Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,613 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 288,338
Pageviews Today: 469,852Threads Today: 155Posts Today: 2,678
06:45 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere

 
Raniaashi

User ID: 85290441
United States
02/15/2023 12:29 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
Moral relativism is the idea that there are no absolute rules to determine whether something is right or wrong. Unlike moral absolutists, moral relativists argue that good and bad are relative concepts – whether something is considered right or wrong can change depending on opinion, social context, culture or a number of other factors.

Moral relativists argue that there is more than one valid system of mora
lity. A quick glance around the world or through history will reveal that no matter what we happen to believe is morally right and wrong, there is at least one person or culture that believes differently, and holds their belief with as much conviction as we do.

This existence of widespread moral diversity throughout history, between cultures and even within cultures, has led some philosophers to argue that morality is not absolute, but rather that there might be many valid moral systems: that morality is relative.

[link to ethics.org.au (secure)]

OR:

Natural law theory holds that all human conduct is governed by an inherited set of universal moral rules. These rules apply to everyone, everywhere, in the same way.
As a philosophy, natural law deals with moral questions of “right vs. wrong,” and assumes that all people want to live “good and innocent” lives.
Natural law is the opposite of “man-made” or “positive” law enacted by courts or governments.
Under natural law, taking another life is forbidden, no matter the circumstances involved, including self-defense.
Natural law exists independently of regular or “positive” laws—laws enacted by courts or governments. Historically, the philosophy of natural law has dealt with the timeless question of “right vs. wrong” in determining the proper human behavior. First referred to in the Bible, the concept of natural law was later addressed by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle and Roman philosopher Cicero.

What Is Natural Law?
Natural law is a philosophy based on the idea that everyone in a given society shares the same idea of what constitutes “right” and “wrong.” Further, natural law assumes that all people want to live “good and innocent” lives. Thus, natural law can also be thought of as the basis of “morality.”

Natural law is the opposite of “man-made” or “positive” law. While positive law may be inspired by natural law, natural law may not be inspired by positive law. For example, laws against impaired driving are positive laws inspired by natural laws.

Unlike laws enacted by governments to address specific needs or behaviors, natural law is universal, applying to everyone, everywhere, in the same way. For example, natural law assumes that everyone believes killing another person is wrong and that punishment for killing another person is right.

[link to www.thoughtco.com (secure)]

AI is a hot topic these days. I submit that moral relativism can be predicted and thus influenced by AI/

Natural Law cannot.


thoughts?

Last Edited by If You Only Knew on 02/15/2023 05:22 PM
Love is like light. It is never constrained to its source; it shines on everything and tends to spread spontaneously, unless we block it! ~ Cosmic Swami
Raniaashi  (OP)

User ID: 85290441
United States
02/15/2023 12:34 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
This might be beyond most glp's abilities to comprehend.
Love is like light. It is never constrained to its source; it shines on everything and tends to spread spontaneously, unless we block it! ~ Cosmic Swami
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 83842218
Slovakia
02/15/2023 12:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
You cannot have natural law in a overpopulated world. Human society has been going against the natural environment since Adam.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 80985693
United States
02/15/2023 12:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
I didn't know my thought process has a name...
Moral Relativism

Thanks .. you taught me something I didn't know
Raniaashi  (OP)

User ID: 85290441
United States
02/15/2023 12:38 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
You cannot have natural law in a overpopulated world. Human society has been going against the natural environment since Adam.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83842218


So, you endorse moral relativism? Would you endorse re-education?
Love is like light. It is never constrained to its source; it shines on everything and tends to spread spontaneously, unless we block it! ~ Cosmic Swami
The_Meridian
Breshears is Off: Ask Me Why

User ID: 82129370
United States
02/15/2023 12:42 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
We all do the best we can, as we see fit.

As a result, we fall short of perfection against any and all highest ideals or judgment methods.

We all negotiate and barter with right and wrong to get through a single day.

We sin 1000 times before breakfast.

