Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law and how does AI interfere

This might be beyond most glp's abilities to comprehend.

Moral relativity is the only real morality. We can learn and get better. You know what is right, don't you?

No, I just need to stop letting myself be distracted.

I waste a LOT of time.

It's shameful, really.

But sometimes I wonder if taking no action is a show of faith or should I instead trust that God wants to help me shape my own path?

Is it okay to want things from this world, or should I continue to shun it and shut myself away from it?

To be, or not to be? That is the question.

I've been not being and thinking it's okay, but it doesn't feel very right anymore.

(If it ever really did)

Nature creates the laws? So Nature has agency? It is sentient? It designs?
If so, that is what most call "god"

The constraints of a environment are what they are. There was no designer. What can be done , can be done. What cannot be done, cannot be done. That is "nature" in the sense of our environment is "naturally" occurring and not made by man.


The Nature in "Natural law" is the nature of man himself.
Please understand language is only a tool- where we label concepts. Using the word nature in one context or another does not have any effect on reality.

Moral relativity denies any standard of "better"
Better is relative to one's personal, subjective and often arrogant and selfish ideas of what is "better" and usually end up being "what is best for me"

Human co-operation cannot be obtained under such a system, as at any time a person can decide it would be best (for them) if they broke the broke their promises, disrespected the rights of others, or used coercion and violence to achieve their ends.

Nature creates the laws? So Nature has agency? It is sentient? It designs?
If so, that is what most call "god"

The constraints of a environment are what they are. There was no designer. What can be done , can be done. What cannot be done, cannot be done. That is "nature" in the sense of our environment is "naturally" occurring and not made by man.


The Nature in "Natural law" is the nature of man himself.
Please understand language is only a tool- where we label concepts. Using the word nature in one context or another does not have any effect on reality.

nope. I was highlighting your comment on the golden rule.

the post is wrong about killing in self defense not being permitted under natural law. Self defense is a cornerstone of natural law.

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)]

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.

Morals... relative to what?

Without fundamental Law, Natural Law, God's Law, there are no "morals".

So, you end up with Satanism, "Do as thou wilt."

oh yeah, nature creates laws. You just try to defy it and see how far it gets you lol

Thank you for a really interesting post, OP, and for opening up a discussion on it. Already, the responses have also been interesting.

I am not into labels but that doesn't stop me from being labeled by the opinions of others - and I wouldn't want it to be any other way, because I, inevitably also label others, as I see them and their actions from my perspective.

I believe that at a basic level, good and evil are perspectives. As an example of my opinion - take the waves of the ocean. Technically, they are neither good nor evil, yet they have been responsible for taking countless lives over the Eons. Is the incoming wave good? Or is it evil? Is the outgoing wave good? Or is it evil?

Both waveforms are at the same time creative and destructive, both have taken lives, yet in themselves, they are simply an expression of Ebb and Flow! Now, Ebb and Flow are found everywhere from the quantum level to the macro level of our known universe. At the quantum level, we see it as a frequency with its peaks and troughs which forms the basis of everything we see, while at the macro level, we see it as an ongoing cycle of creation and destruction, which is also in everything we can see and perceive.

So, Moral Relativism vs. Natural Law, both are labels and measures that we humans tend to use to pigeonhole our personal perspective.

However, as none of us live in total isolation and are therefore part of a social and cultural system or group, as individuals, we tend to go with the flow of that or those groups and claim their moralities as the social norms by which we live. In human culture, there are countless examples of this and where we can metaphorically claim - what is one man's meat, may in fact be, another man's poison.

Now, having said all of that, I truly believe and even experience that which I find to be totally abhorrent and hence I consider and would label as - evil, yet, in another society or cultural group, that very same thing may be considered to be morally and totally normal!

Of course, what I have written above is simply MHO on the matter raised.

Wrong.
Some incorrectly call it “God”.
The constraints of the environment are what they are because of natural law.
Period.
Natural law is not a tool.
Please understand this.
Man has nothing to do with it other than trying to mislabel something to fit his narrative. Incorrectly of course…

We can learn to be better. Doing so improves our lives and the lives of others. How has artificial "natural law" worked out for you? Do some good. No supernatural reward is required. Doing some good is its own reward.

You cannot have natural law in a overpopulated world. Human society has been going against the natural environment since Adam.

False. The limits of voluntary cooperation (incentives) are a outer boundary on population and social dysfunction.

Both in a micro and macro sense.

The belief that morality is fungible has never lead humans to success much less sustainability (which is over AND under). Look at the societies that tried this. Typically very political and the codes arbitrary. Most of these attempts left no room for dissent which produced closed systems unable to recognize failure or pivot until collapse.

Especially today people have come to realize the virtue of faith (God) who prescribes an objective immutable moral code. It provides shared values which creates trust. Trust encourages cooperation. Cooperation decreases conflict and increases individual prosperity (individuals are not naturally in conflict with society until politicians act on ulterior motives).

Put this in the context of a modern conflict/problem and it's easy to see.

[snip]

First, you cannot enforce morality. Or it is a dictatorship. People to behave must come naturally. But natural behavior escapes them when inventing morals. Its a vicious circle.

"When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass


A word is just a label. I cannot 'mislabel" anything because words and their meanings are entirely arbitrary. I can tell you what I mean by a term, and you can elaborate on what you mean by one. Then we negotiate alternate terms if we can't agree on the usage of a word. Or at least that is a common civilized approach.

I note that those who think the word denotes reality, and is there for "right" are typically confusing the territory with the map. I further note that most do so because they are trying to hamper communication, not establish it. It is an act of bad faith.

Did you note that you simply disagreed and failed to even engage the point on agency?

Where do you rate your response on this chart?

[imgur] [link to imgur.com (secure)]

I agree. Society needs enforcement for exceptions. Particularly egregious ones. This does not require a dictatorship and the concept of just authority isn't lost because we ask people to behave according to objective morals.

If you see enforcement as a harm...

It is easier to police significant exceptions in a system that offers nature incentives to act morally?