Chomsky, on Post Modernism, Relativism, and Universal Values

Headline of the Day

New York taxi drivers to be banned from flirting with or ejaculating on passengers
The new rules come off the back of a large increase in complaints ranging from inappropriate conversation to unwanted contact and rape

Well, when Relativism and Consequentialism are the prevailing moral codes, everything goes until it is made illegal. So under what moral code is not "ejaculating on passengers" deemed a punishable offense? Hm. Maybe feminists do like it?

An Argument FOR Relativism In Morals

The recent article regarding the existence of moral fact, an article in the New York Times philosophy page, The Stone, claiming that relativism is now beginning to be instilled in grade schools and that college students are more morally relativistic than ever, has received a scathing rebuke from Slate columnist, Daniel Engber. Engber begins by slashing philosopher Justin McBrayer for not providing any empirical science in support of his claims. Rather, says Engber,

"So that’s the argument. And here’s an opinion: It’s total crap. If you subject McBrayer to the sort of claims-testing that is routinely taught to second-graders—i.e., if you assess it using evidence and observation—the essay falls apart. There’s no evidence that college students are any less morally resolute today than they were in years past. There’s no evidence that public school lesson plans are changing how we think (and besides, the Common Core hasn’t been around that long). There’s no evidence that moral relativism, McBrayer’s bugbear, causes “rampant cheating,” or indeed any other substantial harm. In fact—in fact—most of the evidence goes the other way.

So Engber is asserting that McBrayer's entire premise is not fact - actually empirical factoids - it is opinion. False opinion, according to Engber, at least at this point in the article. But is this denial, itself, fact? Or is it opinion? Engber chooses to produce some studies which refute McBrayer, but the first study is not released, and presumably is not peer reviewed, either, so empirically it is irrelevant. And it can be ignored in light of a subsequent study to which Engber refers us which does, in fact, refute his own position:

"For another recent study, conducted at UCLA, researchers presented students with relativistic and objectivist accounts of female genital mutilation, then asked them to roll a pair of dice and report the result in exchange for tickets to a raffle. (The higher the roll, the more chances they would have to win.) In the end, students who had been primed to think of morals as negotiable ended up reporting higher dice rolls—a clear sign that they were cheating. Other research, using standard questionnaires to assess people’s moral outlooks, has found that moral relativism correlates with willingness to switch price tags at a store, or to lie about a child’s age to get a kiddie price, or to copy software illegally.

McBrayer may be onto something: If you put relativist ideas into people’s heads, they do get a bit nihilistic, and in general, relativist worldviews are indeed associated with at least some minor misbehaviors."
[emphasis added]

Minor misbehaviors? That is a judgment which resonates relativistic, considering that all three examples are illegal, and are criminal behaviors, apparently lurking just below the surface without a moral fact to inhibit them. A worldview based in moral fact would not be so easily led into crime. Engber has presented a refutation of his own high volume attack.

Thus Engber tries now to recoup his position by placing irrelevancies in the path, hoping for some intellectual stumbling:

"But there’s another batch of research that complicates the story. The psychologists Geoffrey Goodwin and John Darley have found that more objectivist moral thinkers tend to be more closed-minded. When confronted with a disagreement, they’re not inclined to understand the other person’s point of view. They’re less likely to say they’d want to have that person as a roommate, or to adjust their own opinions through discussion and debate. Goodwin and Darley even found that moral realists perform worse on certain kinds of logic puzzles that require thinking through alternative scenarios. (Here’s one—the five-block task.)

So moral relativism makes us more corrupt, but it also keeps us open-minded; moral objectivism keeps us on the straight and narrow, but it also breeds intolerance. Is one of these outcomes clearly better than the other?"

Here Engber is trying to justify moral relativism under a new moral presupposition: discrimination against immoral actions and immoral people is "intolerance" - clearly immoral in Enger's mind, but there only. All the features Enger decries are facets of the same failure, (except not understanding the other person's point of view, which is likely false, given that the other point of view is unknowable due to being relative): under relativism the holder's point of view is that whatever he decides is morally OK, is in FACT, morally OK. That is perfectly understood. And for those with actual fixed morals which are relatable to immutable facts, that opposite point of view is an indicator of untrustworthiness, and is not a feature of a person to which one wishes to be attached. Discrimination against such people is purely common sense, and is evil only to those people who don't believe in evil. And therein is Engber's intellectual and moral failure. Still, he calls in back-up:

"For a second opinion, I called my friend Joshua Knobe, an experimental philosopher at Yale who has worked on related questions. He thinks there’s no more reason to be fearful of moral relativism than there is to think that atheists are untrustworthy because nothing compels them to be good people. “I think there’s a lot of reason to be terrified,” he said, “not of the [relativistic] people who end up being miscreants, but of the people who are so full of conviction about whatever religious views they hold, and they’re absolutely convinced theirs is the only right way to think.” You know, like the types who might join ISIS."

