LibriumArcana.Games

Do you subscribe to moral absolutism, pluralism, or relativism?

I'm not sure I fall under any of those. My own ethical system is something along these lines:

Actions are either a) generally good, meaning it should be done, b) neutral, meaning it doesn't really matter, or c) generally bad, meaning it should not be done. My list here has some arbitrary sections, but it is mostly based on the assumption that hurting things is generally bad.

However, any action may fall into any category depending on the circumstances. For example, I would say killing someone is generally bad, so it shouldn't be done, but if that someone is currently on a murder spree, killing him to save other lives thus becomes probably the right thing to do.

In summary, doing an action that is generally bad requires justification of some sort, and not doing something that is generally good also requires justification.

There are no hard absolutes; it is all shades of gray, shades that are influenced by their surroundings.

Well, I think you're misinterpreting what moral absolutism means.

Moral absolutism is the idea that there are universal truths and standards that can be applied to everyone, without regard to their cultural and societal circumstances.

Moral relativism is the idea that people can only be judged by the standards of their cultural and societal circumstances.

Lord Iames Osari wrote:Moral absolutism is the idea that there are universal truths and standards that can be applied to everyone, without regard to their cultural and societal circumstances.

Ah, well, yes, that is certainly accurate. Evil assholes are evil assholes, no matter what their societies think.

This is a toughie for me. Generally I fall under absolutism (killing a rape victum for being raped is wrong and you're an asshole for doing it no matter what) but then I think context matters.

Take killing for example. In the above qoute, honor killings are wrong and always shall be no matter what the culture or soceity says.

On the flip side, I see nothing wrong in killing a man in self defense. The context here being why are you killing another human being, the act being that of killing.

Another bit is dictatiorship. Many of you will recalled I agrued that the people of BSG were crazed in trying to keep their standard republician form of government going in the middle of the biggest emerency you could ever dream of. So in this case I can see a possible situation where dictatiorship might be the best option. The situation is extreme to the point of insanity however.

So I gotta think about it for a bit.

I am a philosophical naturalist, I then fall into the pluralist category.

Ex. Mating systems are biologically, culturally, and environmentally driven. Which mating is selected by a society depends largly on resources(there are other odd systems too, but they are practiced usually be small tribes and are all still explainable by applying natural selection to biological and cultural systems). In the middle east and Africa, one male can monopolize and defend enough resources to supply multiple mates. This increases his reproductive success by a couple orders of magnitude, (the female's doesnt necessarily change because the number of offspring she can have is limited) so despite the social problems caused by excess males (which can be dealt with using other cultural institutions...like warfare) resource defense polygyny will become the norm.

In medieval Europe this was not the case, resources were too spread out for one male to monopolize without assistance. So one dominant male became a feudal lord while subservient males provided military service(resource defense duty) and labor(x days per year of field work for free, and a share of the grain) in exchange for access to said resources(farmable land) and protection. Hence, a mostly monogamous (because sometimes the feudal lord would also get very limited access to the mates of his satellite males) culture.

What a society considers "right" and "wrong" are heavily context dependent, and highly variable, and we cannot apply a set standard to many things that we consider to be moral characteristics (like faithfulness to one mate)

This does not mean however that there are no standards. Ex. a concept of individual rights, even if it is a construct, increases EVERYONE's fitness in any society it is applied to.

Remind me to do a thread on all the different types of marriage and kin tracing available for you someday.

Comrade Tortoise wrote: In medieval Europe this was not the case, resources were too spread out for one male to monopolize without assistance. So one dominant male became a feudal lord while subservient males provided military service(resource defense duty) and labor(x days per year of field work for free, and a share of the grain) in exchange for access to said resources(farmable land) and protection. Hence, a mostly monogamous (because sometimes the feudal lord would also get very limited access to the mates of his satellite males) culture.
.

This is complete bullshit. Monogamy has nothing to do with the Medieval Feudalism.

. I was elaborating on the mating system that it allowed for. Polygyny(or heaven forbid, polyandry) would not have been feasable. But without a feudal system, in that area, even THAT would not have been possible because the resource base was too thin even to support one family unit without the cooperation of a larger group and he protection of a feudal lord.

