Quality of Education in China? Overnationalism?

montyp165 said:

I've always considered morality similar to statistics in the sense of it only really being comparable to each other (social systems), and the sense of progress is dependent on an organism's base orientation of needs. If any alien with a completely different physiological environment and development suddenly showed up and had a "moral system" amongst themselves that worked for them yet was considered abhorrent by humans, it doesn't make the aliens wrong for instance.

Click to expand...

aliens are wrong if
a) they are moral agents
b) they conduct immoral act

Human perception has nothing to do with it, we might correctly perceived the condition of a or b, we might not.

However, morality has nothing to do with whether "that worked for them" or "base orientation of needs". See if the following reasoning work:

subsitute "Alien" with "Chinese"

1) Chinese has a base orientation of needs that include land, energy and food.
2) It worked for Chinese that all non-Chinese humans are annihilated because, then, Chinese would have more of land, energy and food.
3) Just because this outcome was considered by all non-Chinese humans as abhorrent, it doesn't make Chinese wrong to annihilate the rest of the human world.

JsCh said:

Western society benefit greatly from science. It is so much so that they start to apply the scientific method to everything. There is a different between objective truth and subjective truth.
Moral relativity exist. It would not disappear just because it does not fit the objective method of scientific study.

Click to expand...

Is this comment direct towards me? Then, first, I did not apply scientific method to questions of morality. I applied rational reasoning to questions of morality, If that's not your prefered method, I don't think I can help you, I'm no good with other methods(art, religion...authoritarianism?)

Moral relativism exists, rather widely. It is not true for the reason I posted, in short:

1) it denys moral progress
2) it equals to no morality
3) it counters to what we think of dissenters

None of these reasons have anything to do with objective method of scientific study. You might think that because I hold the position that morality is objective. Morality has to be objective, because only then can it serves as an arbiter to human behavior. If morality do not put a limit to human behavior then we are free to do whatever in our power to do. If that, we would have no need for a concept of "morality" at all.

ahadicow said:

Is this comment direct towards me? Then, first, I did not apply scientific method to questions of morality. I applied rational reasoning to questions of morality, If that's not your prefered method, I don't think I can help you, I'm no good with other methods(art, religion...authoritarianism?)

Moral relativism exists, rather widely. It is not true for the reason I posted, in short:

1) it denys moral progress
2) it equals to no morality
3) it counters to what we think of dissenters

None of these reasons have anything to do with objective method of scientific study. You might think that because I hold the position that morality is objective. Morality has to be objective, because only then can it serves as an arbiter to human behavior. If morality do not put a limit to human behavior then we are free to do whatever in our power to do. If that, we would have no need for a concept of "morality" at all.

Click to expand...

What you have achieve in arguing is IMHO only proving that moral relativism in its absolute sense (normative moral relativism in the wiki link you provided) is not "truthful"/desirable. What the others in this forum has argue that NOT all moral value are intrinsic or that relativism exist, that is only descriptive moral relativism.

While normative moral relativism that stipulate ALL moral system are correct are not desirable, it does not follow that ALL moral system that are different from each other are wrong. The others simply give you example of moral behaviour that are product of their culture, they might implied that moral behaviour thus derived are somewhat acceptable. Are you saying that because of the so called universal moral value then we should not take the fact that some are victim of circumstance into consideration while passing moral judgement?

The original argument is on whether moral value is intrinsic. It is obvious that certain moral value are intrinsic like the will to survive. Are you saying that you believe all moral value could be trace back to something intrinsic and apply occam razor and voila, you have a universal and immutable moral system? Do you considered moral value that derived from advantages in evolutionary struggle as in behaviour not genetic intrinsic?

ahadicow said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Moral relativism as ethics has been largely disproven in philosophical circles. The critism leveled against it is acute and substantiel.

The first and formost problem is the moral progress. If moral relativism hold true than there is no sense of moral progress. We generally agree that society become more just and more humane through history, that today's society not only holds different view on morality than the societies of past but better ones. that notion need a objective measure of moral truth independent of society, moral relativism denies objective morality, so fail to produce a sense of moral progress.

The second problem is the definition of morality. If morality is culturally dependent and all society consider the norm of that society to be right, than a neccesary deduction is that societies can do no wrong. In that kind of moral universe, to take a extreme example, Nazi would be fully right in conducting holocaust. Because it is the norm of Nazi german society to enslave and slaugter jews, and "What is moral and what is not is defined by the norms of the society in question", than it is perfectly moral for germans to kill jews. Again, in order to make those clearly immoral act wrong, you need a objective sense of morality above societies.

The third problem is dissent. If societal moral relativism holds true, it is alway immoral to dissent. So, in that theory, some of the most repected figures in the history are immoral persons. This list include: Jesus Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., John Lennon.....