First, there is no reason whatsoever to trust anyone whose morals are self-derived and instantly volatile. To do so would indicate irrationality on the part of the credulous naif.

Second, he has asserted a false analogy: Islam is itself highly relativist, allowing any sort of bad behavior based on the situation. Under jihad, any passion may be exercised, be it sexual lust, blood lust, the lust for power, the lust to own women and slaves. All are both prohibited and allowed under Islamic documents, thoughts and the very life of Muhammad. So this argument fails, and fails hard. Yet Engber charges on with more arguments consisting of relativism which actually exists in many minds, and then ends with this:

"Those data tell us, once again, that these questions don’t have simple answers. College freshmen may come off like fools, doubting every moral universal, but perhaps we ought to think of their displays as a form of practice. They’re learning how to weigh the evidence and challenge their beliefs. That’s a skill worth having, whether you’re an undergraduate or a writer for the New York Times."

Here's an actual skill suggestion for Engber and any relativist apologist: perform a disciplined, grounded, Aristotelian deduction which shows the truth which inheres in relativism. The mere concept that there is a truth of any sort, even relativism as the correct view of anything, proves the contrary: Some statements are objective truths and can be shown to be objective truth by virtue of their deduction and testing under Reductio Ad Absurdum. But that is known logic. Logic is not the essence of relativism nor that of its apologists, who rely on their emotional state to dictate moral responses. Relativism asserts that what is true is that which seems true to me, only here and only now and only for this case which presents itself. But if there are immutable truths by which to compare and judge the congruence of the present situation, then relativism is false, logically. And if there are moral deductions - and there are - then relativism is morally false as well.

No Limits

When there is no obtaining morality, there are no limits. When the "mandated" vision is undefined “Change”, then what happens is indiscriminate behavior which will favor the “changers” and persecute the stabilizers.

The changers, i.e. Progressives, came into power fully armed with ideas of dealing with their enemies by using their Victimization list as the trigger. Their enemies are those who don’t believe as Progressives believe, to wit: that there are earth-bound messiahs whose only yet supreme moral position is to eradicate opposition to their aspirations of world-wide salvation:

one world + one thought process = universal happiness and flourishing.

If only the (immoral) opposition were eliminated, everyone would be morally happy.

Brought to the fore, then is the freshly opening view of the tactics being used by the Progressives in order to achieve their objectives. For example, the leader of the free world is now able to ignore all legislation with which he does not agree, and to issue presidential decrees which serve as legislation ex-congressio (to coin a much needed term). Abetted by the SCOTUS, the president is now nearly supreme in doing whatever he wishes to do, or not to do. And his vast executive organization is similarly enabled:

Under the U.S. president, his minions are able

(1) to define certain groups as terrorists; to ship weapons off to drug lords for their use in murdering both Mexicans and Americans;

(2) to use the full weight of the tax code to eliminate activity which might influence their re-election adversely;

(3) to give corporations to unions while stiffing actual investors, and then providing funds to the corporations to “pay back the loans”;

(4) to implement massive payouts to “black farmers” with no oversight;

(5) to use taxpayer cash to pay off bankers, environmental boondoggles, abortion providers, and election manipulators;

(6) to ignore pleas for help from diplomats under attack;

(7) to ignore border security with token changes while demanding citizenship for all who get into the country, forever.

Now it is revealed that the Justice Department has been instrumental in organizing demonstrations against George Zimmerman, who, at this moment, has not been convicted or exonerated of criminal activity in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. This is just one of the many racist actions implemented by the Justice Department. The president added to the racism when he declared that, if he’d had a son, he would look just like Trayvon, a seemingly deliberate poisoning of the well of fair justice, now tainted racially. It is highly likely that Trayvon was a pot smoking serial criminal, as shown in his email brags, but that information will not be accessible to the jury. And it will make no difference to the rioters, who are waiting in the wings to destroy whatever they come across as their own racial statement. Perhaps they will be funded or even led by the US Dept of Justice for whom there are no limits.

