Ideology is nothing but post-rationalization

[Kuciwalker]

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

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

[Kuciwalker]

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

con·vic·tion
n.

1. Law.
1. The judgment of a jury or judge that a person is guilty of a crime as charged.
2. The state of being found or proved guilty: evidence that led to the suspect's conviction.
2.
1. The act or process of convincing.
2. The state of being convinced. See Synonyms at certainty.
3. A fixed or strong belief. See Synonyms at opinion.

[Az]

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

That's what I said/meant.

[MORON]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

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

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

I don't know, maybe we can compare axioms?

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


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

Excellent answer.

So one would presume this involves evaluating positive and negative outcomes of your alternative courses of action.

And selecting for actions that are more likely to promote positive outcomes?

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by MORON

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.

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 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.

I don't think your talking about moral relativism. I think you are talking about the "amoral". Morals by definition are about how you affect other people. Imagining a world without a world is totally irrational and contrary to empirical evidence. And, in fact, KH does not live this way, unless he is posting from a penitentiary.

There is a huge difference between rejecting all pre-existing morality systems in favour of a personal system, and suggesting that your entire morality system is based on a cult of your own personality.

Most of us live somewhere inbetween, and probably a lot closer to "pre-existing morality systems" than we care to admit to ourselves.

But to point out one counter example to your assertion:
People DO kill themselves.

Millions of people every day act in a way contrary to their morality system.

I am not aware of an ideology of suicide. I am pretty sure, however, that it would not win out in the Drawinian battle of cultural ideological supremacy.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Az

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

That's what I said/meant.

Not quite. Your implication was, we must agree on the same axioms or we won't be able to argue. Mine was that we can't argue because we don't agree on axioms.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Excellent answer.

So one would presume this involves evaluating positive and negative outcomes of your alternative courses of action.

A moral code is the metric by which you determine the value of an outcome. It may (will) differ from person to person.

[Az]

con·vic·tion
n.

1. Law.
1. The judgment of a jury or judge that a person is guilty of a crime as charged.
2. The state of being found or proved guilty: evidence that led to the suspect's conviction.
2.
1. The act or process of convincing.
2. The state of being convinced. See Synonyms at certainty.
3. A fixed or strong belief. See Synonyms at opinion.

Shove that dictionary up your arse - I know what the word conviction means, I just wondered about it's linguistic origins and whether they make sense.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


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?

Be serious. That cultural values in certain cases trump individuals' genetics in no way demonstrates that genes have next to no influence.

You seem to be some sort of blank slatist. It would be preferable if you moved up to the late 20th century or so.

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?

It's idiotic because it's taking a term of everyday discourse, defining it to mean something else, and then insisting that the conclusions you draw from your new definition applies to it in its everyday sense. It's like defining "parrot" to mean humpback whale, and insisting that Polly therefore is a mammal.

Furthermore, evaluating reproductive success on the individual level makes very limited sense, since different genes have different "interests". The genes on your Y chromosome have no stake in the survival of your sisters and daughters, but only in that of your sons and brothers. Your mitochondrial genes, conversely, have no stake in the survival of your children, but do have one in that of your sisters.

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

Which? Those terms were levelled at psychological egoism (the notion that people only care for what they perceive to be their self-interest), not the self-interest = reproductive success of one's genes interpretation, which I merely dismissed as idiotic.

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.

Since you apparently accept the gene view of self-interest, you have to clarify how you apply it to the individual level before you do anything else.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Az

con·vic·tion
n.

1. Law.
1. The judgment of a jury or judge that a person is guilty of a crime as charged.
2. The state of being found or proved guilty: evidence that led to the suspect's conviction.
2.
1. The act or process of convincing.
2. The state of being convinced. See Synonyms at certainty.
3. A fixed or strong belief. See Synonyms at opinion.

Shove that dictionary up your arse - I know what the word conviction means, I just wondered about it's linguistic origins and whether they make sense.

That would be an amazing feat with an electronic dictionary

[Az]

For your sake, I hope you're using one of them mini PCs.

[Kuciwalker]

No, a USB keydrive.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Az


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

Untrue. I can show that somebody else's axioms lead him to repugnant conclusions.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


Excellent answer.

So one would presume this involves evaluating positive and negative outcomes of your alternative courses of action.

And selecting for actions that are more likely to promote positive outcomes?

The moral code is the measure. Logic and experience are the means by which I compute probable consequences. Discipline and decency are what cause me to pursue the proper course of action, independent of my own selfish interests.

Do we have to plod?