Ideology is nothing but post-rationalization

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

Uninformed crap

I'll respond to your posts when you bother to read mine.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
While I think it has been all but proven that genetics have no influence on values

Think that all you want. It isn't true.

Humans are extremely unlikely to "feel" positively about something that does not promote their personal interests and desires.

I'm gonna assume you're not into the Objectivist definition of self-interest, but some more common sense notion of interests.

Your claim is empirically false and theoretically untenable. Selfish genes and all that. Natural selection simply doesn't select for egoism on the individual level.

(I suppose you might accept Whaleboy's notion of identifying individual self-interest with reproductive success of one's genes. That's too idiotic to address, however.)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
While I think it has been all but proven that genetics have no influence on values, in that humans of differing genetic stock inserted at birth into foreign cultures develop the values of that culture.

The fact that those human values that are genetic are also universal does not mean they aren't genetic. Try again.

[The Mad Viking]

KH, poor style. I did read your posts. Sorry if it doesn't seem like I'm responding to them.

So, how do you know you can trust how you feel? Why do you feel the way you do? Don't you think serial killers develop their moral code based on how they feel? Why does how you feel about a moral code make it the best for everyone else?

[KrazyHorse]

You obviously didn't understand them then.

[Az]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


And your answer to that is to take a poll, apparently.

Just like everything else, this reasoning requires axioms. Only if everyone discussing the matter agrees on them, there is a point to the debate. Same thing here. Great strawmaning from now on, btw.

Huh? What? WTF are you on about. Who cares if most people disagree with them? If I agree with them then they'll form the basis of my morality. And just why the hell should I agree with them? Because of how I feel about them.

Yes - but it depends on what you agree - If your axioms a clear-cut ethical questions on themselves, it makes for a meaningless argument. However, if your axiom is something observable, then it's different.


Actually, taking a poll in isn't such a bad idea -

Since ethics, purpose, etc. have any meaning only within the human condition - asking humans about it makes as much sense as just each and everyone going with their own feeling on this axiom. However, this poll must be made in a non-forceful enviroment - in which people's minds aren't under the control of other people.

[Kuciwalker]

So, how do you know you can trust how you feel?

Trust it to do what?

Why do you feel the way you do?

Biology.

Don't you think serial killers develop their moral code based on how they feel?

Yes.

Why does how you feel about a moral code make it the best for everyone else?

Because I'm right and my code involves, in some cases, imposing it on others.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az

Just like everything else, this reasoning requires axioms. Only if everyone discussing the matter agrees on them, there is a point to the debate. Same thing here. Great strawmaning from now on, btw.

I don't understand what you're saying. Be more specific. Are you or are you not suggesting that the method to determine the validity of basic moral truths consists of group consensus?

[Az]

I don't understand what you're saying. Be more specific. Are you or are you not suggesting that the method to determine the validity of basic moral truths consists of group consensus?

I am saying that before partaking in any debate whatsoever, a consensus must be reached on the axioms, the 'rules' of the debate, the goals, etc. Your poll answer has actually inspired me into some more thinking in that area - so this idea is sort of half baked.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
While I think it has been all but proven that genetics have no influence on values.

Think that all you want. It isn't true.

That's not argument. That's contradiction. I provided at least the example of cultural values trumping an individuals genetics - which happens consistently. Why do you say this is not true?

Humans are extremely unlikely to "feel" positively about something that does not promote their personal interests and desires.

I'm gonna assume you're not into the Objectivist definition of self-interest, but some more common sense notion of interests.

Your claim is empirically false and theoretically untenable. Selfish genes and all that. Natural selection simply doesn't select for egoism on the individual level.

(I suppose you might accept Whaleboy's notion of identifying individual self-interest with reproductive success of one's genes. That's too idiotic to address, however.)

It is beyond my comprehension why you feel that is too idiotic to address, when this is the prevalent opinion of social anthropologists. All PHDs in social anthropology are too idiotic too address? Pullitzer prize winning Jared Diamond is too idiotic to address?

Explain how this is "emprically false" and why it is "theoretically untenable"?

Individuals act in their own self interest. That interest normally extends strongly to their immediate family; it normally extends with less strength to the extended family and members of their immediate "community"; and also to other "groups" an individual feels a part of, such as their nation, religion, or race. These extensions are clearly based on their identification of themselves as members of the group, and the perception that harm to the group also represents harm to them as individuals.

[The Mad Viking]

KH

Lets try again.

Can you tell me what the function of your ideology is? It's purpose? What it does for you and those around you?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az


I am saying that before partaking in any debate whatsoever, a consensus must be reached on the axioms, the 'rules' of the debate, the goals, etc. Your poll answer has actually inspired me into some more thinking in that area - so this idea is sort of half baked.

So to facilitate "debate" I should begin to believe in principles which I would otherwise reject?

What sort of dissembling morality is this, where you must frame moral questions in the light of others' moral standards? While I understand why you might argue from a perspective not your own simply to convince somebody, what does that have to do with personal convictions?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
KH

Lets try again.

Can you tell me what the function of your ideology is? It's purpose? What it does for you and those around you?

The function of my ideology is to determine my own proper course of action.

[Az]

So to facilitate "debate" I should begin to believe in principles which I would otherwise reject?

No, but if you don't agree on the same axioms, discussion on ethics becomes meaningless.

What sort of dissembling morality is this, where you must frame moral questions in the light of others' moral standards?

The poll thing is a work of thought in progress, actually. Currently, if you don't agree - don't debate. It's useless.

While I understand why you might argue from a perspective not your own simply to convince somebody, what does that have to do with personal convictions?

a side note, how are those 'convictions' if you can't possible convince anyone else in them?

[MORON]

Originally posted by The mad viking
Whether or not it personally benefits you. Humans are extremely unlikely to "feel" positively about something that does not promote their personal interests and desires.

I think you are living in an orgy of self-indulgence, and that Ortega y Gasset is doing barrel rolls in his grave.... that they should at least examine the basis of their opinion a little further than "That's how I feel about it."

"How you feel about" it is based on assumptions and axioms that you aren't even examining and questioning!

I don't think the moral relativists here really care about this point.

I think, "how I feel about it" is THE AXIOM to the relativist. There is no greater axiom to examine this fundamental basis of all moral thought.

Whether this feeling tells them to kill everyone or want world peace is irrelevent. There is simply no other principle, no social convension or logical construct to limit them. There is simply no other source of rightousness. How it is developed or what is its content is irrelevent.

It is the only one fixed reference point in an world without hard boundaries.
---------------------------
But to point out one counter example to your assertion:
People DO kill themselves.

Morality is by its nature about how an individuals actions effect others in their group.

I don't think the relativists really care about other people when formulating their ideology. Their ideology is an reflection of their feelings after being organized by thought.

To quote krazyhorse

Originally posted by Krazyhorse
**** that. I make up my own mind on my morality. I don't base it on what other people think.

To understand krazyhorse, just imagine the rest of the world outside yourself suddenly cease to exist, and imagine how would you formulate an rule of behaviour when the external world disappears.

Originally posted by Azael
a side note, how are those 'convictions' if you can't possible convince anyone else in them?

Because I'm convinced in them, and thats all thats relevent in an conviction. It certainly isn't an conviction if others believe and I don't.