The 21st century has started off as one with no limits, certainly no moral limitations and obviously no legal limitations either as the Progressives in government show with their disdain for law, the constitution, and in fact anything which stands between themselves and power, such as a robust nation full of individualists, entrepreneurs, and liberty seekers (as opposed to groupthinks, anti-capitalists, and libertines). What Progressives need is a nation full of fully dependent sycophants, willing to trade liberty (and votes) for government doles.

In the illegal immigrant, Progressives have found the mother lode of such chronically sycophants. Accordingly there are no limits on what the Progressives will do, including not deporting them, and turning many of them loose on the streets, of course, as well as prohibiting individual states from doing so, but also struggling to legitimize them as future voters. The law is no limiting factor to Progressives, for whom all new labels redefine their obstacles: "illegal" becomes "undocumented"; "abortion" becomes "choice" and "women;s healthcare"; "criticism" becomes "racism"; "homosexual becomes "gay"; "morality" becomes "hate".

When the government has no limits, it is violation of the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution – not that anyone cares, it appears. The people of the United States of America are no longer the moral, free people of character of yore; and as always, the people deserve the government which they allow to exist over them.

Government Cheese; the Rainmakers:

”Give a man a free house and he'll bust out the windows
Put his family on food stamps, now he's a big spender
no food on the table and the bills ain't paid
'Cause he spent it on cigarettes and P.G.A.
They'll turn us all into beggars 'cause they're easier to please
They're feeding our people that Government Cheese

Give a man free food and he'll figure out a way
To steal more than he can eat 'cause he doesn't have to pay
Give a woman free kids and you'll find them in the dirt
Learning how to carry on the family line of work
It's the man in the White House, the man under the steeple
Passing out drugs to the American people
I don't believe in anything, nothing is free
They're feeding our people the Government Cheese

Decline and fall, fall down baby
Decline and fall, said fall way down now
Decline and fall, fall down little mama
Decline and fall, decline and fall

Give a man a free ticket on a dead end ride
And he'll climb in the back even though nobody's driving
Too ******* lazy to crawl out of the wreck
And he'll rot there while he waits for the welfare check
Going to hell in a handbag, can't you see
I ain't gonna eat no Government Cheese”

Principles of Atheism: Atheist Logical Processes

The Ungrounded Philosopher
I’ve told this story before. It is still a bright illumination of the logical processes which are necessary in the world of Atheist philosophy. Several years ago I was reading a post by Massimo Pigliucci over at his blog. He was defining the job of philosophy – he was new to the post of philosopher professor at the time – and his definition of philosophy was that it is an "analysis of arguments".

I am always interested in logical analytics, especially as they are exercised by Atheists, and Massimo is an evangelical Atheist. So I asked him some questions as warm ups, to which he responded politely. Then I asked him how, in a universe of no absolutes, he is able to keep his analytical arguments from being circular or infinite regresses, given that there is no absolute base upon which to tether the premises. Well, Massimo moderated all comments and that question was deep-sixed and never was published, much less addressed by the triple PhD “public philosopher”. He continued with other comments, but never my question.

Massimo was alert enough to recognize the intellectual hazard involved in addressing the issue of untethered opinions masquerading as logical analyses, when they fail the basic criteria of deductive analysis 101. It was best for Massimo’s position to ignore (and suppress) the existence of the issue, period.

Arguments which have premises which are not grounded in first principles or which are circular or infinite regresses are logically non-coherent under the rules of disciplined deduction. So Atheist arguments are actually tautologically irrational, since they refuse to acknowledge that any grounding absolutes exist. As Nietzsche demonstrated to Atheists, first principles (being merely self-evident) cannot be proved, so they don’t exist, and he charged ahead with his Anti-rationalism philosophy, making him possibly the only truly honest Atheist. At least he acknowledged that without absolutes, rationality is dead. And not just rationality: morality as well.