Who defines natural law other than Moral relativists?

Golden Rule is the only thing we should all strive to practice. If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to others.

Cannot possibly go wrong with that.

Nobody or no thing is going to judge me besides me.

And I'm my worst critic.

I am not worthy of a passing grade.

Is anyone?
(B)ullshit™ always needs an amplified bullhorn demanding kneeling subservience - or else.- SyncAsFunk

The light within me always draws me back to make the dark decision to leave the false counterfeit light. -New Heart
Raniaashi  (OP)

User ID: 85290441
United States
02/15/2023 12:44 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
We all do the best we can, as we see fit.

As a result, we fall short of perfection against any and all highest ideals or judgment methods.

We all negotiate and barter with right and wrong to get through a single day.

We sin 1000 times before breakfast.

Who defines natural law other than Moral relativists?

Golden Rule is the only thing we should all strive to practice. If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to others.

Cannot possibly go wrong with that.

Nobody or no thing is going to judge me besides me.

And I'm my worst critic.

I am not worthy of a passing grade.

Is anyone?
 Quoting: The_Meridian


The golden rule is probably the most objective, defining way of explaining and understanding natural law. It has nothing to do with moral relativism.

Last Edited by If You Only Knew on 02/15/2023 12:44 PM
Love is like light. It is never constrained to its source; it shines on everything and tends to spread spontaneously, unless we block it! ~ Cosmic Swami
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 84970203
United States
02/15/2023 12:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
To me, Natural law & karma rule this reality.

Once you know what to look for, it becomes painfully obvious.


People like to believe that good karma is rewarded by material objects, but I don't think that is true.

If people understood the reward/feedback loop, this reality would make sense.
The_Meridian
Breshears is Off: Ask Me Why

User ID: 82129370
United States
02/15/2023 12:46 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
We all do the best we can, as we see fit.

As a result, we fall short of perfection against any and all highest ideals or judgment methods.

We all negotiate and barter with right and wrong to get through a single day.

We sin 1000 times before breakfast.

Who defines natural law other than Moral relativists?

Golden Rule is the only thing we should all strive to practice. If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to others.

Cannot possibly go wrong with that.

Nobody or no thing is going to judge me besides me.

And I'm my worst critic.

I am not worthy of a passing grade.

Is anyone?
 Quoting: The_Meridian


The golden rule is probably the most objective, defining way of explaining and understanding natural law. It has nothing to do with moral relativism.
 Quoting: Raniaashi


Um...not sure I said it did?
(B)ullshit™ always needs an amplified bullhorn demanding kneeling subservience - or else.- SyncAsFunk

The light within me always draws me back to make the dark decision to leave the false counterfeit light. -New Heart
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 80985693
United States
02/15/2023 12:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
You cannot have natural law in a overpopulated world. Human society has been going against the natural environment since Adam.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83842218


So, you endorse moral relativism? Would you endorse re-education?
 Quoting: Raniaashi


I would endorse it as long as the front man was Ned Flanders.

No joke..


Raniaashi  (OP)

User ID: 85290441
United States
02/15/2023 12:47 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
We all do the best we can, as we see fit.

As a result, we fall short of perfection against any and all highest ideals or judgment methods.

We all negotiate and barter with right and wrong to get through a single day.

We sin 1000 times before breakfast.

Who defines natural law other than Moral relativists?

Golden Rule is the only thing we should all strive to practice. If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to others.

Cannot possibly go wrong with that.

Nobody or no thing is going to judge me besides me.

And I'm my worst critic.

I am not worthy of a passing grade.

Is anyone?
 Quoting: The_Meridian


The golden rule is probably the most objective, defining way of explaining and understanding natural law. It has nothing to do with moral relativism.
 Quoting: Raniaashi


Um...not sure I said it did?
 Quoting: The_Meridian


nope. I was highlighting your comment on the golden rule.
Love is like light. It is never constrained to its source; it shines on everything and tends to spread spontaneously, unless we block it! ~ Cosmic Swami
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 83842218
Slovakia
02/15/2023 12:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
You cannot have natural law in a overpopulated world. Human society has been going against the natural environment since Adam.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83842218


So, you endorse moral relativism? Would you endorse re-education?
 Quoting: Raniaashi


I endorse depopulation.