It may look like the feudal lord could monopolize resources, and mates, but because he relied upon the serfs for his resource base, he had to allow them to mate, or risk loosing their loyalty.

I am not saying that a feudal system causes monogamy. I am saying that the thin resources necessitated both, and an interplay between the two did exist which affected cultural practices.

To outline it.

1. Scarce or inaccessable, moderately clumped resources. (producing food in medieval europe)
a. favors monogamy because one male cannot provide for more than one mate
b. favors group living because it takes a team effort to access the resources.

2. access to additional resources increases reproductive success
a. there will be fighting between groups

3. Dedicated resource defenders>armed farmers
a. favors the invention of a warrior elite.
b. warrior elite's need resources but cannot produce them themselves, nor will they risk their lives without additional reproductive success.

4. equitable trade. Resources for protection an access to mate (but not enough to upset the peasants. This would basically translate to taking a wife, a class of "elites" among these would soon develop with the first round of offspring, with occassional prima noctis(sp) rights)

BTW: when I mention reproductive success, I mean it in two ways. Both the "reproductive success" of a cultural practice, and of an individual person in a biological sense.

frigidmagi wrote:Remind me to do a thread on all the different types of marriage and kin tracing available for you someday.

Well from a behavioral biology/Memetic evolution standpoint, the cultural methods by which people trace kin, or organize marriages, are irrelevant save how they effect who physically produces offspring, with whom and how many are produced, and how the cultural practicees which leads to these offspring are spread.

And to avoid a complete thread hijack, it is my contention that this is the basis for morality. That we are hard-wired with a few basic drives (empathy for example) and that it is the socialization of applications of these drives in a given environment that gives us workable rules. The philosopher then just comes along and tries to fit a codified system to what we are socialized from birth to accept as true prima facia.

Also note, it is not the conscious thoughts that take place that matter (IE not believing you are actually related to your biological son and that his closest male relative is your brother in law) that matters in this perspective. It is the actual behavior, and the SPREAD of that conscious thought that leads to the behavior that matters

Well from a behavioral biology. Memetic evolution standpoint, the cultural methods by which people trace kin, or organize marriages, are irrelevant save how they effect who physically produces with offspring and how many are produced, and how the cultural practicees which leads to these offspring are spread.

I would have to say those standpoints are pretty damn blind then.

frigidmagi wrote:

Well from a behavioral biology. Memetic evolution standpoint, the cultural methods by which people trace kin, or organize marriages, are irrelevant save how they effect who physically produces with offspring and how many are produced, and how the cultural practicees which leads to these offspring are spread.

I would have to say those standpoints are pretty damn blind then.

I think we may be talking past each other. See my above edit

Wrong.

You seem to under the impression that the area spontaniously developed a feudal form of government from the ground up, which is completely incorrect. It was impossed from the top down and was the result of a lack of infrastructure and government.

The collapse of the Roman Empire left the various successor states, typically Arian Christian German tribes, holding vast tracks of territory an no means of governing. Education was scarce and about the only part of the Roman government to survive in Roman areas was the Church. There was little money, a little more trade, and a lot of land. How do you rule an kingdom with that set up?

You need local deputies? How do you get them? From prominent families that have some experience with running something larger than a household and men to back them up. How do you pay them? Land.

The early Frankish kings collected taxes by literally moving their household across their territory and having their deputies supply their household. That was it.

At that time, the so-called warrior elite was pretty broad. All you needed was a weapon and shield and you could go to war. Later, when the balance increasingly shifted towards heavy cavalry, it became harder and harder to keep up. So expensive that Charles Martel confiscated half the church land in France to give to his knights so they could support themselves. And this was back in the 8th Century.

Feudalism was a top down imposed form of government, imposed by the fact there was simply no other way of governing under the existing circumstances. It was not a bottom up construct of local marriage patterns. Vestiges of it survived for so long because those who amassed wealth and power under it (the great nobles) continued to have great wealth and power even when other systems of organization and government became practical and were implemented. A man with great wealth and widespread holding was still powerful in the 16th century, even though the crown had options besides paying people in land.

