Skeptic Project

But "right" and "wrong" depend on some kind of judgment, which I base on "does it bring happiness/pain, and if yes, how much". The kids aren't getting hurt, the parents aren't getting hurt, so there's nothing to talk about.

This is utilitarian in nature, which is fine, but is itself prone to constricting arguments based upon the universality of measuring "happiness" across unlike stimuli.

To address Matt's fears that intellectuals are fearful of calling something "moral" and are thus being female genitals (el oh el, pussy) it should be important to remember that moral relativism doesn't suggest a lack of moral stances. What is important is to be logically consistent within a structure. So in the US, we can't just buck abhorrant behavior and say its "relative." If it occurs within a specific structure, then it is absolutely prone to judgement within consistent guidelines. The discussion opens up as a structure opens up, or where it was never fully defined to begin with.

As for the pedophilia issue: sexual taboos emerge over time, and legal constraints change quicker than that. Where does pedophilia begin? Where does it stop? I think we do have some pretty strong boundaries in place culturally (that is, most people don't think its ok to have sex with a 10 year old, and indeed our culture would say its not) but legally the definition doesn't exactly keep pace. What is the age cut off occur? Perhaps what we define pedophilia by is really specific to the cognitive capabilities of the victim.

Anyway, what I am saying is that morality must absolutely remain consistent within a culture, but to transport cultural norms across socio-cultural lines is much more difficult. And that's something I'm not going to get started on, because I dont even know how to tackle that problem.

</poo>

</poo>

win

Anyway, what I am saying is that morality must absolutely remain consistent within a culture, but to transport cultural norms across socio-cultural lines is much more difficult. And that's something I'm not going to get started on, because I dont even know how to tackle that problem.

I don't see a link to moral relativism though. Maybe something like "moral illiteracy" - certain cultures derive their moral code more from superstitious or religious beliefs and customs instead of concepts that are proven to increase happiness of a society w/o inflicting harm to any of its members (as in: don't kill your girlfriend after she breaks up with you). edit: Should've expanded to anthropology - but I'm a bit tired. Of course, there are more reasons for morality than made-up beliefs, and some might've been useful on a tribal level, that's another perspective to look at it.

This will naturally always affect us ourselves as well, but that's part of every science - any theory that is beneficial to us now might be proven wrong in the future and replaced by a better one.

This doesn't imply that we should tell every culture how to improve their sense of morality, and I don't think that'd be a successful strategy, but - to borrow Matt's words - we shouldn't pussy out and stand idly by either.

Then we need a useful system and an effective way to discern when moral values do overlap structurally and when they dont. And that's the whole point. Morals do vary based upon historical particularities, but they also do overlap for the same reason. There's a fine line between operating consistently within a system and moral imperialism.

It is when there aren't structural frameworks for it to work in. Would we be able to understand or properly use a moral system based on animism? I highly doubt it.

Colonist!

Sorry, i didn't see a question, and Im trying to wrap up an anthro paper.

Anyway, I would argue that's inherently not true. If you look at the work of Franz Boas and Benjamin Lee Whorf, it becomes immediately clear that the transmission of structures is not a simple task, nor is it rapid. Consider that democracy does not easily take root outside of those places where it was already embedded with socio-cultural (or historical) frameworks. The very idea that a structure can simply be placed onto another group presumes 1) that the structure CAN be transmitted and 2) the necessary groundwork for the structure exist in the target culture. I find the very notion to be highly untenable and indeed it performs a serious violence wherever it is employed.

Progress is neither linear nor is it universal. One must first be self-reflexive of the fact that our own moral codes are constantly hazy, and second that the costs of failed projects of this manner are rarely worth it. The whole position is dependent upon a false sense of success in a historically-particular project that will, as it has in the past, changed. Hard to get others to be on the same program if we dont even have a stable or well understood one ourselves. Best to work on internal consistency than on fruitless exportation. Just look at what happened in the formerly-colonized world. The structure was imposed, but it wasn't conducive to progress in those places (not to mention the global structural contradictions that put further strain on the adopting society)

You are an evil genius.

hitler