[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta / roulette ] [ GET / ref / booru]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

New Announcement: IRC<=>Matrix bridge #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new every Monday : /meta/


 No.494888

Can anyone explain how social progressivism squares with moral relativism? It seems like people have hot deconstructionist takes on everything then they get to "trans rights" or some shit and their brain turns off. Please make me a Leftist. I want to understand you and why you believe as you do.

 No.494891

I want to mention that denying any consistent material basis for morality is ignorant

 No.494892

>>494891
Source?

 No.494895

>>494888
waste of numbers
I don't anyone really gives a fuck about rights but most people don't want to be assholes to their fellows.

 No.494902

>>494892
I am a lazy af armchair but I could probably find you a wikipedia article or something if I can remember what this school of thought is called. Essentially my understanding is that systems of morals have widely consistent standards and fulfill human needs including social needs like for example "don't cheat" that are a necessary part of supporting cooperation and complex social organization

>>494895
>I don't anyone really gives a fuck about rights but most people don't want to be assholes to their fellow
Isn't that what rights are?

 No.494903

>>494902
That's evolutionary psychology and I believe that's what you call a naturalist fallacy. Finally, if you continue down that train of thought, you'll find yourself a social conservative pro-natalist and probably a fascist. Funny how that works.

 No.494909

>>494903
>I believe that's what you call a naturalist fallacy
Can you please explain to me how it's a fallacy?
>Finally, if you continue down that train of thought, you'll find yourself a social conservative pro-natalist and probably a fascist
Okay can you explain to me how?

 No.494914

>>494892
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism
Here anon this is what I am referring to

 No.494916

>>494909
It's a basic is-ought distinction. Just believe we live in a meat factory doesn't mean I'm morally obligated to perpetuate it according to existing patterns. The way the world is isn't necessarily how it ought to be.
That said, if you adhere to those systems and attempt to be the best meat factory manager you can possibly be, you'll be finding ways to incentivize births and pack as many people on this rock as possible. The best way to do that is through social conservatism and/or fascism. I don't see any logical pathway from objective reality to social progressivism which is why I don't understand how it could come to be other than as a ruse conjured up by those who control the means of sociocultural production.

 No.494923

>>494916
>Just believe we live in a meat factory doesn't mean I'm morally obligated to perpetuate it according to existing patterns. The way the world is isn't necessarily how it ought to be.
Oh don't get me wrong I agree 100 percent. I don't think human beings or "society" as it is today has a perfect sense for and respect of morality, rather I think universal standards of human morality apply to all human beings and human moral questions equally regardless of what any given human being thinks. Some people used to think lefthanded people were evil, we also used to think as well at times that to rape and to murder unprovoked is wrong. I would say the second two examples are more closely adhering to objective standards of human morality.
>The best way to do that is through social conservatism and/or fascism. I don't see any logical pathway from objective reality to social progressivism which is why I don't understand how it could come to be other than as a ruse conjured up by those who control the means of sociocultural production.
Yes I agree completely, I don't think the status quo or rule of law is just, unlike, as you say a conservative or fascist. I think it would be more accurate to call me a social progressive.

 No.494934

>>494923
You seem to believe there's some sort of absolute Platonic ideal of good that we're moving toward. I see no evidence morality isn't just made up as we go along. In many cases, I think the elite classes intentionally fabricate particular memes that benefit them. For example, the Founding Fathers had clear material interests in the Revolution which were cloaked in "self-evident" moral justifications in the Constitution. People just make up random bullshit, put it out there and conformists eat it up. For me, I'm basically an Absurdist, but I view truth and power as having a sort of objective (but not universalist) value to the extent they enable us to get closer to whatever meaning exists here.
>>494914
While I find the article on Moral Universality interesting, I notice it doesn't actually include any arguments. Chomsky displays his normal intellectual cowardice of simply stating his opinion on the matter and then claiming anyone who disagrees is retarded just because.

 No.494955

>>494934
>You seem to believe there's some sort of absolute Platonic ideal of good that we're moving toward
I don't think so, rather there are objective standards of morality in the lense of the human species
>truth and power as having a sort of objective (but not universalist) value to the extent they enable us to get closer to whatever meaning exists here
Isn't this intertwined with a conception of morality? What is the difference between meaning, values and right and wrong?
>Chomsky displays his normal intellectual cowardice of simply stating his opinion on the matter and then claiming anyone who disagrees is retarded just because
Yes but I'm not interested in what Chomsky thinks, what do you think of the general idea of moral universalism? What does it mean to you and what do you make of it?

Another question I have for you, and this is integral to my own conceptions of morality, why do you think most human beings have a concept of morality? Psychopaths for instance a very small minority (around 1 percent of all humans), often are completely devoid of any sense of morality, it does not come intuitively to them at all, they have to learn what to expect from observing other people's sense of morality, as an outsider. This can be a big advantage for them in certain self aggrandizing situations. And yet most of the other 99 percent of human beings have some sense of morality, even if they take a morally nihilistic position. Most of these people have moral impulses outside and often in conflict with purely selfish impulses surrounding gaining resources, avoiding harm, and reproduction. Why do you think most homo-sapiens have a conception of morality if it is all bullshit and delusion?

