There seems to be two main, competing moral frameworks: A - Morality is a social construct and therefore mutable. There is no objective Good or Evil. If morality is relative, you ultimately cannot claim right and wrong so to prove someone “wrong” you must find inconsistencies in their claimed beliefs. If you say you believe X but do Y, you violate your own rules and the contradiction is the only falsification we have. Likewise, there is no objective Good. Do what you want. If it makes you happy, then I guess that’s good? There’s no way to be better than you are if you are already perfect. It’s easy to get depressed and anxious in this frame, because it is a candy-house trap. B - Morality is defined objectively. There is an objective right and wrong and the majority can be wrong (it’s not just a power game). Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Maoist China are examples of Evil, even if they were accepted in their times. Likewise there is a definition of Good that is beyond ourselves. We are all imperfect and there are millions of things we could/should do differently to better ourselves. Pointing out hypocrisy is missing the point. We are not responsible for changing the world directly, but for changing our own hearts which, if truly done, has immeasurable positive effects on the world. The focus shifts to our own individual character and the responsibilities we each hold. I obviously subscribe to the latter framework. I believe this is why Charlie Kirk was hated and was killed. It’s not for unpopular political views. It’s not for political power, but because he was effective at pointing to a higher order of morality beyond us all. One that challenges our self-defined “good”. I don’t know his positions too well and I am sure he was wrong about several issues, but he opened the playing field for discussing it objectively (as objectively as we can manage). This core idea stands fundamentally against relativist framework. The idea is convicting which you aren’t supposed to have if you truly are the one defining the rules.
Why do I bring this up? Here’s a few reasons: It’s a big problem in the tech world. Definitely in communities I am a part of. I have been excluded from some communities not for opinions (no one ever cares to ask), but implicitly for the fact that I hold convictions at all. Looking at the GameMaker Discord, a community I used to be deeply involved in. Secondly, I do believe the “A” frame is seriously dangerous. Anything can be justified (including lying and violence) to get your way. Most people still hold themselves accountable, but there are no boundaries if you don’t. Thirdly, to clear up misunderstandings. We keep interpreting everything as a political battle and this is not helping. It’s not left versus right or even good people versus bad people (there are no perfect, good people). It’s more like good ideas versus bad ideas. It can appear political because Right wing ideology tends to be more closed and traditional while Left wing ideology tends to be more open, fluid and self-affirming. But it’s important to distinguish that this is not the problem. The “A” frame is used all over and has no political home. Fourthly, it’s time to believe in something real. We will never fully agree on right and wrong, but we cannot reject objectivity entirely as we have been doing. We need some moral order to survive and have society. I think it’s the effects of this are becoming clearer, but I encourage you to look for yourself. Fifthly, I keep folks being singled out for their convictions and I feel that there’s an illusion that this is a problem we can ignore. Unfortunately, ignoring morality has consequences and we all bear some responsibility for upholding that. I would ask that you do the same, even if it comes at some social cost. Declaring war on relativism is dangerous business, but much needed
Imagine if we thought this way about other truth claims. One could say the Earth is flat, another says the Earth is round and we say they are both right or that there’s no way of knowing. I don’t think that is an exaggeration of the problem either. The scientific method is predicated an objective, discoverable truth that is universally consistent. This is a philosophical conclusion with a rich history to get there. We should be applying the same principles to moral order, even if it is more difficult to quantify, measure and model. There are certain moral axioms that we know instinctively and there are more elements that can be uncovered by reading, contemplating and praying (thinking with intent). We are doing ourselves a disservice by disregarding these discussions. That’s an understatement. It’s wrong to ignore and we are bringing on ourselves unnecessary conflicts and evils
@TheCodeTherapy Very well said Marco. I agree I simplified a bit here. My understanding would be to do what you believe to be right in your conscience (which is somewhat subjective) and to actively train your conscience to be as objective as possible. Objectivity minimizes conflict
@MOOOOrion This is a common tripping hazard. You overcome it by seeking the truth like you would with any other claim. Ask questions to knowledgeable people, study, think and pray (thinking with intent). No one has all the answers, but you get closer as you seek. It’s a scientific process
Hello, thanks for taking the time to respond. You bring some interesting points and it's enjoyable to be able to hold these sort of discussions publicly. Allow me to respond to your points. You're right to say that believing in something doesn't make it objectively true. I would go as far as to say that no one has morals right and everyone is wrong in several ways. That being said, it doesn't mean we should strive for a better understanding of what is good. My distinction between A and B is not about power, popularity or force. That is how I would describe A. A simply claims that no moral system can be falsified. You can complain that someone is being hypocritical or inconsistent, but never that anyone is truly wrong. It claims there is no universal standard by which two moral theories can be compared. Might makes right, I guess. In B, there is a claim that two moral systems can be ranked and compared in some sort of higher moral order. That there are bad moral systems and good ones. We often disagree about how to rank, but we don't disagree that there is a way to rank. (similar to disagreeing about other truth claims while agreeing that there is an objective, discoverable truth). I agree about the atomization versus cohesive, but you can still theoretically have a cohesive society in type A for a time. Eventually conflicts will arise with no common path to solve them (usually resulting in war). Religious wars are definitely a problem, but I do believe non-religious conflict is a bigger issue (see the last century for examples). At least in most religious conflicts there is an agreement that there is a higher order that convicts us all. That we don't get to just force our way into moral victory and that you can cheat politics and war, but not morals. So yes, it is difficult and messy to resolve conflicts, but I would rather resolve them in some sort of universal common ground rather than without any rules at all
@EmergenceGaming I’m listening. Make your case
@clippecac So there’s a valance structure by which we can weigh and compare morals?
@khlorghaal My main point is that either moral systems can be placed in a hierarchy or not. If they can’t then there’s no claim anything is truly wrong. Everything becomes merely power struggle. If it can, then you can be convicted and called to aim higher
@realdrline Say more