Just in natural ways, not by murdering population.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 84970203
United States
02/15/2023 12:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
We all do the best we can, as we see fit.

As a result, we fall short of perfection against any and all highest ideals or judgment methods.

We all negotiate and barter with right and wrong to get through a single day.

We sin 1000 times before breakfast.

Who defines natural law other than Moral relativists?

Golden Rule is the only thing we should all strive to practice. If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to others.

Cannot possibly go wrong with that.

Nobody or no thing is going to judge me besides me.

And I'm my worst critic.

I am not worthy of a passing grade.

Is anyone?
 Quoting: The_Meridian


The golden rule is probably the most objective, defining way of explaining and understanding natural law. It has nothing to do with moral relativism.
 Quoting: Raniaashi


So the golden rule. What if I believe that rape is just? Then I try and force my beliefs onto others?

What if I think it is a sin for females to show their face in public? Then I do everything in my power to stop the heathens from harming their souls through ignorance?

The golden rule only works in a world where everyone thinks the same and holds the same values/religion. Do we live in that kind of world?
Raniaashi  (OP)

User ID: 85290441
United States
02/15/2023 12:50 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
You cannot have natural law in a overpopulated world. Human society has been going against the natural environment since Adam.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83842218


So, you endorse moral relativism? Would you endorse re-education?
 Quoting: Raniaashi


I endorse depopulation.

Just in natural ways, not by murdering population.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83842218


lolsss, i've been saying this planet needs a reset long before it became the current meme of the cabal.
Love is like light. It is never constrained to its source; it shines on everything and tends to spread spontaneously, unless we block it! ~ Cosmic Swami
Raniaashi  (OP)

User ID: 85290441
United States
02/15/2023 12:52 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
We all do the best we can, as we see fit.

As a result, we fall short of perfection against any and all highest ideals or judgment methods.

We all negotiate and barter with right and wrong to get through a single day.

We sin 1000 times before breakfast.

Who defines natural law other than Moral relativists?

Golden Rule is the only thing we should all strive to practice. If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to others.

Cannot possibly go wrong with that.

Nobody or no thing is going to judge me besides me.

And I'm my worst critic.

I am not worthy of a passing grade.

Is anyone?
 Quoting: The_Meridian


The golden rule is probably the most objective, defining way of explaining and understanding natural law. It has nothing to do with moral relativism.
 Quoting: Raniaashi


So the golden rule. What if I believe that rape is just? Then I try and force my beliefs onto others?

What if I think it is a sin for females to show their face in public? Then I do everything in my power to stop the heathens from harming their souls through ignorance?

The golden rule only works in a world where everyone thinks the same and holds the same values/religion. Do we live in that kind of world?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 84970203


nope. It's innate within all of us. No one would believe rape is just. And no one forces their beliefs on others. We get into heated discussions..... even arguments. But no one can force their belief on another. Unless that person submits, willingly.

The golden rule is not about values or religions. It's the complete opposite.
Love is like light. It is never constrained to its source; it shines on everything and tends to spread spontaneously, unless we block it! ~ Cosmic Swami
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 83842218
Slovakia
02/15/2023 12:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
You cannot have natural law in a overpopulated world. Human society has been going against the natural environment since Adam.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83842218


So, you endorse moral relativism? Would you endorse re-education?
 Quoting: Raniaashi


I endorse depopulation.

Just in natural ways, not by murdering population.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83842218


lolsss, i've been saying this planet needs a reset long before it became the current meme of the cabal.
 Quoting: Raniaashi


they first cause overpopulation then hell-bund on to get rid of it, how stupid has been that.
Atlas Is Shrugging
User ID: 23711124
United States
02/15/2023 12:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
Moral relativism is the idea that there are no absolute rules to determine whether something is right or wrong. Unlike moral absolutists, moral relativists argue that good and bad are relative concepts – whether something is considered right or wrong can change depending on opinion, social context, culture or a number of other factors.

