Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy..blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] poplargrove 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When I asked if slavery was right for them, I wasnt trying to describe their attitudes. I am saying that a consequence of thinking cultural relativism is true is that you must admit that they were correct in the attitudes they held (because their culture agreed it was right).

[–] Cryophilia 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

a consequence of thinking cultural relativism is true is that you must admit that they were correct in the attitudes they held

No, and that's stupid.

Let me clarify, because I want to make sure you understand. I'm not saying that I have a different take. I'm not saying that perhaps you misunderstand. I'm saying that's a fundamentally stupid thing to believe.

The whole point of relativism is that your simplistic concept of ANYTHING being "correct" is wrong. It's relative. It's not correct. Nothing is correct. Some people just thought it was correct.

Relativism says there is no objective truth but you're just for some reason trying to say that relativism believes in objective truth but only for supporting bad things. It's a ridiculous, childish take on a philosophy and I'm having trouble understanding how you could come to that conclusion. It has the intellectual rigor of "I am rubber you are glue".

[–] poplargrove 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Cool down.

You are thinking of nihilism (specifically error theory it seems - that there are no moral facts and people are wrong for thinking there are) because relativism (whether relative to subject or culture) doesnt deny that there are moral truths, just that they are only correct for the individual or culture that holds them.

Cultural relativism: The view that an act is morally right just because it is allowed by the guiding ideals of the society in which it is performed, and immoral just because it is forbidden by those ideals.

Ethical subjectivism: The view that an act is morally right just because (a) I approve of it, or (b) my commitments allow it. An action is wrong just because (a) I disapprove of it, or (b) my commitments forbid it.

Same book as the other comment of mine you replied to.

So, no, I didnt get it wrong. And the consequences I pointed out do follow from cultural relativism.

[–] Cryophilia 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a completely wrong and stupid definition of relativism. Either because the book is wrong, or (and I'll grant this is a possibility, because it happens a lot and it's why the whole field of philosophy should be killed with fire) the ivory tower academic definition has gone so far beyond reality that it's just completely absurd, and can be safely ignored as the ravings of a lunatic.

Either way, it's a straw man. Just in the 2nd case, there's a small group of batshit insane losers who actually believe the straw man is a real man, and they talk with it and have tea parties and shit. And get offended when you point out that it's made of straw and they should get mental help.

[–] poplargrove 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is the definition Ive found people use when they bring up cultural relativism. Whether informally with stuff like "you cant judge them, its just their culture" or when more fleshed out. As far as I can tell, no, ethicists for and against cultural relativism are discussing something quite in touch with reality.

The author is an important figure in metaethics, its much more likely theres something you missed than him being wrong about a basic definition in a field he is an expert in.

[–] Cryophilia 1 points 1 year ago

Philosophy is weird and unique like that. The more of an expert someone is in a field, the more likely they are to be completely out of touch with reality.

[–] Cryophilia 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm going to use a technique that I frequently use when discussing philosophy, to cut through the smokescreen of bullshit. Ignore your preconceived definitions. They don't matter. Instead of "cultural relativism", whatever you think that is, we are going to discuss "what the general population thinks of when they hear the term 'cultural relativism'". For short, I am going to call this Skywalker Theory. No academic has ever written about Skywalker Theory. There are no papers to reference. There's no books, no dissertations, no letters. Skywalker Theory exists solely in the minds of people who have never gone beyond Intro to Philosophy.

Skywalker Theory says:

The idea of an objective "good" is impossible since different groups believe different things at different times. We believe in Good and Bad, but it's really just the result of cultural conditioning.

Any time your see "Cultural Relativism", replace that with Skywalker Theory for the purposes of this discussion.

Skywalker Theory is not fleshed out. It's really just a premise. There's a lot that is up for discussion. Skywalker Theory may resemble established academic philosophies like nihilism, but it is not nihilism. It doesn't have the baggage of all the various discussions and terms and definitions and writings that the philosophy of nihilism has. You can say "nihilism says that [x]" and reference previous writings and scenarios and logical conclusions. You cannot say that about Skywalker Theory. There's nothing to reference.

[–] poplargrove 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not really sure what to reply with.

"Skywalker theory" (so far identical to error theory) isnt what the post or the discussion is about. The meme is pretty clear it is about cultural relativism and clear about what it means by cultural relativism.

If you want to bring your own objection to moral realism, sure, but it makes little sense hijacking the definition to mean something entirely different and being unhappy this wasnt what the term others were using meant.

[–] Cryophilia 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Wrong. The OP never mentions ANY specific philosophical theory. People commenting are clearly talking about little-r relativism, the popular definition, the one I gave, not the Relativism or Realism or Nihilism or whatever else "experts" have loaded down with jargon and tangents and straw men over the decades.

Skywalker theory strips you of philosophical tricks. You have to talk about the central premise, there is nothing more. Skywalker Theory is BY DEFINITION what we are talking about.

Modern philosophy is so weighted down, it's almost entirely a discussion about terms rather than ideas. Skywalker Theory undoes that.

OP says, "the truth of moral judgments is relative to group consensus". That's it. Discuss that, and just that.

OP (and the ensuing discussion) does not say "there is an objective Truth but it is whatever a group of people happens to believe at the time, especially if it's something that I personally believe is Bad", because that's an absurd and contradictory statement. That absurd statement is not a part of Skywalker Theory. No one cares if it's part of some other theory, that's a tangent. We're talking about Skywalker Theory.

See how it works?

You can't say "aha, your are clearly referring to the philosophy of fish guts, and as we all know the famous Professor Poopybutt demonstrated in 1803 that a belief in fish gut philosophy requires one to break one's own legs." No. Stop. We are not getting bogged down in a useless conversation about some crazy bullshit. We are not talking about fishgut theory, we are talking about Skywalker Theory, and Skywalker Theory has no other sources to reference than the premise given in this post, and the ensuing discussion.