I would point out that whether it was top down, or bottom up, it still fills the sociobiological purpose I laid out.

To use an analogy from biology. It makes no difference whether you are a satellite male because you take up residence in a dominant male's territory, if the dominant male rises to power in the social group, or if he comes in from the outside and takes over.

3. Dedicated resource defenders>armed farmers
a. favors the invention of a warrior elite.
b. warrior elite's need resources but cannot produce them themselves, nor will they risk their lives without additional reproductive success.

4. equitable trade. Resources for protection an access to mate (but not enough to upset the peasants. This would basically translate to taking a wife, a class of "elites" among these would soon develop with the first round of offspring, with occassional prima noctis(sp) rights)

Whether that elite class is hoisted up from the bottom, or imposed from the top does not matter. A group of people with no feudal lord will quickly be annexed by someone who does. And whether the trade of resources for protection is top-down or bottom up, results are still the same.

Nor did I mention it as bottom up to begin with. In one sentence I may have structured it in such a way that you could take it as such, but you are putting words in my mouth, considering the outline I gave is (save one sentence) neuteral

Methinks we may simply, yet again, be talking past each other. I am focusing on evolutionary ultimate causation in terms of cost-benefit ratios, where the exact details matter little, while you are focusing on the details

You attributed feudalism to monogamy and you are wrong. Furthermore, the Roman Empire which had control over the same territory and was also socially monogamous was not feudal. The German tribes that moved into the territory were mostly monogamous and were not feudal. Polygomous, old god worhsipping Scandinavians settlement are actually much closer to the model you're trying to attribute to medieval Europe than feudal Europeans. Now you're trying to weasel out of it by shifting the goal posts.

Then you go and shoot your mouth off about Feudalism was a necessary when the Scandinavians adopted the Feudal system in the High Medieval period in a top down imposition by their rulers in an attempt to be more like the rest of Europe. It didn't take hold very well, except in Denmark, because most of the rest of Scandinavia is shitty heavy cavalry country.

You shot your mouth off. You attributed and you continue to attribute the existence feudalism to the existence of a local lord, which is only relevant with serfdom, not feudalism. Stop shooting your mouth off and concede.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:In medieval Europe this was not the case, resources were too spread out for one male to monopolize without assistance. So one dominant male became a feudal lord while subservient males provided military service(resource defense duty) and labor(x days per year of field work for free, and a share of the grain) in exchange for access to said resources(farmable land) and protection. Hence, a mostly monogamous (because sometimes the feudal lord would also get very limited access to the mates of his satellite males) culture.

WTF Are you Smoking?! This was not the reason behind the Feudal System. Out of all the BS I've seen in this thread, this has to be the biggest pile of steaming horse manure I've ever read!

Edit: I see that CynCat has schooled you in how the Feudal System truly worked. Pity you're being dense and not accepting that YOU WERE WRONG. AGAIN.

Just because all you think about is mating doesn't mean everything's related to it.

Please to be cooling down in here.

Suffice to say that I view government systems, like any other social system as non-arbitrary and inter-dependant upon each-other as well as environmental conditions. It is just that whenever I leave birds and reptiles and switch to applying it to humans (even if it can easily be applied to humans) I fuck up on the historical details.

As to the above argument... It was a false attribution of causality I concede that. But it wasn't what I meant to say... (or at least the point I was trying to illustrate)The only thing I was attempting to do was illustrate the non-arbitary nature of both social systems in relation to distribution and availability of resources, with the two feeding off each-other.

How this relates to the Absolutism/Pluralism/Relativism question is as such.

The social systems that we create form the basis for our methods of moral thought. But these are not "preferences" we may think of them as preferences because we have been taught to think of them as such, but in the end they are functional. And if something is functional, given an environment and specific circumstances there is an optimum way of doing things in terms of functional characteristics. There are multiple environments and multiple circumstances, thus, there are multiple optimums. However we are not precluded from making judgments and evaluating these systems based upon an external, rather than internal (ie. the culture's own) standards.

I hope that makes sense...

I subscribe to the Obi-Wan Kenobi certain point of view school. I don't know all the answers neither am I arrogant enough to say I'm absolutely right.