A Short Essay Against Cultural Relativism

Yeah, I saw that programme. Some interesting findings, but it's very far from a complete theory of mind.

My point was that there are competing theories of mind, consciousness and agency, so we can at least infer that whatever the truth behind free will, it is not self-evident.

One major problem is our perception of self being built upon the seemingly linear nature of memory. There is mounting evidence that time is not linear, which would leave us with a perceptual error of our surroundings, and hence drawing false conclusions about the nature of internal observation and cause and effect.

Ever read Flatland?

 

AFAIK, sort of, according to some schools of thought, but "observer" does not necessarily mean "consciousness".

Edit: though it's not "needed" as such, but observation changes some phenomena from being a fuzzy range of probabilities to one definite outcome.

 

The whole truth of it no, I wasn't suggesting that. But I think enough to work with, so to speak. Even if we accept total determinism, then both good and bad actions must be accepted and further there's nothing at all we can say or do makes any difference.

Can we change our minds and is it self evident?

Didn't we used to hang people for murder, something must have changed. If we reject some outside agency. Then this seems to fit with what falls under the description of free will and that we use it all the time.

My point before was that the evidence around free will and determinism was only ever one experimental finding that suggested something about our actions being pre determined.

Whether it is "us" or something else or a mixture of us and a deterministic system change happens regardless. People will do both good and bad, to various degrees and something or other explains it. Whatever the outcome of that, whatever makes good turn bad and bad to good will concern people. I tend to speak about it in terms of human values.

I couldn't get into it which might sound weird, I printed it out but gave up on it

I do enjoy the subject of time though. I like the idea that time is like a pool rather than a stream, has a nice ring to it.

 

I don't accept, as a self-evident truth, that there is an "I". At least, not in the generally accepted perception of a single entity with some degree of volition and agency.

To start debating moral agency and capital punishment is to jump the gun somewhat.

The sense of self, or free will, could easily be an illusory byproduct of either deterministic chaos, stochastic processes, or both.

 

Illusory, why not. Not suggesting the "I" is material.. Free will if not evident at least forms part of our experience. When you start to say you are not responsible for your actions people will say you are crazy lol. A claim like that after all requires it's own justification.

 

I think "crazy" people are a good place to start looking.

It also forms part of the human experience to have compulsive behaviour (where are those "decisions" coming from?), speak to seemingly discrete entities that are generated by our imagination (how can one consciousness create another, with motivations seemingly at odds with itself?), and for brain's to display different behaviour depending on how you slice it (if you bisect your brain, you will have a "left" you, and a "right" you, and they will make different decisions... which is the real you?).

If you can imagine the hypothetical idea of a sentient computer, can you also imagine a sentient computer that is pre-programmed, but made in such a way as it feels as if it is making all its own decisions?

I think people are terrified of a world without free will, because our ideas of morality and fairness are built upon the assumption of its exitence.

 

It's a very interesting topic, thanks for sharing.

 

Good article.

I think cultural relativism is, as Sam Harris described it, an attempt to make intellectual reparations for historical injustices against less developed countries and minority groups, and in their zeal to profess how very sorry they are, its proponents sometimes do more harm than good.

 

Nope, completely wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism

It (relativism) describe a historic and current reality. Whether we prefix with ethical, cultural or moral, relativism is a reality of human interaction and always will be. There is no blanket moral agreement on all things, neither is there some objectively absolute standard.

Yes there is objectivity in how we come to agree our moral standards, what we come to agree is "good" and what is "bad"; coming from a combination of rationality (reason & logic) applied to objective data (facts) in conjunction with a social groups particular circumstantial needs or wants (free will) at any given time and place.

The result is relativistic and can further be categorised as inter-subjective, simply because if it is not "absolute" it is "relative" by definition.
I think there are some people that just don't comprehend this basic categorisation of human knowledge. If they did I wonder if we would still have to listen to such misguided commentary. We just don't know about any moral, ethical or cultural objective absolutes, they are therefore by definition (not absolutes) all relativistic.

Calling it "cultural relativism" is calling a spade a spade as far as I am concerned. Reading any more to the term than what it says on the tin is completely unnecessary unless you have an agenda. I think Sam Harris sounds just like one of those people with a largely objectivist agenda certainly.

Unless you or Sam Harris can demonstrate how any of this is absolute, then you need to accept the term relativism as it is used and applied by the rest of the world.

Makes no difference if we are talking about cultural, ethical or moral. The problem Objectivists have is that Ayn Rand in her epistemology and philosophy argued for an objective absolute. All objectivism is infected with this nonsense idea that is completely impractical and unworkable not to mention beyond impossible to prove. And many people influenced by objectivist philosophy have an issue with "relativism", because they see it as being non objectively derived - which is complete and utter fallacy.

Human morality, ethics is non material therefore cannot be part of the objective order of things, and there are no absolutes regarding them. Therefore by their very definition they belong to the categories of inter-subjective and relative.

Which basically amounts to this being a largely semantic issue, where certain people are playing fast and loose with common and long time understood terms where they really have no business doing so. They are basically just sending people down the wrong garden path with confused ideas in their head.

Relativism has been the case historically and still is today therefore it is an undeniable phenomenon of human social order and constructivism. It's not an "attempt" at anything, it's as applicable to cultural differences as much as ethical and moral ones.

Absolute and relative is one dual categorisation of knowledge. Objective and subjective is another. Please learn what they really mean and how and why they are applied the way they are before you parrot other peoples fanciful ideas about something or other that completely ignore our basic categories of knowledge and their respective definitions and meanings.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

This is the right term, our morality and ethics are not "objective" but properly described as rational.