So, you might want to take cold hard look on this kind of ethics If you want to know more about morality or you want to become more moral yourself. I'm making a guess against odds here because that's not what most people want. Any introductory book on Ethics would tell you all you need to know about moral relativism.

To answer a more personal question, yes, I do consider myself guilty "every time I drive, every time I purchase a consumer product, every time I waste some food?" I do all of those but I try to avoid them; I consider killing/abusing animals wrong, but I eat meat; I consider taking the skin off another living creature distasteful, but I want leather on my car/shoe. I believe all human life are of equal value, but I won't donate my earnings to save the starving children in africa. I'm not a very moral person. I find being moral very hard, way harder than being a successful citizen, or a fit person. Just like achieving anything, you need to practice it, work on it, everyday of your life. The premise of that is you have to be honest with youself. If you can't lift 100 pounds on you first try, admit you failure, go for a lighter one and work you way up. Or you can leave the gym, tell youself "I'm already fit" and get on with your life. Same with morality, it ultmately depends on your commitment and choice. Most children don't want to be moral, most people what to be the least moral that they can get away with, telling them how to be moral is a waste of time.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Yeah yeah yeah, I took Philosophy 101 in university as well. Wasn't nearly so impressed by it by the time I graduated.

Your post reminds me of something my high school religion teacher was fond of saying: "Science tells us the 'how' of life, while Religion tells us the 'why' of life". By this statement, he hoped to make us believe that religious education was as important as scientific education.

Yeah right.

One is concerned with explaining and understanding the way things are. The other is concerned with constructing a theory of how things should be.

Your so-called intrinsic morality is exactly like religion. All the criticisms you raised against "moral relativism" in your above post: moral progress, what's right and what's wrong, morality of dissent, all those are constructs of how things should be.

On the other hand, what I am telling you, and it's not even moral relativism I'm speaking of, is how morality works in reality.

Remember that this all started when you claimed that we can just show children images of war horrors, and they will instinctively become repulsed by war. I countered that claim by providing real life examples that go against your hypothesis: children who grow up in violent families do not tend to become repulsed by violence. On the contrary, they tend to become violent people themselves.


P.S.

I just thought of a great example for your "fictional morality" question: the Bible. God is always good. Sodom and Gomorrah. Think about it.

JsCh said:

The original argument is on whether moral value is intrinsic. It is obvious that certain moral value are intrinsic like the will to survive. Are you saying that you believe all moral value could be trace back to something intrinsic and apply occam razor and voila, you have a universal and immutable moral system? Do you considered moral value that derived from advantages in evolutionary struggle as in behaviour not genetic intrinsic?

Click to expand...

Certainly there are features of human nature that are intrinsic, such as the fear of death and the need for food, shelter and social support. Those are the foundations of human morality, but they are not of themselves moral values.

Morality deals with right and wrong, good and evil. The fact is, those concepts are human constructs. They have no intrinsic correspondence with reality.

That is not to say morality is fake or unimportant, but they are values that need to be taught instead of hoping that they will spring out of human instinct.

ahadicow said:

aliens are wrong if
a) they are moral agents
b) they conduct immoral act

Human perception has nothing to do with it, we might correctly perceived the condition of a or b, we might not.

However, morality has nothing to do with whether "that worked for them" or "base orientation of needs". See if the following reasoning work:

subsitute "Alien" with "Chinese"

1) Chinese has a base orientation of needs that include land, energy and food.
2) It worked for Chinese that all non-Chinese humans are annihilated because, then, Chinese would have more of land, energy and food.
3) Just because this outcome was considered by all non-Chinese humans as abhorrent, it doesn't make Chinese wrong to annihilate the rest of the human world.

Click to expand...

I'll give a clearer counterexample. Lets say that there are 2 species living on the same planet, both are sapient and occupy different niches, one is a rapidly consuming and reproducing herbivore and the other a ravenous carnivore. The carnivores keep the population of the herbivores in check lest they breed out of control and consume everything edible on the planet and causing mass starvation, while the herbivores prevent the carnivores from wiping out the other species on the planet by acting as primary food source. Lets take it further and say both species actually communicated an agreement between each other for a sustainable cycle between them, just how does that make them immoral for one eating the other and serving the greater benefit of their planet's ecosystem? If anything, as Solarz pointed out your moralism is nothing more than religious dogmatism masquerading as a imposable truth.

solarz said:

Yeah yeah yeah, I took Philosophy 101 in university as well. Wasn't nearly so impressed by it by the time I graduated.

Click to expand...

Philosophers are not magicians, they are interested in the truth, not impressions.

Your post reminds me of something my high school religion teacher was fond of saying: "Science tells us the 'how' of life, while Religion tells us the 'why' of life". By this statement, he hoped to make us believe that religious education was as important as scientific education.

Yeah right.

Click to expand...

Whether to put your trust in religion is your chioce, whether you to put your faith in science is your choice. You need to be informed to make choices, that's what education is for.