Moral relativists argue that there is more than one valid system of mora
lity. A quick glance around the world or through history will reveal that no matter what we happen to believe is morally right and wrong, there is at least one person or culture that believes differently, and holds their belief with as much conviction as we do.

This existence of widespread moral diversity throughout history, between cultures and even within cultures, has led some philosophers to argue that morality is not absolute, but rather that there might be many valid moral systems: that morality is relative.

[link to ethics.org.au (secure)]

OR:

Natural law theory holds that all human conduct is governed by an inherited set of universal moral rules. These rules apply to everyone, everywhere, in the same way.
As a philosophy, natural law deals with moral questions of “right vs. wrong,” and assumes that all people want to live “good and innocent” lives.
Natural law is the opposite of “man-made” or “positive” law enacted by courts or governments.
Under natural law, taking another life is forbidden, no matter the circumstances involved, including self-defense.
Natural law exists independently of regular or “positive” laws—laws enacted by courts or governments. Historically, the philosophy of natural law has dealt with the timeless question of “right vs. wrong” in determining the proper human behavior. First referred to in the Bible, the concept of natural law was later addressed by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle and Roman philosopher Cicero.

What Is Natural Law?
Natural law is a philosophy based on the idea that everyone in a given society shares the same idea of what constitutes “right” and “wrong.” Further, natural law assumes that all people want to live “good and innocent” lives. Thus, natural law can also be thought of as the basis of “morality.”

Natural law is the opposite of “man-made” or “positive” law. While positive law may be inspired by natural law, natural law may not be inspired by positive law. For example, laws against impaired driving are positive laws inspired by natural laws.

Unlike laws enacted by governments to address specific needs or behaviors, natural law is universal, applying to everyone, everywhere, in the same way. For example, natural law assumes that everyone believes killing another person is wrong and that punishment for killing another person is right.

[link to www.thoughtco.com (secure)]
 Quoting: Raniaashi


I believe this is the same fundamental conflict that Ayn Rand saw in human history. She identified those who believe in moral relativism as "collectivists" while identifying those who believe in natural law as "individuals".

Personally, I support the tenets identified by natural law as the proper order of things.

That being said, the "moral relativists" prove by their own actions that not everyone thinks the same way nor do people inherently share the same values. For an example, many of the people in power today are ruthless and do not care about who or what they harm in order to serve themselves. In this sense, I think that moral relativism does exist in practice whether or not I approve of it.

So while I think that natural law, if practiced by everyone, could lead to a more just society. I also must acknowledge the present reality which is that different people do value different things, leading to the chaos that we observe in our daily lives.
The_Meridian
Breshears is Off: Ask Me Why

User ID: 82129370
United States
02/15/2023 12:56 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
So the golden rule. What if I believe that rape is just? Then I try and force my beliefs onto others?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 84970203


That's not the Golden Rule.

The Golden Rule is "I want to be raped, therefore, I will rape."

Nobody wants to be raped.

"I want the beliefs of others to be forced on me, therefore I will force my beliefs on others."

See the problem there?

What if I think it is a sin for females to show their face in public? Then I do everything in my power to stop the heathens from harming their souls through ignorance?
 Quoting: op

It's not about what you think.

It's about what you want done to you.
The golden rule only works in a world where everyone thinks the same and holds the same values/religion. Do we live in that kind of world?
 Quoting:


There you go with thinking, again.

It's not about thinking.

It's about what you want done to you, and then giving that to others.

