So these acts of persuasion are not immoral, but not moral either. — Isaac

In my view, persuasion is skirting the line. I've explained that. It certainly can be immoral, but it doesn't have to be. Immoral acts depend first and foremost on the intention, and persuasion often serves selfish goals, and some common methods of persuasion, which I referred to earlier, indicate that.

...so in what way 'pitfall'? — Isaac

What I was hinting at with that comment, is that morality is often used simply as a means for exerting power over others - an excuse to interject oneself unwelcomely in the affairs of others.

No, I don't agree. If you and I were carrying a large object through the woods and reach a fork in the road. I think we ought go left and you right, I needn't have any strong conviction about left, nor you right, but we can clearly only go one way, so we must decide I must persuade you, or you I. — Isaac

I don't know why you'd have to be persuaded if you didn't feel very strongly about left or right. I would say "Right" and you would shrug your shoulders and right we went!

There are loads of views I respect but thing are wrong (I don't see any need for 'categorically' here). — Isaac

Obviously if you hold a view and someone else holds an incompatible view, you must in some way believe they are wrong, so believing someone else is wrong isn't the issue.

If one believes there's no merit whatsoever to their ideas, no room for doubt, no room for another's view, then I don't think it's possible to respect their ideas. That is my view.

But this discussion is getting lengthy enough as is, and I don't think there's a need to fret over every word used. Let's try to stick to the core of the matter.

But 'of great importance' is a different kettle of fish entirely to 'pitfalls'. — Isaac

You asked how conversations could take place in a non-voluntary setting, and I pointed out how a child is taught moral ideas largely without their say in things, as an example of a non-horizontal 'discussion' that isn't exactly voluntary.

Now, obviously a child needs to be taught things, but due to this non-horizontal relationship, an asymmetry in power, the nature and shape of such a 'student-teacher' relationship are of great importance. Suffice to say that in my view it puts a great deal of responsibility on the shoulders of the 'teacher'.

If subconscious effects have to now be taken into account, your posts become a lot more risky. — Isaac

As I said, I do take into consideration the kind of person I'm talking to. I wouldn't discuss this way with someone who strikes me as being easily influenced.

I can't help feeling all of this is a very long winded post-hoc way round the fact that your posts are fine because you have good intentions. You're not trying to hurt people and you're not trying to use them for your own gain, so it's fine that you post the way you do. doesn't that just seem simpler? — Isaac

I mean, you interjected in my conversation with someone else and are showering me with questions. You're of course welcome to do so, but I'm not sure why you're turning this into something I'm trying to do, all of a sudden. :chin:

Yes, but intent is not enough. You sell yourself short. You do persuade. and unless you've been living in a cave for your adult life, you'll know that when you present arguments as you do here, they sometimes persuade. — Isaac

What I'm doing isn't persuading, at least not in the way I've characterized it. I'm conversing and exchanging ideas with people on a voluntary basis.

Sometimes that changes people's minds, but the form such interactions take matters, which is why I make the distinction.

Sure. But immoral. That's your claim. A moral action is good in both intent and outcome. Intent alone isn't enough. so any act of conversation which actually does persuade someone (even if you intended it not to) is immoral because it's had the effect of meddling in their affairs. — Isaac

That is not a claim I make though, nor do I claim that any act that changes someone's mind is immoral.

Note also that I have shared my view on what constitutes a moral act, not on what constitutes an immoral act, and I believe the two don't function exactly the same.

You said earlier that non-horizontal dialogue was one which assumes the correctness of one's own position and the incorrectness of the other's — Isaac

Non-horizontal dialogue is one in which one party expresses their views, and the other party simply listens and accepts or is not allowed to express their views, or their views aren't taken seriously. This usually means the former assumes the correctness of their position, and the incorrectness of the other, which is why I said persuasion seems to imply non-horizontal dialogue. The act of persuading someone is typified by a strong belief that one's own belief is better than the other's, no?

Horizontal dialogue on the other hand is typified by openness and respect.

I can respect you and still think you're wrong, I hope. — Isaac

Respect me as a person, perhaps. But I don't think you can respect my views while simultaneously believing them to be categorically wrong.

