A fine essay. I agree with him about being able to accomplish your goals by not getting into shouting matches. But it is just so damned fun!
I have intentionally violated about every taboo that I know of at one time or another. It was a good way to find out what can be tolerated and what can't. Each community is radically different too. That is quite facinating. You really want to get things going... attend your highschool reunion and begin a conversation with all your old mormon friends about how silly and outdated the mormon temple ceremonies are! Whoosh! That made RHP seem like a delicate tea with pleasant companions and fine linen!
The good news is that it was only 85 against one. So you know I won that one!😵
You will go far RC. You seem to grasp reality far better than most people who have hung around for a half-century.
In one culture it might seem shocking to think x, while in another it was shocking not to. But I think usually the shock is on one side. In one culture x is ok, and in another it's considered shocking. My hypothesis is that the side that's shocked is most likely to be the mistaken one.
Interesting claim. So, if I am shocked by the practice of female circumcision in Africa (where they remove the clitoris of the woman when she reaches puberty), then ex hypothesi my judgement that we ought not perform cliterodectomies is most likely wrong. Or, better, if I could fashion a time machine and go back to the South-East circa 1800, my shock at the treatment of slaves would ex hypothesi, indicate that my judgment that slavery is wrong would likely be mistaken. This certainly seems like a reductio of Mr. Graham's hypothesis.
Originally posted by bbarrYou're right, but I think his claim makes more sense in the context of his whole site (for example, the essay ''Why Nerds Are Unpopular'' is related in some ways). Specifically, I think the examples you mention are exactly what he had in mind when choosing to say ''is most likely to be the mistaken one'' rather than ''shocked = wrong''. His hypothesis does apply in a lot of cases, particularly in areas where too much dogma has accumulated. Even if there are problems with his construction, do you agree with ABQ?
[b]In one culture it might seem shocking to think x, while in another it was shocking not to. But I think usually the shock is on one side. In one culture x is ok, and in another it's considered shocking. My hypothesis is that the side that's shocked is most likely to be the mistaken one.
Interesting claim. So, if I am shocked by the practice of fema ...[text shortened]... g would likely be mistaken. This certainly seems like a reductio of Mr. Graham's hypothesis.
[/b]
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI'm glad I stack up favourably in this regard compared to your high school class 😵. I know one doesn't make friends by ignoring taboos, but the best way to live is by his other essay, mentioned in the above post.
A fine essay. I agree with him about being able to accomplish your goals by not getting into shouting matches. But it is just so damned fun!
I have intentionally violated about every taboo that I know of at one time or another. It was a good way to find out what can be tolerated and what can't. Each community is radically different too. That is q ...[text shortened]... . You seem to grasp reality far better than most people who have hung around for a half-century.
Actually.....maverick programmers........SVW, give Graham's site a good look........
Originally posted by royalchickenOf course there is a lot of truth in Graham's essay. The only obvious error he has made is in failing to distinguish different possible ways moral claims may be analogous to hemlines. First, it could be the case that moral obligations and prohibitions are all merely fashion, and that they come and go purely for contingent, historical reasons. Second, it could be the case that there are core moral truths, to which the vast majority of folk throughout time and culture are sensitive, and yet the expression of those moral truths differs across time and culture due to differences in auxiliary hypotheses. Suppose my culture and your culture both agree that killing people for sport is wrong. Suppose further that my culture regards animals as people and yours regards animals as Cartesian automata. Presumably, our cultures will have vastly different norms regarding the treatment of animals. Does this entail that our norms are on a footing with fashion?
You're right, but I think his claim makes more sense in the context of his whole site (for example, the essay ''Why Nerds Are Unpopular'' is related in some ways). Specifically, I think the examples you mention are exactly what he had in mind when choosing to say ''is most likely to be the mistaken one'' rather than ''shocked = wrong''. H ...[text shortened]... ogma has accumulated. Even if there are problems with his construction, do you agree with ABQ?
Originally posted by bbarrRight again, but I don't think he is trying to present an ethical thesis. His mistake IMO was to use the word 'moral' so much.
Of course there is a lot of truth in Graham's essay. The only obvious error he has made is in failing to distinguish different possible ways moral claims may be analogous to hemlines. First, it could be the case that moral obligations and prohibitions are all merely fashion, and that they come and go purely for contingent, historical reasons. Second, it co ...[text shortened]... ding the treatment of animals. Does this entail that our norms are on a footing with fashion?
As to your question, I would answer no. However, I don't think he means to talk about fundamental moral issues as much as taboos which are obviously based in tradition (which tends to derive from whatever was expedient or fun in some place and time). In this way, I think his claim is almost tautological.
Interestingly, I wouldn't have answered no to your question a year ago, prior to several discussions on RHP about ethics.
Originally posted by royalchickenAgreed. It seems he is arguing that many cultural practices are analogous to fashion, and I get the feeling that religious practices is are high on his list of candidates. To be fair, I'm sure there are philosophical fashions as well. Intuitionism in ethics became unfashionable after its expression was bungled by G.E. Moore. Eliminative Materialism in philosophy of mind was a fashion, and I'm sure it will return and fade by turn with advances in the cognitive sciences and neurology. The "Associative mechanisms" in Hume's philosophy of mind are the "Connectionist Architectures" of today's cognitive scientists. Interestingly, these shifts of fashion track generations, which means, I'm afraid, that students of philosophy don't get adequately trained in the history of their discipline.
In this way, I think his claim is almost tautological.
Originally posted by bbarrWell, fashion IS a cultural practice 😉. I'm afraid I follow the last bit of your post even worse than a philosophy student with a poor knowledge of the history of philosophy, but I understand the general phenomenon. Have you seen other parts of his site?
Agreed. It seems he is arguing that many cultural practices are analogous to fashion, and I get the feeling that religious practices is are high on his list of candidates. To be fair, I'm sure there are philosophical fashions as well. Intuitionism in ethics became unfashionable after its expression was bungled by G.E. Moore. Eliminative Materialism in phil ...[text shortened]... d, that students of philosophy don't get adequately trained in the history of their discipline.
(Another interesting phenomenon is the fact that I feel a bit weird agreeing with people in the debates forum. I feel like I should be throwing punches 🙂.)
Originally posted by royalchicken
(Another interesting phenomenon is the fact that I feel a bit weird agreeing with people in the debates forum. I feel like I should be throwing punches 🙂.)
Hehe, I've felt like that on many occasions. Fortunitely not on these forums yet ! I think face to face discussions tend to me more realistic. Afterall calling someone an idiot online is not a big deal, yet when they're standing infront of you, their feelings towards your views can often be returned in a universally understood fashion 🙂