You don't want your shit stolen
You don't want you or those you love raped
You don't want to be murdered or tortured or even hurt by the hands of another
You doh't want people trespassing
You don't want your privacy invaded
You don't want thugish overlords


If you are going to argue that some people do want those things done to themselves, we're going to have a chicken and egg debate which is stupid.
(B)ullshit™ always needs an amplified bullhorn demanding kneeling subservience - or else.- SyncAsFunk

The light within me always draws me back to make the dark decision to leave the false counterfeit light. -New Heart
Weisshaupt

User ID: 76411872
United States
02/15/2023 12:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
The basis of natural law is that there are a very limited number of ways humans can interact with each other voluntarily and repeatedly without coercion and violence.

The only assumption of the philosophy is that other people are individuals with agency and sovereignty that needs to be respected, and therefore the use of violence on coercion is wrong. This is the basis of all civilization. Even simple tribes have certain "moral" rules they must follow in order to get along with each other in peaceful and co-operative coexistence.

Moral Relativism is simply the Law of the jungle. Might makes right. If you can force and outcome , it was right to do so if you believe the outcome to be good. The ends always justify the means. Other people are merely resources to use towards your own agenda, values and survival. Such behavior inevitably tears down civilizations.

If you like civilization and the security and peace it offers at the cost of personal responsibility, delayed gratification and general impulse control - you prefer natural law.

If you are a natural A-hole or narcissist, you prefer moral relativism .




See also r/K theory.

Last Edited by Weisshaupt on 02/15/2023 12:58 PM
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 83842218
Slovakia
02/15/2023 12:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
The basis of natural law is that there are a very limited number of ways humans can interact with each other voluntarily and repeatedly without coercion and violence.

The only assumption of the philosophy is that other people are individuals with agency and sovereignty that needs to be respected, and therefore the use of violence on coercion is wrong. This is the basis of all civilization. Even simple tribes have certain "moral" rules they must follow in order to get along with each other in peaceful and co-operative coexistence.

Moral Relativism is simply the Law of the jungle. Might makes right. If you can force and outcome , it was right to do so if you believe the outcome to be good. The ends always justify the means. Other people are merely resources to use towards your own agenda, values and survival. Such behavior inevitably tears down civilizations.

If you like civilization and the security and peace it offers at the cost of personal responsibility, delayed gratification and general impulse control - you prefer natural law.

If you are a natural A-hole or narcissist, you prefer moral relativism .




See also r/K theory.
 Quoting: Weisshaupt


Nature does not know any morals ... only the necessary.
Weisshaupt

User ID: 76411872
United States
02/15/2023 01:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
Moral relativism is the idea that there are no absolute rules to determine whether something is right or wrong. Unlike moral absolutists, moral relativists argue that good and bad are relative concepts – whether something is considered right or wrong can change depending on opinion, social context, culture or a number of other factors.

Moral relativists argue that there is more than one valid system of mora
lity. A quick glance around the world or through history will reveal that no matter what we happen to believe is morally right and wrong, there is at least one person or culture that believes differently, and holds their belief with as much conviction as we do.

This existence of widespread moral diversity throughout history, between cultures and even within cultures, has led some philosophers to argue that morality is not absolute, but rather that there might be many valid moral systems: that morality is relative.

[link to ethics.org.au (secure)]

OR:

Natural law theory holds that all human conduct is governed by an inherited set of universal moral rules. These rules apply to everyone, everywhere, in the same way.
As a philosophy, natural law deals with moral questions of “right vs. wrong,” and assumes that all people want to live “good and innocent” lives.
Natural law is the opposite of “man-made” or “positive” law enacted by courts or governments.
Under natural law, taking another life is forbidden, no matter the circumstances involved, including self-defense.
Natural law exists independently of regular or “positive” laws—laws enacted by courts or governments. Historically, the philosophy of natural law has dealt with the timeless question of “right vs. wrong” in determining the proper human behavior. First referred to in the Bible, the concept of natural law was later addressed by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle and Roman philosopher Cicero.

What Is Natural Law?
Natural law is a philosophy based on the idea that everyone in a given society shares the same idea of what constitutes “right” and “wrong.” Further, natural law assumes that all people want to live “good and innocent” lives. Thus, natural law can also be thought of as the basis of “morality.”