 No.494964

>>494955
The tendency to believe that certain things are good or bad is a product of evolution. There are certain traits that are innate, like helping other members of the tribe when they seem distressed or even animals, and the evolutionary benefits are obvious, it allows for the genes to survive. We make more of ourselves, that's what we seem to be designed to do.
I'm opposed to suicide because I'm going to die anyways so my moral framework is basically:
>i'm going to die, so killing myself is pointless
>I'm not absolutely certain that I know enough to die yet
>i'm still on the fence about religion
>so basically I want to learn as much as I can (and hone my ability to learn as much as I can) before I die
This is why I'm totally prepared to deconstruct all established moral systems, because an understanding of the steel and concrete world as it actually is is far more important than any abstract constructs that risk wasting time, energy, conciseness and clarity.

 No.494978

>>494964
>The tendency to believe that certain things are good or bad is a product of evolution. There are certain traits that are innate, like helping other members of the tribe when they seem distressed or even animals, and the evolutionary benefits are obvious, it allows for the genes to survive. We make more of ourselves, that's what we seem to be designed to do
Yes, this is what I am talking about.
>because an understanding of the steel and concrete world as it actually is is far more important than any abstract constructs that risk wasting time, energy, conciseness and clarity
Aren't you pondering about the latter right now anyways? Why do you think there is a dichotomy between the 2 examples you give of "the steel and concrete world" and "abstract concepts"?
Why would you consider suicide? What is the evolutionary purpose or stimulus for that?

 No.494982

>>494978
To be or not to be remains the first and most important philosophical question, but it's actually not a question of life and death, but rather whether we should die today or later. Only from there are we left with the question of what to do with the time that remains.
It seems to me that the best use of that time is best spent looking through a variety of means for the meaning of it all. That said, it's impossible and unnecessary to attempt to force others to help me.

 No.494983

>>494982
>To be or not to be remains the first and most important philosophical question, but it's actually not a question of life and death, but rather whether we should die today or later
Honestly I don't think about suicide much these days. It was much more common for me when I was more depressed ans especially before using psychedelics. Suicidal ideation seems to only occur for me when I am feeling negative emotions

 No.496303

>>494916

I would add, to really maximize the long term number of people, you would also have to abolish capitalism because of how destructive and wasteful it is.

- Proud despotic mongolian illiberal tyrant

(Incidentally, I also happen to be a moral anti-realist. Truth aptness, universality, axiological neutrality, etc. aren't needed to impose a given moral system. Only power.)

 No.496441

>>494892
you can't have morality without a consistent, universal account of objective events that could have been witnessed the same way by another subject. materialism might be said to be a type of truth criterion here

 No.496554

>>496441
Yes, also when I phrase my post "human morality" I mean that that the conceptions we come up with of morality exist because of our needs as a species and as specific members of that species.

I think that the universe at large is amoral, but that life is largely "good" and "just" by default because these are conditions necessary for a healthy human population, and that is why we have evolved to crave justice and goodness. I think that the reason we have a notion of goodness and seek desire it is because it is good for us. The reason we have a notion of badness, and have an aversion to it is because it is bad for us.
I think that these conceptions of goodness and badness are inherent and universal in their fundamentals. I think that they are however distorted by the character of class relations.

For example if it is good to treat all human beings with the same qualities equally in similar situations, a sort of consistency, then instead of denying this notion a society with ethnic hierarchy will state that people of an ethnic underclass are different from a more dominant ethnic group. They will use certain justifications to claim that the ethnic group is lesser, such as "they are less intelligent" or "they are inherently violent and savage" they may even use various methods to break down, dehumanize, and deform such people so that hey begin to resemble a racial caricature, and use that as justification for continued racial hierarchy. Such an example would be for Jewish people during the holocaust being herded and labeled, treated like cattle, living in such squalor and dehumanizing conditions that cease to resemble complex human beings. Another example is black people in America who have been forced into impoverished and constantly destabilized communities. These same black people are blamed for their dysfunctional living conditions and symptoms of social strife, and these symptoms caused and done in them name of racial hierarchy, are used in order to further perpetuate it at all levels of society. One last example would be transgender people. Transgender people face a lot of internal pain and stress related disease due to a combination of gender dysphoria and societal rejection. This pain and poor health and social integration may result in many trans people committing suicide or becoming homeless. These suicides and instances of poor integration and high rates of stress related disease is further used in order to justify social disenfranchisement and abuse of transgender people.

All of these people find themselves on the wrong side of societal moral standards. I don't believe that any of these conceptions of morality are unique moral analysis and proof of moral relativism, rather I think that they are distortions of universal and consistent objective standards of human morality. That they have been distorted in order to justify hierarchical and chauvinistic ends.