How is teaching a child morals different from teaching them language, or maths, or history, or biology...? — Isaac

There isn't necessarily a distinction, and the same thing applies (though, in subjects that teach tools rather than views it seems less relevant). The nature and shape of the student-teacher relationship therefore is of great importance, because it too implies a non-horizontal relationship.

But people can tun off the TV, no? If we're concerned about the subconscious, then your posts here have more to worry about than their general persuasiveness. There's a whole slew of subconscious messages they might be conveying. Again taking intent and effect. — Isaac

People 'can' turn off the TV, but also for various reasons they won't, even when they probaby should.

And I wouldn't have these types of conversations with people who cannot push back against my ideas.

So yes, such things should be taken into account.

The argument... ... seems to be trying to persuade me of a position you think is right. Is that then unethical? — Isaac

I'm not trying to persuade you, or anyone on TPF. My purpose here is testing my views, and looking for interesting insights that I may have failed to recognize.

In the example I gave I could simply be 'thinking' the man greedy and happening to vocalise what I think. — Isaac

If there is truly no intention to meddle, this belongs to the realm of tragedy and ignorance. Unfortunate, but no one is perfect.

I think in general we ought to be thoughtful in how our actions can affect others.

How would you know it was unwelcome in advance? — Isaac

You can't. But a thoughtful approach will ensure no major damage be done until one can discern whether their involvement is appreciated.

What kind of action do you think people ought take to ensure their efforts are not unwelcome? — Isaac

Horizontal dialogue, for example, which is characterized by respect for the other's view point.

Any and all moral declarations attempting to influence others will take place during some voluntary conversation. — Isaac

I don't think so.

One example would be how many moral 'lessons' take place when one is still a child - when one's brain isn't fully developed and one doesn't really possess the tools to give any pushback to the ideas that are being presented.

Another could be how people are repeatedly exposed to moral messages, in the news, in media, in commercials, etc. A lot of this may even take place subconsciously. I would argue that the nature of those things isn't exactly voluntary.

I'm not yet seeing the difference you're trying to get at between a forum like this and any other normal conversation. — Isaac

A normal conversation would be subject to the same criteria, though is generally a lot more personal (and thus powerful) in nature.

If we imagine some type of philosophy conference where people come to express their views and listen to those of others, I would regard it the same as what we're doing here on this forum. People engage voluntarily, and know the nature of what they're participating in.

When people voluntarily join in the exercise of sharing and discussing views, this is of course not meddling.

Now that the dust has settled, perhaps it's a good time to evaluate the balance of power in the conflict.

The last months have been marked by the long-awaited Ukrainian offensive. That offensive seems to have now concluded, with the result being what many had already expected - minor gains for Ukraine, but no real strategic impact as they were unable to pierce Russian defensive lines.

My sense is that this offensive was a failure in all ways but one. The one upside being that this offensive can be used for a long time to come as proof that Ukraine is still capable of launching offensives, and therefore is not yet defeated on the battlefield.

The veracity of such a view is questionable, considering the offensive was essentially a complete failure, but nonetheless it may function as a source of hopium for those who prefer not to face the facts, which seems to describe most of the western political top.


My prediction is that Russia will take over the initiative once Ukraine's offensive has completely halted, and once again will start offensive operations as we have seen in the past.

Depending the degree to which Ukraine's offensive has exhausted Ukrainian reserve capacity, the Russians may push for territory more aggressively than in the past, or if resistance remains fierce might opt for a more Bakhmut-style approach of grinding attritional warfare with artillery and other types of indirect strikes.


Mearsheimer seems quite confident that the Russians still intend to push for large amounts of extra territory, so there's a prediction we can come back to to test Mearsheimer's views in the future.


NATO's response in the Vilnius Summit has been quite telling - basically a clear 'no' with regards to NATO membership for Ukraine as long as the war continues, which suggests heavily that NATO is not looking to get more military involved than it already is.

As I predicted in this thread a long time ago, without direct NATO involvement Ukraine will continue to lose more and more as time goes on. It simply lacks the military capacity.


Lastly, the Prigozhin episode has been quite interesting. It's still hard to tell what exactly went on, but a few weeks back I noted it's probably best evaluated by the effect it has on the battlefield. From what I can tell, so far there have been little to no effects, and things developed pretty much how one would expect.