Natural law is the opposite of “man-made” or “positive” law. While positive law may be inspired by natural law, natural law may not be inspired by positive law. For example, laws against impaired driving are positive laws inspired by natural laws.

Unlike laws enacted by governments to address specific needs or behaviors, natural law is universal, applying to everyone, everywhere, in the same way. For example, natural law assumes that everyone believes killing another person is wrong and that punishment for killing another person is right.

[link to www.thoughtco.com (secure)]
 Quoting: Raniaashi


I believe this is the same fundamental conflict that Ayn Rand saw in human history. She identified those who believe in moral relativism as "collectivists" while identifying those who believe in natural law as "individuals".

Personally, I support the tenets identified by natural law as the proper order of things.

That being said, the "moral relativists" prove by their own actions that not everyone thinks the same way nor do people inherently share the same values. For an example, many of the people in power today are ruthless and do not care about who or what they harm in order to serve themselves. In this sense, I think that moral relativism does exist in practice whether or not I approve of it.

So while I think that natural law, if practiced by everyone, could lead to a more just society. I also must acknowledge the present reality which is that different people do value different things, leading to the chaos that we observe in our daily lives.
 Quoting: Atlas Is Shrugging 23711124



Collectivism is simply believing the good of the many outweighs the needs of a few. The problem is that the "good of the many" is a value judgement - a judgement that not everyone may share. Hence there are two types of collectivism - voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary systems tend to only work when everyone knows each other and is reasonably assured that a good turn done to someone will eventually be repaid. In groups beyond 200-300 this expectation breaks down and voluntary association is no longer easily obtained.

The second type is involuntary - or "State" Collectivism - and this is what Rand was referring to. In this form coercion and violence is used to impose compliance to some notion of "the common good" that isn't shared by everyone. This form is implicitly authoritarian, and treats individuals as resources with out rights of their own. Freedom is what is left over after the State makes its demands. This always devolves into poverty and suffering for all involved because human effort is on a pareto distribution. If a minority are dissuaded from producing, or produce to the lowest common denominator, you loose 50% or more of the potential output of a society. Further resources must be wasted on enforcing compliance on top of this.



“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck.”

― Robert Heinlein
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 85289711
Ireland
02/15/2023 01:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere

[link to www.bitchute.com (secure)]
Raniaashi  (OP)

User ID: 85290441
United States
02/15/2023 01:13 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
Moral relativism is the idea that there are no absolute rules to determine whether something is right or wrong. Unlike moral absolutists, moral relativists argue that good and bad are relative concepts – whether something is considered right or wrong can change depending on opinion, social context, culture or a number of other factors.

Moral relativists argue that there is more than one valid system of mora
lity. A quick glance around the world or through history will reveal that no matter what we happen to believe is morally right and wrong, there is at least one person or culture that believes differently, and holds their belief with as much conviction as we do.

This existence of widespread moral diversity throughout history, between cultures and even within cultures, has led some philosophers to argue that morality is not absolute, but rather that there might be many valid moral systems: that morality is relative.

[link to ethics.org.au (secure)]

OR:

Natural law theory holds that all human conduct is governed by an inherited set of universal moral rules. These rules apply to everyone, everywhere, in the same way.
As a philosophy, natural law deals with moral questions of “right vs. wrong,” and assumes that all people want to live “good and innocent” lives.
Natural law is the opposite of “man-made” or “positive” law enacted by courts or governments.
Under natural law, taking another life is forbidden, no matter the circumstances involved, including self-defense.
Natural law exists independently of regular or “positive” laws—laws enacted by courts or governments. Historically, the philosophy of natural law has dealt with the timeless question of “right vs. wrong” in determining the proper human behavior. First referred to in the Bible, the concept of natural law was later addressed by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle and Roman philosopher Cicero.

