes just what is inside our skin, then it is what touches our skin (like family), then anyone who could potentially return our gaze (like society), etc.

0ThouArtThat0 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - A "saint" (someone who has morally embodied the whole cosmos) would express unconditional love to at least all humans, probably all beings and possibly even the mineral world that they inhabit. Or at least this would follow, whether it is practically possible or not I can't say.

zilchersatya Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - great, i absolutely agree. heh. absolutely...i only wish inmendham wouldn't exclude himself from this... favoured :)

pyrrho314 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - yes, imo

HumanTruth0000 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - Interesting clear model. I think this collapses as you expand from your own personal frame of reference.The farther u expand the weaker the moral structure gets. I think it would not expand in a equal symmetric way either like u allude to. I think this is the limit of our global moral capabilities at moment. It can expand easily, remain stable for a while, a lifetime even, but collapse easily and completely under unforseen stresses. Lets say a resource becomes scarce, etc. Everyone oscillates.

pyrrho314 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - yes, and if this enlightenment is meaningful enough we would understand perhaps how even under attack he might choose not to revert to a more unenlightened frame of reference.As a culture we would be wrong to design on that expectation from all people though, and use the mechanics of the frames to instead form some expectations about what conditions -allow- rational, non-self-destructive, enlightenment.

pyrrho314 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - btw, no time to say that I also regularize the meaning of morality and ethics such that morality is merely a larger set, a complete set of "what you ought to do" and ethics is more a set of "what you should do at least".

pyrrho314 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - yes, it is true, imo, the strength of the moral code gets weaker the further out you get, and indeed, sometimes the code is so weak one is merely professing and extolling it and never living by it... but besides hypocrisy like that the outer frames do have force, and the fact that the forces are less than the inner frames is why one expects a conflict to reduce some parties to narrow frames of reference.

pyrrho314 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - In my opinion it is possible though, through philosophy, to value outer frames more than inner ones, based on the what these broader reference points give you, which is some very high quality feelings and thoughts.To see yourself as part of this fantastic biological framework of all the genetically related life is very personally empowering. Once you catch it, you will only revert in examples like I give, if personally attacked by a criminal for example, and return quickly to the broad frame.

HumanTruth0000 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - mmm, interesting. Yes, i see about even the personal frame of reference being weak to start. And i see what u mean about how outer boundaries being weak in all as explanation for something like war. For this to work all personal frames must be of equal strength which is not in our world, and all symmetrical like a bubble expanding.I think the limits of our present world is what we have now: An unsymmetrical, varied strength, unstable model.

HumanTruth0000 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - I understand your model. Personally I dont think its possible presently. I have always said a shift in our evolutionary psychology is needed, OR an event so strong( humanity surviving asteroid hit, or verifiable global alien encounter) that that event shatters our present understanding and outlook of reality and forces us to adopt something like your model.

wonderist Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - Your version of morality is pretty close to my version. But again, with the word objective. I think your focus on it muddies the waters. You talk about common frames of reference, for example. How are these established but through an objective understanding of reality? How can two people come to agreement? That's the core issue that objectivity solves. I think in your objections, you should stick to criticizing universal morality. I would agree with you there.

w0r1dpeace Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - WEll done the right way, pyrrho.Vegetarianism ftw.

pyrrho314 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - I would (probably slowly) accept some change in the terms... but challenging the word objective at least brings these concepts out of the wodwork where we can accept that we are talking about a relativistic and skeptically understood shared space.

pyrrho314 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - The possibility of knowing things since we percieve them and believe what appears to be the case just shouldn't be misconstrued as meaning the universe is knowable, as if we could skip over the river of subjective experience and get actual "objective" ones. It occurred to me that we started this debate with "objective morality" where the word has the sense I'm complaining about.

bushfingers Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - A very brave attempt to deal with a notoriously difficult subject. What you describe is very close to the Buddhist conception of morality. However, as you well know, there are many exceptions and difficulties that could be raised. I also think there are certain very important moral concepts that cannot be derived from enlightened self-interest e.g. heroic bravery.

CliffKFF Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - well you've won a pyrrhic victory...no I'm kidding...very well put explanation about how frames of reference influence our ideas about morality and how to think about war in terms of both personal and cultural survival.

pyrrho314 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - some of the complicatons are natural and follow from dsposing of absolute solutions, they are only "good enough to act on" and that has to be good enough, but it doesn't avoid controversy and the need for negotiated settlements in the end (an appeal to feelings ultimately in some cases)...

pyrrho314 Says:

Nov 18, 2008 - as for heroic bravery my system does offer an explanation of that, I think, in that the powerful feeling of using enlightened frames means I might in fact NOT revert to a personal (desperate) frame to act even when there is a conflict. Also, since protecting our offspring is a part of survival... the personal frame does include some reasons to appear altruistic, that is, reasons why altruism is in ones enlightened self interest.