One is concerned with explaining and understanding the way things are. The other is concerned with constructing a theory of how things should be.

Click to expand...

science is no more descriptive than religion. Part of the science describe reality, part of the science imagine it, and yet another part of the science reconcile the imagination with the reality.

learn what is before you talk about science.

Your so-called intrinsic morality is exactly like religion. All the criticisms you raised against "moral relativism" in your above post: moral progress, what's right and what's wrong, morality of dissent, all those are constructs of how things should be.

Click to expand...

So, there is no "should", that's all "constructs". there is only "is", which is reality. then why are we talking about morality exactly? I told you, I don't mind this conversation but I didn't ask for it. If you don't think there should be a morality, then may be we should stop right here.

On the other hand, what I am telling you, and it's not even moral relativism I'm speaking of, is how morality works in reality.

Click to expand...

So, is morality a part of reality or not a part of reality? you have me confused.

Remember that this all started when you claimed that we can just show children images of war horrors, and they will instinctively become repulsed by war. I countered that claim by providing real life examples that go against your hypothesis: children who grow up in violent families do not tend to become repulsed by violence. On the contrary, they tend to become violent people themselves.

Click to expand...

Where did I predict children "will instinctively become repulsed by war"? My original point is we should be honest with children. Show them what wars are, and let them decide for themsalves. Your plan is to play the God and brainwash them.

P.S.

I just thought of a great example for your "fictional morality" question: the Bible. God is always good. Sodom and Gomorrah. Think about it.

Click to expand...

Where did you read in Bible that claim "God is always good"? The overwhelming message I get from Old Testment is that when you touch things that you should have left alone, there are severe concequences. Bible is not there for you to apply your moral judgement to God. So maybe what God did in bible look to you to be immoral. But that's just what it meant to show you. Don't put yourself on the position of God. Don't assume "I understand the world." and let yourself and others suffer the consequence of your action. You're not God.

Anyway, Bible is not a good fiction. Not many people understand its storys. Many come away thinking "God is so unfair"(including you it seems). So they didn't accept the morality presented in the Bible. Therefore, Bible is not a successful morality fiction that could serves as an example.

Certainly there are features of human nature that are intrinsic, such as the fear of death and the need for food, shelter and social support. Those are the foundations of human morality, but they are not of themselves moral values.

Click to expand...

So you claim "human nature"(it's an oxymoron btw, I'll take it to mean "human condition" for your benefit of doubt) is the foundations of human morality. Let's see, we have a fear of death, what morality does that support? morality of not killing? then Lions have a fear of death too, and lions have need for food, shelter and social support. Killing seem to be OK for lions. None of the rest of human moral behavior are observed on them.

In any case, what's a "foundation"? Human fingers are the foundation for counting numbers. Human vision are the foundation for perceiving geometric shapes. But both numbers or geometric shapes are intrinsic structures. They not only have no necessary relation with fingers and eyes, they have no necessary relation with humans.

So it is with morality. Humans are moral agents. We partake morality and lives in a moral universe but morality is not in itself has anything to do with us.

Morality deals with right and wrong, good and evil. The fact is, those concepts are human constructs. They have no intrinsic correspondence with reality.

Click to expand...

Now, You have me interested. Who constructed morality and why? I'd like to meet this person in any way I can, I have SO many questions for him/her/it.

That is not to say morality is fake or unimportant, but they are values that need to be taught instead of hoping that they will spring out of human instinct.

Click to expand...

You're inventing all these theories of morality to try to make this one case? Seriously? How about I yield. You can teach your children all about what is right and what is wrong and that's the right way to do it. If you want to have a serious discussion about morality it is either: a) you become interested in philosophy of ethics b) you discovered how evil you are. I wish neither of these to happen to you. But if they do, you can go read about ethics and we can have this disscussion again.

montyp165 said:

I'll give a clearer counterexample. Lets say that there are 2 species living on the same planet, both are sapient and occupy different niches, one is a rapidly consuming and reproducing herbivore and the other a ravenous carnivore. The carnivores keep the population of the herbivores in check lest they breed out of control and consume everything edible on the planet and causing mass starvation, while the herbivores prevent the carnivores from wiping out the other species on the planet by acting as primary food source. Lets take it further and say both species actually communicated an agreement between each other for a sustainable cycle between them, just how does that make them immoral for one eating the other and serving the greater benefit of their planet's ecosystem? If anything, as Solarz pointed out your moralism is nothing more than religious dogmatism masquerading as a imposable truth.

Click to expand...

Please don't take this to great length. I don't have time/brain power to untangle everything you might come up. I'll do this one for free.