My sense therefore is that it probably was a rather fool-hardly attempt by Prigozhin to protest against the top military brass, and subsequently this was oversold by the media in the hopes that it would weaken Putin, which it probably has in some ways, but not enough to have an impact on the war from what I'm able to tell.

What is it about these that you find 'non-kosher'? — Isaac

Their forceful nature.

Genuine being...? I assume if I want to persuade you to give more to charity, my intention is as genuine as if you want to persuade me to meddle less? — Isaac

Persuasion seems to assume the correctness of one's own position and the incorrectness of the other's, which in itself seems to imply non-horizontal dialogue.

If I make a law out of the conviction that to do such is a moral good, my intention is genuine. If I make a law with as my goal personal gain, or out of a desire to control, a desire to hurt, etc. my intention is not genuine.

I see a wealthy person and say "it's really greedy of you to keep all your wealth, children are starving!"

You see a meddling person (for example me, in the above situation) and say "you didn't ought meddle in that man's affairs, it's up to him what to do with his money, morality is about personal virtue, not imposing on others" (or something like that).

Are we still both on a par? Have I crossed a line yet in my intervention which you haven't crossed in yours? — Isaac

That's not really something I would say, though.

I may think something along those lines (and of course here on this forum, I write down what I think), but the meddling only happens when there's an unwelcome effort to influence someone.

Similarly, I wouldn't accuse you or anyone else of meddling just because they post their thoughts on a forum.

Wouldn't the same be true for almost all moralising? Very rarely do the would-be moralisers herd people at gunpoint into rooms before speaking. [...] I can't think of many examples where people are forced to listen to moral arguments. — Isaac

I think a lot of moralising falls into the meddling category, though certainly not all, and there are plenty of cases in which the responsibility lies with oneself to leave the conversation.

A gun isn't necessary though, since individuals can be forceful in non-physical ways.
Think for example of applying social pressure, using misleading rhetorical devices, non-horizontal dialogue, etc.

These are all common, non-kosher ways of discussing morality.

Then there is morality that's implicit in law, which is applied through the threat of violence ('at gunpoint').

And of course, if the intention isn't genuine this is also a problem, and I would argue that's the case for a lot of moralising too.

But you've previously argued that morality is not solely about intent. If the result of your posting here is that I'm persuaded to act other than I would have, then you've meddled in my affairs. You might not have intended to, but you've previously denied that as a credible excuse. — Isaac

Nor is it solely about effect.

But since you are here, interacting and reading my messages voluntarily, there's no meddling taking place. Meddling has an unwelcome quality to it, do you agree?

If by some fluke you are on this forum against your will, and find my arguments most compelling for reasons that have nothing to do with their merit, then that would be tragic.

One does well to avoid tragedy, but such is the nature of tragedy. Sometimes one does ill unintentionally.

I'm not seeing how morality alone 'meddles' in the affairs of others in this way. — Isaac

I didn't mean to imply that it did. I believe it's a common pitfall, but not an inherent one.

I can see a way in which strong social approbation might 'meddle', but that doesn't seem any different to what you're attempting here (trying to 'meddle' in other people's affairs in getting them to stop 'meddling' in other people's affairs).

If your arguments are persuasive, then you have undeniably 'meddled'. If I'm persuaded, I will stop the meddling I would have otherwise done, you have meddled with how my affairs would otherwise have progressed. — Isaac

I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing anything, nor am I attempting to persuade.

This is a discussion forum. People come here voluntarily to discuss their ideas, so there is no meddling, only voluntary interaction.

:pray:

______________________________

Yes, but also and increasingly because there is a strong strand of secular morality which attempts to eschew traditional forms of morality, and even goes so far as to try to undermine normative behavior claims altogether. From this flows the idea that to call something immoral or wrong is passé. Surely this is rooted in the resentment you speak of, but it has become a force unto itself which shapes moral inclinations. Many now deem it mildly immoral to accuse someone of having done something wrong, and in some cases even the private judgment of wrongness is censured. In consequence we see the attempt to have it both ways: to have personal moral standards while at the same time professing that these standards are in no way applied to others. — Leontiskos

This is a rather uncharitable representation of those who follow a personal moral code, and one which I cannot agree with.