What Is Natural Law?
Natural law is a philosophy based on the idea that everyone in a given society shares the same idea of what constitutes “right” and “wrong.” Further, natural law assumes that all people want to live “good and innocent” lives. Thus, natural law can also be thought of as the basis of “morality.”

Natural law is the opposite of “man-made” or “positive” law. While positive law may be inspired by natural law, natural law may not be inspired by positive law. For example, laws against impaired driving are positive laws inspired by natural laws.

Unlike laws enacted by governments to address specific needs or behaviors, natural law is universal, applying to everyone, everywhere, in the same way. For example, natural law assumes that everyone believes killing another person is wrong and that punishment for killing another person is right.

[link to www.thoughtco.com (secure)]
 Quoting: Raniaashi


I believe this is the same fundamental conflict that Ayn Rand saw in human history. She identified those who believe in moral relativism as "collectivists" while identifying those who believe in natural law as "individuals".

Personally, I support the tenets identified by natural law as the proper order of things.

That being said, the "moral relativists" prove by their own actions that not everyone thinks the same way nor do people inherently share the same values. For an example, many of the people in power today are ruthless and do not care about who or what they harm in order to serve themselves. In this sense, I think that moral relativism does exist in practice whether or not I approve of it.

So while I think that natural law, if practiced by everyone, could lead to a more just society. I also must acknowledge the present reality which is that different people do value different things, leading to the chaos that we observe in our daily lives.
 Quoting: Atlas Is Shrugging 23711124



Collectivism is simply believing the good of the many outweighs the needs of a few. The problem is that the "good of the many" is a value judgement - a judgement that not everyone may share. Hence there are two types of collectivism - voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary systems tend to only work when everyone knows each other and is reasonably assured that a good turn done to someone will eventually be repaid. In groups beyond 200-300 this expectation breaks down and voluntary association is no longer easily obtained.

The second type is involuntary - or "State" Collectivism - and this is what Rand was referring to. In this form coercion and violence is used to impose compliance to some notion of "the common good" that isn't shared by everyone. This form is implicitly authoritarian, and treats individuals as resources with out rights of their own. Freedom is what is left over after the State makes its demands. This always devolves into poverty and suffering for all involved because human effort is on a pareto distribution. If a minority are dissuaded from producing, or produce to the lowest common denominator, you loose 50% or more of the potential output of a society. Further resources must be wasted on enforcing compliance on top of this.



“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck.”

― Robert Heinlein
 Quoting: Weisshaupt


seems that moral relativism or the collective establishment of what's right for the many has led us to where we are today. And it's getting more and more extreme..... being as the collective is so heavily influenced by the few through programming, indoctrination, dare i say "brainwashing" ... all for the supposed good of humanity.

i submit that until we each as individuals stand up for our individual natural rights..... we will be carried downstream amongst the collective.
Love is like light. It is never constrained to its source; it shines on everything and tends to spread spontaneously, unless we block it! ~ Cosmic Swami
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 84320066
United States
02/15/2023 01:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
I say that it's plain for all to see that they won.
dogman17

User ID: 83838038
United States
02/15/2023 01:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
Moral relativism is the way the world operates. Most people don't recognize or believe that natural law exists. The idea that there is some sort of natural law smacks of the supernatural and God-given Ten Commandments. The idea that thou shalt not kill long predated Moses and the stone tablets. The ideas of the Golden Rule and the Platinum Rule (Do unto others as they would have you do unto them) makes sense and works in the real world--these rules are morally relativistic--no God need be involved.
Just don't make anything up.
Weisshaupt

User ID: 76411872
United States
02/15/2023 01:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
The basis of natural law is that there are a very limited number of ways humans can interact with each other voluntarily and repeatedly without coercion and violence.

The only assumption of the philosophy is that other people are individuals with agency and sovereignty that needs to be respected, and therefore the use of violence on coercion is wrong. This is the basis of all civilization. Even simple tribes have certain "moral" rules they must follow in order to get along with each other in peaceful and co-operative coexistence.