Edited for greater legibility*

 No.497041

>>496554

You haven't provided a valid argument for why there is a universal and objective concept of good.

You merely asserted that people tend to have conceptions of morality, and that in your view it can/has been distorted.

From this does not logically follow the conclusion that therefore there exists a universal objective standard for morality (In the same way that particles have the property of temperature does not itself implies they ought to have the property of a given temperature or temperature set).

I have a formal logical way to show that at least objectivity criterion cannot hold for ought statements (because they do not share the properties of propositions), but I am not sure if I should share it on public forum before publishing.

So instead I would refer to Geech's "Good and Evil" and the distinction he makes between predicative and attributive adjectives.

 No.497046

>>497041
Too late now my Reddit posting son
If you publish it now we'll all know you post on teh ebil /leftypol/

 No.497144

>>494903
what a retarded view of evopsych

>>494916
you completely misunderstand the point of the discipline, and what research in it entails.
Also, you misunderstand what "evolved morals" means. Its an analysis of how we, as humans across cultures, think, not a prescription like some philosopher's work

>I don't see any logical pathway from objective reality to social progressivism

go read marxists, because idpol, and emphasis on individuality are direct consequences of the material needs and reality of capital and liberal mindset. Why did women get equal right to men ? Because capital needed more workers, because it wanted to sell child services and laundry machines, because their free labor became paid wage labor, and as women got more material power through money from jobs and education, the previous cultural norms stopped making sense.

 No.497447

>Anons in this thread I ironically trying to defend objective morality
At no point did you need to take up this already flawed concept and make it your hill to die on, but apparently some retards thought is necessary to do so in order to defend Marxism. Morality isn't objective, it is entirely relative with the general moral values upheld by society itself being subject to heavy influence from its material base, but still being ultimately itself non-objective (in a universal sense). You can base your morality on certain objective phenomena and argue that certain actions are consistent with the moral values you uphold, but none of this makes morality itself objective, nor should you care that it doesn't. You can have a certain conception of what social progress constitutes, and use material reality to add to your argument for said social progress, but in the end the actual initial values are themselves still ultimately arbitrary. Them being arbitrary does not suddenly mean they cannot be enforced however, or that it is "illegitimate" for you to see it within your "interest" to enforce them, and this is where some fags trip up due to implicitly holding the value that something must be wholly objective for it to be "valid" socially, despite that itself being incapable of being "objectively" verified.

 No.497523

>>494888
you're basically right
I think it's just because that's what's hot with academic progressive types right now. They wanna get on some anti-conservative deconstruction, but they will argue that it's good to like, not aim that deconstruction at minorities because they need a leg up or something.
Personally, i think the most kind thing you can do is be honest with someone, and so trying to put minorities in the position of "normal subjects of empire" doesnt really do it for me.
But hey, most leftists just want more of the same, but kinda reformed, so it's not like these people are even super far from most communists on this website. They see their project as "progressive" with progress going in one direction, and theyre just carrying out the after-capitalism, or "what comes next", rather than carrying out the destruction of oppressing or restraining structures.

basically, just lib brainrot or to put it nicer, it's an incorrect idea which these people hold, which is that there is some kind of axis of "progress" and liberals are further than conservatives, and so what libs want we should want even more, since we're more leftister than them - this is completely wrong, and libs are worse than conservatives. Not cause i agree with conservative beliefs at all, but because libs also serve capitalism, but prefer to obfuscate their role and relationship, whereas conservatives at least allow us to be enemies, rather than trying to suck us all up. They'd rather kill me as a leftist. I respect that. Basically, lefties are falling right into the lib trap by allowing themselves to bargain and strive for more state legibility, rights, and inclusion.

 No.497532

>I want to understand you and why you believe as you do.
Way to put words in my mouth. Don't equate all leftism with "progressivism" and its watered down reformist half-measures.

 No.497671

>>497046

Interestingly, I have never used reddit in my life, and am nearly entirely off of social media. After being burned by facebook timewasting, reddit seemed like just worse version of the same.

That said though don't all care about anyone knowing I post on leftypol. I really just don't want the ideas to be stolen. If I do get it published, I'll vehappy to share it.

t. Big bad despotic mongolian illiberal.

 No.497675


 No.497683

>>497447

I suppose the irony is that Marx himself viewed morality as historically and socially contingent. So quite far from objective and universal.

Still, the absence of objectivity or universality itself does not, and indeed cannot justify culturally liberal or conservative norms; In fact it cannot justify anything.

All this means practically is that we have to own our moral values as our own and treat our moral enemies as just that.

 No.497708

>>497683
>Still, the absence of objectivity or universality itself does not, and indeed cannot justify culturally liberal or conservative norms; In fact it cannot justify anything.
>All this means practically is that we have to own our moral values as our own and treat our moral enemies as just that.
I agree, and this probably the best take given in this god forsaken thread.

 No.498115

>>497671
>If I do get it published, I'll vehappy to share it.
Please do


Unique IPs: 11

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta / roulette ] [ GET / ref / booru]