The focus of the sage on self-cultivation is as old as philosophy itself, and perhaps older. We can judge by the nature of their behavior (asceticism, isolation, etc.) and writings that these were in fact genuine motivations towards self-cultivation, and not attempts to 'have it both ways.'

What may make this disposition appear threatening to some, is that it avoids the common pitfall of using notions of morality as a means to meddle in the affairs of others, and it disarms those who would.

All I can say is that charlatans are praised the world over. I generally find bias to be healthy, it is good to think of oneself well. But in terms of understanding the world, it's ideal to exclude oneself from the analysis. I'd like to think I can do it, but I can see that neither intelligence nor wisdom makes one immune to being fooled, and so I know that in all probability, I'm not immune either. — Judaka

Not starting on such a worthwhile endeavor as the search for wisdom and moral virtue, on the off chance one may fall for a charlatan, seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, no?

I think in general charlatans prey on the fickle of mind. A modicum of scrutiny is enough to sniff such characters out.

You're right, but I have no faith in "us", ... — Judaka

A bit grim, but ok.

Systems that put no faith in people's ability to discern right from wrong tend to gravitate towards total control. Just something to think about.

Moral behaviour is behaviour that is moral, no? — Judaka

In my view, a moral act must consist of both a good action and a good intention.

How does coercing someone into behaving morally not create a facade? Whenever the coercion stops, or wherever it isn't present, the person will inevitably fall back into their immoral ways.

Ideal governance involves anti-corruption bodies, and legal agencies, who do not have the same incentives as the officials they're monitoring. Accountability is circular, not top-down, and this is crucial.
Nobody should be trusted to act morally, we should never rely on self-accountability.

It's important also to remember, while within the moral context, we could "agree" to do away with power, that's never going to happen in reality. The existence of power must be assumed, and so, besides circular accountability, there is only self-accountability, and I have no faith in that.

Even if we could know the moral paragons, the selection bias for who has power isn't based on that. It'd be easy to, within the moral context, say "Well, we shouldn't allow that", but this is again, overreaching. Morality doesn't govern the world, those with influence, wealth, and power, aren't selected by their goodness, and that should also be an assumption we have to make. Thus, self-accountability can't be relied upon, you know those with power will not be moral paragons, and often, those with power are the ones you least want to have it. Those without moral scruples, choose the optimal route to power and thus outperform the ones with a strong moral conscience. — Judaka

This is essentially my message, with which I intended to show that coercing people into behaving 'morally' doesn't really solve anything.

It puts power in the hands of people who by any means shouldn't be wielding it, and puts those same people in a position where they're above the coercion.

Ideally there should be 'checks & balances', but one glance at the world we live in will show you what that looks like in practice. That's no surprise - the people in power don't want to be checked and balanced, and they will find ways of avoiding it. They have the power, after all.

You're quite right that this is a situation we cannot change. All the more reason to focus on oneself!

Even if there were such moral paragons, we wouldn't be able to sort them from the charlatans. — Judaka

Oh, come on! That's easy!

Are you telling me you are afraid that in your quest for wisdom you'd fall for some charlatan's trap? I think you're selling yourself short.

[...] those who would actually sacrifice their personal ambitions, their goals, their livelihoods, and their freedom, for moral purposes, are a rare breed. — Judaka

If doing Good were easy, we'd all be doing it. We look up to people with a virtuous character precisely because of those things you mentioned. And it's up to us whether we follow their example.

When acting morally is by far the best choice, due to being incentivised, and a lack of benefit in alternatives, then you get moral behaviour. — Judaka

No, you get a facade of moral behavior. The immoral behavior will then take place in the shadows, or on a level where accountability no longer exists.

The question here is whether it's possible to coerce a society into behavior morally. I would say that it isn't, simply because someone has to do the coercing, and that happens at a level where there is no (real) accountability. And it's at that level the new immorality will manifest, while the rest of the people are simply oppressed into said facade.