Dueling Contradictions
Atheists can and do entertain contradictory positions, using them interchangeably as required to suit their narrative. What applies in one instance does not apply in another instance, including within the same conversation: this is relativism, ungrounded. This results from having denied all absolutes in the necessity of avoiding having to explain a cause for such absolutes. Without absolutes there is no way to provide absolute grounding for the premises of rational arguments. Ungrounded arguments are susceptible to internal contradiction, which are acceptable when that is necessary to support a conclusion. Internal contradiction, although rampant, is irrational because it is non-coherent and fails the rules of disciplined deduction.

This presents as slip-sliding arguments which cannot be made to follow disciplined, coherent lines of logic. Atheists refusing to part with their internal contradictions cannot be made to follow deductive reasoning.

Self-referencing
Self-endowed concepts of how “logic processing” should work cannot help but be self-referencing and/or non-coherent. They have to be either circular, infinite regresses or even completely un-tethered to any referent. Circularity can be disguised by using expert referents, but expert referents tend to use other experts, and the circles can go on forever. The bottom line is that there can be no absolute principles upon which to ground the premises of the arguments made by Atheists, because Atheism requires that there be no absolutes to which Atheists must defer. Deference (humility) is eschewed by Atheists, who wish to create their own stuff. And the common claim to situational relativism is actually just a form of self-reference, where moral decisions are made for others, on the spot, by referencing only the Atheist’s self-endowed morality du jour.

That’s the beauty of the VOID: there is total freedom to make up your own stuff, your personal morals, your personal concept of reality, your concept of your personal value as an elite, messianic, moral and intellectual presence in a world of lessers and the herd, a morally and intellectually deficient herd which needs your messianic powers just to survive properly. Self-endowed, tautological superiority is both a consequence of the VOID and an indicator of personal narcissism.

Narcissism (self-endowed ego-centrism) presents as a personal conviction that everyone else has a problem, not the narcissist. The narcissist is enthusiastically and defensively ignorant of his own ignorance and irrationality. The narcissist is defensive of his own rationalizations while vigorously rejecting actual disciplined deductive logic. The narcissist is arrogantly self-assured of his own self-endowed superiority despite evidence to the contrary, evidence which is totally ignored.

Observe Sheldon Cooper on the TV show “Big Bang Theory” for a cartoon version of a narcissist.

Tu Quoques
When confronted with obviously erroneous positions which they have taken, Atheists frequently resort to “you too” deflections. These do not falsify the charges being made against their position, and when called out, the Atheist frequently produces ever more deflections.

Red Herrings
Tactics such as changing the subject mid-stream or changing definitions to suit the narrative or even attacking the proponent are types of attempts to derail the argument from its logical pathway. This is necessary when the Atheist sees that his arguments fail and that he needs to stop the conversation before that becomes apparent. When the objective of the conversation is restored, the Atheist will deviate from it constantly, and try to make his new direction imperative.

False Analogies
Atheists seem to think that the orbiting tea cup, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), or the pink unicorn actually prove something logically. By making up absurdities they hope to show that other arguments are absurd by False Association with their own absurdity, and thereby ignoring the intellectual requirement to rationally address the other arguments directly by using disciplined deductive argumentation. The orbiting tea cup and the FSM fail under several fallacies, such as False Analogy, Ridicule instead of rational argumentation, and False Association.

Ad Hominem Abusives
When arguments go off the Atheist narrative, it is common for Atheists to resort to their personal morality for the Other, charging their opponent with lying or “hate” for example. Of course there are no lies in AtheistLand, because there is no Truth. And what the Atheist means by “hate” is not the common understanding because the Atheist has redefined the term to mean “any challenge to the messiah/Victim codependent morality” which the Atheist has defined as morality. Challenging the Atheist’s self-defined morality is a violation of “tolerance”, another term which is redefined by the Atheist to mean that the Other is morally obligated to tolerate any and all antics which the Atheist might wish to pursue. These terms, "hate" and "intolerance" as well as "lying", do not apply to the tautologically moral Atheist, but apply only to the Other.

There are other terms which Atheists apply in arguments in order to devalue the person rather than to address the argument. These typically presume knowledge of the opponent’s character (not that Atheists actually believe in positive character traits), past history, his intellect, his moral position, etc, none of which are pertinent to the argument.

The Ad Hominem is a desperation move by the failed Atheist, who cannot rationally address the argument being made.