Moral Relativism is simply the Law of the jungle. Might makes right. If you can force and outcome , it was right to do so if you believe the outcome to be good. The ends always justify the means. Other people are merely resources to use towards your own agenda, values and survival. Such behavior inevitably tears down civilizations.

If you like civilization and the security and peace it offers at the cost of personal responsibility, delayed gratification and general impulse control - you prefer natural law.

If you are a natural A-hole or narcissist, you prefer moral relativism .




See also r/K theory.
 Quoting: Weisshaupt


Nature does not know any morals ... only the necessary.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 83842218



Correct. This is why Civilization is often seen and understood as "un-natural" or "artificial" as humans use their agency to override their instinctual or base impulses in order to ensure that they can obtain the voluntary and co-operative help of others, repeatedly, without incurring wrath or violence. Inevitably group of humans who do this will gain a survival advantage over those who do not keep promises or who use violence to impose their will. Even among chimps a "leader" that uses such tactics does not live long before other members of the group co-operate to kill him. Enforcing compliance takes resources that voluntary co-operation does not, and puts in place a desire to be "valuable" to the group and individually productive. Such groups simply out compete those who operate under a different survival strategy. This is part of the reason those who support moral relativism are so desperate for a on-world government-so there is no outside group to compete with...of course this will not work, because the tenets of moral relativism will destroy any society that may have been built by those who support natural law. Look around and you can see it happening as part of the normal human cycle

Weak men create hard times. Hard times kill off the weak men, leaving strong men to rebuild
Strong men create good times, and allow weak men to survive. Rinse. Repeat.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 83459464
United States
02/15/2023 01:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
Moral relativism is the way the world operates. Most people don't recognize or believe that natural law exists. The idea that there is some sort of natural law smacks of the supernatural and God-given Ten Commandments. The idea that thou shalt not kill long predated Moses and the stone tablets. The ideas of the Golden Rule and the Platinum Rule (Do unto others as they would have you do unto them) makes sense and works in the real world--these rules are morally relativistic--no God need be involved.
 Quoting: dogman17


You seem confused.
Natural Law is as follows.
1. The universe is governed by the laws of nature.
2. The laws of nature are fixed, ridged and eternal.
3. The laws of nature apply to living creatures just as firmly and relentlessly as they do to inanimate objects.

There’s zero Semitic BS involved.
SafeandSound

User ID: 81103575
United States
02/15/2023 01:21 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
The creation of life and preservation of life are agreed upon as moral.

A mockery of the male and female (creation) should make you repulsed, like rape, child sterilization and lgbtq.
Raniaashi  (OP)

User ID: 85290441
United States
02/15/2023 01:22 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
Moral relativism is the way the world operates. Most people don't recognize or believe that natural law exists. The idea that there is some sort of natural law smacks of the supernatural and God-given Ten Commandments. The idea that thou shalt not kill long predated Moses and the stone tablets. The ideas of the Golden Rule and the Platinum Rule (Do unto others as they would have you do unto them) makes sense and works in the real world--these rules are morally relativistic--no God need be involved.
 Quoting: dogman17


You just mingled the two of them, lolssss.....

you just morally justified the golden rule. and pretty much obliterated natural law.
Love is like light. It is never constrained to its source; it shines on everything and tends to spread spontaneously, unless we block it! ~ Cosmic Swami
BFD

User ID: 78179634
United States
02/15/2023 01:23 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
Moral relativism is poison.
INFJ/Conservative Artist
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 83459464
United States
02/15/2023 01:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere
The creation of life and preservation of life are agreed upon as moral.

A mockery of the male and female (creation) should make you repulsed, like rape, child sterilization and lgbtq.
 Quoting: SafeandSound


True. But it’s through nature and the natural law that created the male and female these beliefs apply.
We call it degeneracy when what you describe happens.
And eventually, nature will course correct, and address it. The iron will of nature always corrects these mistakes.





GLP