For example, someone might erroneously believe that nation states manage to successfully coerce their societies into behaving morally. However, since there is no one to coerce nation states, the immorality is simply elevated to that level, and nation states get up to all kinds of immoral behavior!

Giving someone the ability to benefit from acting immorally, and then trusting them to avoid that temptation, it's dangerous. — Judaka

Certainly, which kind of begs the question why we put our lot in the hands of politicians. But that's really beyond my ability and desire to change.

It helps others to act morally because it influences their decision-making. — Judaka

Would it? If I were indeed 'enforcing', then I would simply be coercing them into a facade of morality. They wouldn't reap any benefits, because they act 'morally' out of fear, and not as a result of actual virtue they possess.

In addition, I think coercion is immoral to begin with, so I'll just have to respectfully disagree.

If ignoring immoral behaviour was the norm, it would encourage it. — Judaka

On the contrary, I think 'turning the other cheek' is a very powerful message. And most importantly, a message that doesn't require immoral behavior on one's own part.

I am describing my own views, but I feel uncomfortable advocating them to others since as I said, I'm interested in imposing my views, not having others impose on me. That's where the politics begin, as is inevitable. — Judaka

Is it inevitable? You seem aware of your own somewhat contradictory stance with regards to imposing, so what's stopping you from simply resolving the contradiction?

To reiterate, though the primary beneficiaries of a patriarchal society are men, they are not men in general. As@180 Proof pointed out, patriarchy (as I conceive it, simply a society dominated by masculine values) funnels wealth and power to a small cadre of a particular type who happen to be men, but theoretically could be of either sex. And the solution is not to eliminate competition or demonize men or masculine values but to recognize that the way we understand our interrelationships is infused with an arbitrary self-justifying way of looking at things that, I would argue, is deficient and in some senses destructive. — Baden

As I've posted before, I think competition is much better understood as a result of the dynamics of power, something which all living beings are subjected to as a result of a basic drive for survival.

Why is it so important that this human flaw be labeled as 'masculine'?

Although your thoughts are almost the opposite of how I think about morality, I do respect your stance. — Judaka

Likewise, and I appreciate the discussion.

As you said, our views seem to be contrary, so I will not spend too much time pointing out differences, so instead a question:

We can't wait for moral paragons to guide us, ... — Judaka

Why not?

History is full of moral paragons, and a lot of them have written things that are quite consistent with one another. The problem is that most have no real desire to follow their example!

What's your opinion on the need for accountability & enforcement? — Judaka

As flawed as I am, I do not feel like it is my place to hold others accountable, or to enforce my views of morality on others.

What purpose would it serve?

What compromises are you willing to make for them and how do they violate your moral principles? — Judaka

The short answer is 'none'.

... , if you come in with the claim that what those kind of people are espousing is misandry, you end up behaving like one of their tropes. — fdrake

I don't care if people resent me for calling out their bullshit.

None of my comments were directed at you personally, but at some of the people whose opinions you shared. Nor was this an appeal to have you moderated.

But, as they say, "If the shoe fits..."

Even though these types of subjects aren't my cup of tea, I can actually sympathize with a few of the criticisms that are expressed here. Society certainly isn't perfect, and if there are archaic modes of behavior that cause widespread suffering they should be adressed.

If such criticisms are expressed with some wisdom and nuance, obviously I would not consider that man-hating.

However, some people seem to slip into these sorts of discussions and take it as a carte blanche to vent their personal grievances with men on the rest of the world. Suddenly gestures of genuine affection become symbols of male oppression, and fatherhood becomes a means of enacting a power fantasy (as per one of the articles that was linked earlier).

Such ideas are vile, destructive and sexist.

In any other context they would be immediately recognized as such, but here they seem to get a pass just because there might be some merit to the wider discussion. And they shouldn't.

When I see things like this going repeatedly unchallenged, I feel the need to speak up.

white people as a class — T Clark

black people as a class — T Clark

How is this way of thinking not inherently racist?

I'm a good liberal with close black friends and I see it in myself. They do too and some of them tell me about it. — T Clark

Sounds like you need some better friends.

I don't see what you're not getting, it's quite simple.