Ok, finished reading. This doesn't seem to be immoral at all. What proposition is this example suppose to counter? I said morality has nothing to do with "base orentation of need" and whether something "worked". In this case, the killing, or canobalized human sacrefice to be precise, seem moral to me. But it is moral not because the carnivore speices have a "need" to eat the members of herbivore spieces, it is moral because what's been done had been consented by all parties involved. How do I know this? simple, just cross out the "communicate" and "agreement" part, read the stroy again and assume the strong preyed on the weak it doesn't seem moral at all although the "need" is still there and the planet still "works".

solarz said:

Certainly there are features of human nature that are intrinsic, such as the fear of death and the need for food, shelter and social support. Those are the foundations of human morality, but they are not of themselves moral values.

Morality deals with right and wrong, good and evil. The fact is, those concepts are human constructs. They have no intrinsic correspondence with reality.

That is not to say morality is fake or unimportant, but they are values that need to be taught instead of hoping that they will spring out of human instinct.

Click to expand...

Things like care for the young, fidelity do exist in the animal kingdom. I do not know if they are intrinsic or taught(by example maybe?), but these are also considered as moral value in human society.

Chinese go to extraordinary length to justify virtue by citing example in nature, for eg.
鹁鸪呼雏，乌鸦反哺，仁也；
鹿得草而鸣其群，蜂见花而集其众，义也；
羊羔跪乳，马不欺母，礼也；
蜘蛛结网以求食，蝼蚁塞穴而避水，智也；
鸡非晓而不鸣，雁非社而不移，信也。

JsCh said:

What you have achieve in arguing is IMHO only proving that moral relativism in its absolute sense (normative moral relativism in the wiki link you provided) is not "truthful"/desirable. What the others in this forum has argue that NOT all moral value are intrinsic or that relativism exist, that is only descriptive moral relativism.

While normative moral relativism that stipulate ALL moral system are correct are not desirable, it does not follow that ALL moral system that are different from each other are wrong. The others simply give you example of moral behaviour that are product of their culture, they might implied that moral behaviour thus derived are somewhat acceptable. Are you saying that because of the so called universal moral value then we should not take the fact that some are victim of circumstance into consideration while passing moral judgement?

The original argument is on whether moral value is intrinsic. It is obvious that certain moral value are intrinsic like the will to survive. Are you saying that you believe all moral value could be trace back to something intrinsic and apply occam razor and voila, you have a universal and immutable moral system? Do you considered moral value that derived from advantages in evolutionary struggle as in behaviour not genetic intrinsic?

Click to expand...

Let me clear things a little for you.

First, morality isn't a value, because morality cannot be traded with other things. So there aren't "moral values". Value is different thing then morality. I can put a value on music, that basically says I treasure music. on the other hand, music is totally insensible to a deaf person, so music has no value to a deaf person. value is relative, morality isn't. I may not put any value on environment, for example, that doesn't give me the right to pollute the environment. value can also be traded, morality cannot be traded.

Second, when I say morality, I'm talking about an conceptual limit on human behavior. I'm not talking about human behavior itself. I'm not interested in whether there hadbeen wars in human history, I'm interested in whether war are right or wrong, in other words, should there been wars in human history. I'm not disagreeing with anyone here about what is the usual pattern of human behavior. So if you want to change the topic to "what is", we don't need to have this discussion anymore since we all agree.

Third, what solarz presented was not descriptive moral relativism but meta-ethical moral relativism. Descriptive moral relativism holds that there are disagreements about morality. It is redundent to state that here because we are having a disagreement about morality. What Solarz stated was that morality itself is not universal but culturally dependent. that's quit different. If his point is only that people are disagreeing about what is moral, again, we don't need to have this conversation, because I agree. People do often disagree on whether a course of actoin is moral and they debate each other. That's another relfection of the objective nature of morality, whereas, people don't debate about food preference, because food preference is indeed subjective and culturally dependent.

Last, I don't have a "moral system", I cast a very suspicious eye on all such "moral systems". when you say "moral system" I take it you mean ethics. Ethics is what philosophers come up with to explain morality, quite like scientific hypothesis, those are "moral hypothesis" if you will, that try to approach human moral intuition. So far, there haven't been a reasonably satisfactory ethical theory. All the ethics that all the thinkers of moralty in human history come up with either have internal inconsistancies or important conflicts with human moral intuition. Philosophers tried, they are still trying. There are other kinds of "moral systems", like "Nazi Moral System", "Communist Moral Sytem" or "Capitalist Moral System". those are really ideologies. They are not interested in finding out moral truth but rather in providing a moral justification for some type of society. They only make half-assed attempt at appearing rational but they all have large number of subscribers. If you're interested in philosophy and moral reasoning. Read up ethics, study logics, get some discipline and you can enjoy reasoning about morality as an intellectual sport. If not, then you don't want to have anything to do with "moral systems". If you do not know how to rigorously reason about something, you could easily be deceived by fallacies and simple reasoning that is often offered up for the convicing power.