Ridicule and Contempt
PZ Meyers has famously said and frequently repeated, “Ridicule works”. Ridicule serves to derail the argument by causing the opponent to become defensive and possibly become agitated and angry at the injustice contained in the ridicule. Thus the Atheist “wins”, via ridicule, not by any type of rational reasoning, but by flustering his opponent. It is form of Red Herring and possibly Ad Hominem Abusive. It is childish, schoolyard taunting, and any Atheist using it is not a worthy intellectual conversationalist. That includes PZ and those who revere him and his tactics.

Contempt presents in argument deflection by declaring the argument (or arguer) too stupid or evil to address (for example). This indicates two things: first, the argument is too difficult for the Atheist, and second, the arrogance, elitism and narcissism of the Atheist are fully illuminated. Contemptuous Atheists are not worth including in any discussions of any kind. As with all narcissists, the contemptuous Atheist is incorrigibly ego-centric, and cannot participate in disciplined deduction.

Finally
Pointing out fallacies in Atheist arguments is typically met with incomprehension and Tu Quoques. The Atheist self-endowed, untethered thought process has no fallacies, since there are no absolutes, no Truth to which to tie a fallacy; any process which supports the predetermined conclusion is valid. Rationalization of predetermined conclusions is standard.

However, it is common for the Atheist to claim fallacies and untruths in his opponent’s arguments, despite his own non-belief in absolutes including truth. And because it is virtually certain that the Atheist has never studied logic, his use of fallacy accusation is more than likely fallacious.

All this makes a rational conversation with an Atheist impossible. The Atheist is not rationally based, he is emotionally based.

Relativism Gets To It’s Hard Problem

Ever since the great Skepchick elevator caper, the Atheist-Skeptic community has been in a turmoil regarding the amount of predatory sexual harassment that exists at AS Conferences. (Ever wonder what Atheists talk about when all they have is “no opinion”? Apparently they have No Opinion conferences all the time).

Massimo Pigliucci takes on the “Misogyny Wars” and, rather unintentionally it appears, sums up the problem with Relativism as an ethic: what is flirting to one person might be harassment to another person. (Really? What about the groping, stalking and rape threats that have been reported? Note 1) While that Relativism is a grounding issue in determining the rightness or wrongness of an action, it leads to another more fundamental problem: if there are no rules, then there are no rules to break. To spell it out for the defender of Relativism, anything goes.

So the automatically Consequentialist and Relativist Atheist-Skeptic community is faced with having to violate their own non-principles by coming up with actual fixed principles for defining acceptable and non-acceptable behaviors for individuals at their A-S Conferences. Otherwise, anything goes, and the behaviors and reactions to the behaviors have been, well, just anything goes.

While this addition of a fixed, immutable set of rules for behavior might be seen as common sense to outsiders, it is apparently gut wrenching for the A-S crowd which has always felt “Good Without God”, and automatically “good” even without having a definition of “good”. Now they find that not to be the case, and that they must spell out what “good” is, so that the A-S crowd will know how to behave.

Massimo wraps up his article thus:

”So, where do we go from here? Here are three conceptually simple, yet I’m sure extremely difficult in practice, action items. First, let’s tone down the self-righteousness, on both sides. It just doesn’t help. Second, organizers of all future CON(s), you need to take the issue seriously, develop and clearly enunciate your policies, and be ready to deal with the consequences in a firm, if courteous and hopefully constructive, manner. Lastly, the A-S community needs to take the first step toward solving any problem: admit that there is one. Pretty straightforward, no?”

So they need to admit that they cannot be “good” at their own conferences, and they need to have commandments and consequences in place to deal with those who violate the commandments.

Will they remember this when the next “Good Without God” campaign is launched? I doubt that they actually grasp the full impact of this moral issue, even now. And it is now an empirical, evidential proof that (1) A significant number of Atheists don't behave well without rules, even in the moral opinions of other Atheists, and (2) Relativism, the philosophy, fails on the ground to provide an adequate structure for civilized behavior, even amongst an all-Atheist gathering.

Note 1.
It has been suggested elsewhere that it is not Atheist-Skeptics who are involved in the harassing behaviors, but outsiders. In other words, Theists coming into the Atheist compound in order to harass women. Really.

Relatively Fresh Quotes

From Chesterton, “Orthodoxy”, 1908:

”But the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything.

He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.”

…

“In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men.”

It’s all relative.

Thanks and hat tip to Mariano!