Some men oppress some women, but not all men, and nothing about their being men has anything necessarily to do with it, and some of the people doing the oppressing are women, and some of the oppressed are men, and some of the men doing the oppressing it turns out are really women, and some of the women who were oppressed it turns are really men depending on how they're feeling that day.

But the important thing to remember is that it's the patriarchy.

Beware of the trap a lesser mind might fall into of just thinking that humans ought not oppress other humans and the best way of identifying victims is by their actually being, you know, victims, rather than by using chromosomes or skin colour which are obviously much better metrics.

Hope that helps. — Isaac

I'm glad I can always count on you, , to shed light on things. :wink: :ok:

I'll blame that on your shoddy quoting.

You are a careful reader. Tzeentch is not. — Amity

Careful reading isn't going to make the sexism any less obvious. :lol:

Maybe if I read this type of garbage often and carefully enough I'll start to rationalize it too.

No, she doesn't. Perhaps read the whole article. — Amity

Yes, she literally does.

I understand your sentiment, but can you make the argument that connects Mirren's statements with a hatred of men? — Moliere

The fact that she takes fatherhood and equates it to "sop offered as compensation for not having real power".

Spare me any apologetics. If you don't condemn this type of blatant sexism for what it is, I have nothing more to say to you.

There's scarcely a sentence in the quoted sections that isn't overtly sexist.

Note how Mirren literally says that men are 'offered their families as sop'.

Disgusting.

And what's worse is that, apparently, there are people with a functioning(?) brain who see nothing wrong with a statement such as that one.

I guess her pushback against the sexism she encountered along her varied and fascinating life, made her what she is today. — Amity

She became what she hated. What a winner. :clap:

Helen Mirren's views are obviously misandrist in nature. It's quite disgusting, honestly, to see this kind of blatant sexism posted in newspapers and here on a philosophy forum, without getting the pushback it deserves.

Most moral ideals entail an emphasis that calls or obliges them to act. To stand by, to focus only ever inwardly, it's unusual. — Judaka

Wanting to do good is easy. Doing harm is easy. But doing Good is difficult.

The inward focus is an acknowledgement of that. It's an act of humility.

Do you think your approach would be possible for one in a position of power? Or do you see power as inherently incompatible with your approach? — Judaka

Excellent question.

I don't have a definitive view on this. My sense is that wielding power over others inherently implies non-consensuality and forcefulness (to impose one's will upon another), and therefore implies harm.

Further, I share the common belief that power corrupts, and that the dynamics of power have an innate tendency to bring out the worst in people. So any person walking the spiritual path should tread carefully.


Perhaps it is possible to hold public office or a position of leadership, assuming the ties one has to one's followers are ones of genuine voluntariness. Needless to say, one must also be prepared to give up such a position as soon as it is no longer compatible with one's principles.


I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, but the question you pose is central to the character Liu Bei from the Chinese classic Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

To make a long story short, Liu Bei is an imperial scion, who for a large portion of the book wanders ancient China with a handful of retainers and troops, as everywhere he manages to establish himself he is eventually forced to choose between holding onto power and holding onto his principles.

Morality is inherently social. When you say "X thing is wrong", are you saying it for just yourself, or in general? If you're being honest, then you'll admit it's the latter. — Judaka

As I've tried to point out in my earlier replies to you, this is not necessarily true.

That the ignorant masses subconsciously use morality as a guise to fulfill a base desire for power while maintaining a good conscience, is not necessarily relevant to philosophical discussions.

If we look at the views of history's sages, wisemen and philosophers we find that many of them view morality as first and foremost a personal endeavor marked by the cultivation of virtue.


For example, Plato describes in the Republic how it is better to be a just man who is seen by society as unjust, than an unjust man who is seen by society as just.

The implication here is quite a fundamental one; to be just is its own reward, and to be unjust its own punishment.

In the eyes of Plato, the Good (capital 'G') is what all men desire. Therefore the unjust man is only sabotaging himself in his quest for Goodness, despite his reputation among other men which ultimately counts for nothing.

The just man in turn would best serve his own interest by maintaining his virtuous conduct, regardless of the punishments society seeks to enact upon him.

In my view, ideas about morality make little sense without this understanding. We find similar views in Buddhism, Taoism and Chinese philosophy, Christianity, etc.

