A Thought Experiment (2 Viewers)

[Fred]

Absolutely.



Not that particular case because incest isn't common. Homosexuality on the other hand is, for instance.

What if it becomes common.?

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

So how do you reconcile moral conflicts? One person says "this is immoral", the other says "this is not immoral and I should be able to do it", what do you do about it? Whose intuition should we base our judgment on? The first person? The second? Or mine, the observer's?

That's just the problem with ethical relativism. If ethical relativism exists, then it would be pointless to resolve moral conflicts because neither position maintains any absolute truth.

 

[Dinsdale]

Basing moral judgements on intuitions are not as detrimental as you think. Who's to say that our very intuition is not more reliable than our concious mind in making moral decisions? Afterall, what we conciously do or think is merely a product of enviormental, evolutionary and perhaps genetic factors. There is absolutely no reason to think that the world would indeed be a better place if we all relied on rational thought to base our moral judgements.

There are numerous examples in history where basing moral judgement on intuition led to horrible consequences, especially during the Middle Ages. You can probably think of a few dozens.

 

[Alen]

Unlike Muhammed's opinion.

 

[Dinsdale]

What if it becomes common.?

Then not condemning those people would indeed make the world a better place.

We could also lynch them of course, if you think that's a better option.

 

[rounder]

Because rational analysis is something we can discuss. "This is wrong because of X". And another person says "no, you're making a mistake" and we can eventually reach a consensus, if we can agree to set aside our personal taste and focus on what is objectively true. If we rely on our instincts alone there is no discussion and no consensus possible.

But I thought objective morality does not exist. A consensus is impossible when it comes to ethical relativism, there isn't any reason why Al-Qaeda is not more moral than the United Nations. It only makes sense to reach a consensus if an absolute truth exists.

 

[rounder]

There are numerous examples in history where basing moral judgement on intuition led to horrible consequences, especially during the Middle Ages. You can probably think of a few dozens.

Was Hitler really being irrational?

 

[Martin]

But I thought objective morality does not exist. A consensus is impossible when it comes to ethical relativism, there isn't any reason why Al-Qaeda is not more moral than the United Nations. It only makes sense to reach a consensus if an absolute truth exists.

If an absolute truth exists then it is obvious and there need be no discussion because everyone knows what the answer is. In the same way that noone is debating whether 2+2 really equals 4. This is obviously not the case with morality since moral conflicts are a huge part of history.

The fact that there is no objective moral truth doesn't mean we can't come to a consensus amongst each other about what values we want to promote and make up rules that promote those values.

 

[Stephan]

Hitler wasnt born in Middle Ages.

 

[Dinsdale]

Because rational analysis is something we can discuss. "This is wrong because of X". And another person says "no, you're making a mistake" and we can eventually reach a consensus, if we can agree to set aside our personal taste and focus on what is objectively true. If we rely on our instincts alone there is no discussion and no consensus possible.

Exactly. Discussing = rationalizing. There is simply no other productive way.

But I thought objective morality does not exist. A consensus is impossible when it comes to ethical relativism, there isn't any reason why Al-Qaeda is not more moral than the United Nations. It only makes sense to reach a consensus if an absolute truth exists.

Other meaning of objective in his context.

 

[Dinsdale]

Was Hitler really being irrational?

Hmm let's see. Can you rationalize that helping Jews is immoral?




What have we gotten ourselves into, Martin?

 

[Fred]

Then not condemning those people would indeed make the world a better place.

We could also lynch them of course, if you think that's a better option.

Wait, then shouldn't the same be applied to women wearing the Hijab? I mean certainly muslim women wearing Hihab are more common than gay people(at least statistically). Doesn't that mean we shouldn't condemn them too?


As for your second statement. Thats a low blow, one that i didn't think was in you

 

[Martin]

Hmm let's see. Can you rationalize that helping Jews is immoral?




What have we gotten ourselves into, Martin?

Rev likes Godwin's law I guess. In any case I think the objective morality stuff is beaten to death because he and I have very different ideas about what is logical.

 

[C4ISR]

From an evolutionary perspective, if all humans inbred, we would not have evolved into what we are today. Our survival depends on a diverse gene pool. If we all inbred, our species would not have lasted this long, and if it did, we wouldn't be nearly as advanced.

With that in mind, inbreeding is inherently wrong. Whether it is immoral depends on the person, so there is no universal answer.

 

[Alen]

How many human pairs there were some 50-60-70-80 000 years ago?
I mean, wasn't there a time when there were only 100 pairs in the world. Mating between close relatives was probably happening left and right.

So maybe if brothers didn't make their sisters pregnant, the human race wasn't going to be today what it is

 

[C4ISR]

How many human pairs there were some 50-60-70-80 000 years ago?
I mean, wasn't there a time when there were only 100 pairs in the world. Mating between close relatives was probably happening left and right.

So maybe if brothers didn't make their sisters pregnant, the human race wasn't going to be today what it is

Seriously though, just compare the brain of humans 100,000+ years ago, when they were all banging their brother/sister, to our brains today.

 

[Alen]

Seriously though, just compare the brain of humans 100,000+ years ago, when they were all banging their brother/sister, to our brains today.

You think that if they weren't banging their sisters we were going to be much more advanced right now?
You and i could have had this conversation somewhere on another galaxy.

 

[C4ISR]

You think that if they weren't banging their sisters we were going to be much more advanced right now?
You and i could have had this conversation somewhere on another galaxy.

That is a very interesting point. I never thought of it that way. For arguments sake though, yes. Our brains wouldn't be nearly as complex. I cant remember the exact regions of the brain, but they werent nearly as developed a long ass time ago, or if you go back far enough, didn't exist. Regardless, it would have been impossible not to inbreed though because there wasn't enough variety.

We are what we are today because inbreeding was slowly weeded out. Of course there were many other major factors as well. Just look at how advanced we are today compared to 200 years ago. Our brains were exactly the same than as they are now, yet knowledge has exploded over the last few centuries.

 

[Martin]

I don't get how you make this argument. If inbreeding was common then, and ruined our gene pool by promoting regressive genes, then how did we achieve this gene variety later on?

 

[C4ISR]

I don't get how you make this argument. If inbreeding was common then, and ruined our gene pool by promoting regressive genes, then how did we achieve this gene variety later on?

I suppose because it was slowly eliminated over the hundreds of thousands of years in between, but you're right. I cannot explain y our gene pool grew to be more diverse over millennia.

It is a bit coincidental though that our brains are far more advanced now than they were when inbreeding was the sole means for families to grow.

Of course, learning to hunt, communicate, sing, draw, etc also contributed significantly to the development of the brain (probably even more so than inbreeding), but considering the prevalence of numerous diseases and disorders are much higher amongst inbred children, I like to think that the taboo of inbreeding is not just social, which is the topic of this thread considering were talking about morality.