The central message: worry first and foremost about one's own virtue, and let others worry about theirs.


If one doesn't embody moral virtue, it is hypocritical to lecture others. Once one does, it is superfluous.

Depending on the particular vaccine batch, individuals may have been exposed to a risk of adverse effects as high as 1/20, a Danish study concludes.

How can your moral code just be to act morally and ignore the world around you, save for "leading by example"? How is that possible. — Judaka

I think one ought to be careful in meddling in the worlds' affairs, and be critical of one's own ability to change things for the better. Carelessness in this regard leads to more harm than good.

'Ignore' isn't the word I would use - 'accept' seems better.

Accepting that the world is and will remain a flawed place, and accepting that one's ability to have a positive influence is exceedingly limited, and one's ability to do harm through forceful meddling is much greater.

It is limited largely because of one's own flaws. Recognizing one's flaws and limitations is what humility is, and humility should awaken one to the fact that if they wish to change the world for the better, they needn't look beyond themselves - 'put one's own house in order first.'

When you ask, "how is that possible?", I'm inclined to reply: how could there be any other way?

Common human values imply something unchanging, no?

And when those values are examined they are almost certainly tied to a belief about objective moral truth - a rational thought process which explains the value.

Further, why wouldn't the stoning of criminals for petty crimes be considered a common human value? It was common in history. We see similar practices today in certain parts of the world.

So apparently there's also a heirarchy that determines whether a certain value belongs in the 'common human value' category or not.

I suspect that stoning people does not belong in the 'common human value' category because it violates an underlying value, which is the hidden objective moral truth upon which one's idea of common human value is based.

Moral disputes are routinely couched in appeals to common human values. — ChrisH

Pointing towards something like common human values in my view implies objectivism.

Assuming moral relativism, morality is a matter of opinion.

And even if one agrees or disagrees with a certain opinion, it doesn't make it any more or less valid as a moral view.

E.g. if people believe stoning someone to death for a minor crime is moral, it is. A moral relativist has no grounds to say that it isn't.

If all moral views are equally valid, the idea that one ranks their views above others already starts to raise some question marks.

But let's assume one answers in the affirmative.

The obvious follow-up question would be, by what metric?

This creates an interesting problem. Any appeals to objectivity are off the table as it would imply objectivism. I wonder if one could answer that question in a way that isn't circular.

Excuse me, but if one wants to persuade others, doesn't one have to believe their views are better than the other's? :chin:

You appear to to take the view that moral relativism entails normative moral relativism - the view that moral relativism implies that we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards. — ChrisH

What I said was that moral relativism makes morality meaningless. It turns morality into a buzzword that is used to make one's opinions sound more authoritative than they, by one's own confession, really are.

Most moral relativists hold that it is perfectly reasonable (and practical) for a person or group to defend their subjective values against others, ... — ChrisH

That's an open door, isn't it? If everything can be moral, then it is exceedingly easy to defend one's subjective values.

I invited you to present an argument that 1. isn't moral relativism, and 2. makes a distinction between personal and collective (group) morality.

If I understand correctly that is your position, since you mentioned you weren't a moral relativist, but do make said distinction.

I'm a bit skeptical as to whether that can be formed into a coherent argument, which is what I (perhaps clumsily) have been trying to express to you.

I thought I'd clearly said I didn't think they were the same? — ChrisH

Well, I don't think trying to distinguish between personal and collective morality is going to lead to a very coherent argument. This is what I tried to make clear in my first response to you. But have at it.

What those arguments tend to boil down to is that when many people believe a thing, it is moral. When a person believes a thing it is personal opinion.

I think that holds no water.

They're either all personal opinions (moral relativism), or they're all subject to objective moral 'laws' that human can try to discover (in which case there's no distinction).

The first describes any value/opinion/preference broadly encompassed by what is generally agreed to be the human activity, morality.

The second (the usage you're using I think), is "moral" as shorthand for morally good/permitted. — ChrisH

If morality is "opinions that one believes ought to be adopted by everyone", then having such opinions is moral in and of itself, no?

If morality is relative, then "morally good/permitted" is a tautology. Any moral opinions one holds (i.e. opinions that one believes ought to be adopted by everyone) are morally permitted.

It simply doesn't make sense to ask if their values are moral in the second sense without specifics. — ChrisH

Indeed, but if one holds a moral relativist view, the specifics cannot matter.

The reason all of this might sound confusing, is because moral relativism makes the term 'morality' become meaningless (and therefore it makes little sense, in my view). That's the point I'm trying to get across.

Isn't that what happens now? — ChrisH

Often times yes. An unfortunate state of affairs to be sure!

Only if you believe that what ever is imposed is "right". I don't. — ChrisH

But then it makes no sense to believe morality, personal or collective, are aesthetic preferences.

For me, the crucial distinction is that moral values are those values we wish to see adopted by others. — ChrisH

That's fine, I suppose.

However, if this indeed is the crucial distinction then it doesn't get us very far. There are many groups who have views on which values ought to be adopted by others.

Many such groups are terribly destructive.

Is what they are doing moral?

Based on what you've provided, I think you'll have to answer in the positive.


Personally, I'm not a moral relativist. I think morality loses all its meaning when it is viewed through moral relativism and you simply end up with morality being whatever the strongest group manages to impose on the rest of the people - "might makes right."

What I was attempting to say was that a personal morality that doesn't seek to influence others is not, in my view, really a morality - it's aesthetic preference. My understanding is that it's the intention to influence others which distinguishes moral values and aesthetic preferences — ChrisH

Assuming a moral relativist view, any and all notions of morality are nothing but personal fancy (aesthetic preference), and the only question is who gets to impose their personal fancies on other people; "might makes right."

Assuming a non-relativist view, morality is, regardless of what people believe (e.g. Plato's 'the Good'). It's neither personal nor collective. It's up to us to discover, which is what a lot of philosophy, religion and spiritual practice have dedicated themselves to.

Ask yourself why it is so important to prove me wrong? Because your criticisms are getting desperate and feeble. — unenlightened

No need for posturing. You're posting your views for others to engage with, and you can stop engaging with mine any time you like.

DNA analysis is a rather recent option. Society is not therefore built around it. — unenlightened

In what sort of timeframe can we expect men to wisen up to the fact that the answer to their thousands-year-old struggle has finally arrived?

And this is what we find around the world, that polyandry is very very rare. — unenlightened

It's in fact not rare at all among history's female rulers.

It turns out that people who have power will use it to collect the objects of their desire.

... and this is the beginning of the induction of rape culture, ... — unenlightened

The idea of 'rape culture' is nonsensical for reasons I have already explained. The sentences and social repercussions are harsh. Even being suspected and/or acquitted of rape can ruin one's life or encourage people to take the law into their own hands.

It's one of the few crimes for which "innocent until proven guilty" does not seem to apply. It all implies the exact opposite of what you're arguing.

Familial relations are not based on sex at all, in contrast to the patriarchal nuclear family which is founded and maintained entirely by the sexual relationship of mother and father. — unenlightened

I think the nuclear family is maintained by a shared responsibility for the well-being of the offspring.

It's difficult to imagine how one arrives at this pitch-black image of modern male-female relationships you espouse, but it does start to paint a picture.

The main point of going through all this is to emphasise that matriarchy is not at all a mirror image of patriarchy. We can argue about whether it might be better or worse in all sorts of ways from different points of view, but the main difficulty for people is to understand the necessities of the patriarchy that prevails at present, and take seriously the possibility of other ways of organising society. — unenlightened

Matriarchy, like patriarchy, is about heirarchy. Heirarchy is about domination, and domination is about power, and therefore subject to the dynamics of power (which I will argue are the actual drivers behind human society).

We can imagine all sorts of ways to organize society, but societies tend to organize in ways that are dictated by necessity. When societies forego necessity for idealism that's called decadence (which historically preceded collapse).

Physical security has been the necessity that has dictated the structure of society for the past millennia.

During the era of industrialisation and mass warfare, physical security started to encompass the entirety of society, which also started to include women on a large scale. This is the mechanism through which we have arrived at today's situation of equality.

A matriarchy will only happen when the balance flips the other way, and women become more important to physical security than men.