Is the belief in the equivalence of beliefs a definition of evil?

[Johnysid]

Materialism has led to the postmodern idea that all beliefs are equivalent, being rooted in culture, myth etc. According to this strand of philosophy there is no method of verifying any belief. If all beliefs are equivalent then child sacrifice is no worse than meditating. This philosophy cannot determine whether mass murder is less moral than helping your neighbour. If there is a meaning for the word "evil" should it be applied to the moral philosophy that stems from materialism?

[beso]

This question is ridiculous.

[chakka35]

So is the 'philosophy' behind it.

[beso]

Just another pathetic attempt to pretend that religion has a philosophically superior perspective.

[Johnysid]

Lets put the question another way. If materialism is simply a system of relations between events any idea of morality would be arbitrary, just a norm or an old inkling from pre-materialist times. What basis could you have for a materialist morality?

[doctordb]

That's cleared that up then.

[Johnysid]

Beso, we see in these posts endless rebuttals of religious viewpoints but what is the alternative? A postmodern "huh, who cares, ya di ya di ya" would confirm the proposed definition in the question...

[Johnysid]

doctordb .. no answer either?

[Johnysid]

chakka moralises on homophobia and beso holds forth on Islam but do either of these have any personal morality based on materialist beliefs?

[mibn2cweus]

The ability to distinguish knowledge from belief is essential to deriving the benefits of the former and establishing what should be the latter. This entails and understanding of the process of reason, the art of non-contradictory identification, and an understanding of what knowledge is (and isn't), the means by which we obtain it and confirm it, which leads to an understanding of and appreciation for its inherent value.

Giving the unearned to the undeserving is the source of all evil, without which evil could not exist. Understanding is the means by which we obtain the ability and right to benefit and share that which we have been taught for the sake of enjoying the mutual benefit knowledge provides to and for us all.

[Johnysid]

mibn2cweus, is there knowledge beyond the relationships between events?

To clarify this question, take physical knowledge such as V = IR (potential = current x resistance), this is a realationship. Take two types of creatures such as reptiles and mammals, they are distinguished by their relationships - reptiles cold blooded WHEREAS mammals warm blooded. If we start to ask "what IS a voltage?" we run into trouble because the relationships start to evaporate and we are left with difficult entities like space and time etc..

So what is being related in a relationship?

[mibn2cweus]

It is the qualities inherent in the individual entities involved that determine how they will interact. The way in which various entities interact provide clues to what qualities each entity possesses.

Nothing exists in isolation. Relationship is everything, apart from which the existence of any and all entities would be pointless.

The important thing to remember is that our own existence is conditional and relies on the existence of that which makes our own existence possible . . . the raw material. We acquire an appreciation of our own existence through our understanding of what makes us possible and an appreciation for why we exist through our understanding of how we exist. This is how we pay our respects to the fiddler.

Our value to others rests on and is derived from a mutual recognition of our own value.

[vetuste_ennemi]

If you mean “Is moral relativism evil?”, JohnySid, then yes. I don't think, like Beso, that the question is ridiculous, but you’ve slid in a dodgy premise which you come clean about later on:
<< If materialism is SIMPLY [emphasis VE] a system of relations between events any idea of morality would be arbitrary…>>
Well, it’s not simply that, JohnySid. The natural world has produced life amongst other things, ours included. and with it consciousness. The emergence and development of moral judgment is a totally natural phenomenon. We are not constrained to believe that all behaviours are equal: growth in intelligence and increased knowledge of the world can show that they are not. You are wrong to suggest that materialists are inconsistent if they make moral judgments.

[Johnysid]

vetuste... So why would a materialist not kill someone if they were sure they could get away with it and it yielded a reward such as money?

[Johnysid]

Mibn.. Surely without existence relationships would be pointless, not vice versa. Furthermore is a "point" required for existence? Does space exist? What is its "point"?

[Johnysid]

Mibn.. you have given an excellent definition of old-style Marxist materialist moral foundations with:

"Our value to others rests on and is derived from a mutual recognition of our own value. "

It was this slope that cultural and moral relativism slid down.. Each tribe has its own norms.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Because we don't all want to harm other people. We have basic cooperative instincts because we are pack animals. We could not have developed as a species without them. At first our necessary "goodness" is restricted to the local group. Other groups are competitors whom we avoid or kill. As we get smarter and learn more about ourselves and them we see that there are alternative behaviours. "They" are much like ourselves, and probably don't like being starved or killed any more than we do and maybe we (both tribes) can do things differently. We can apply the same reasoning to the treatment of individuals within the pack or tribe. In your example "I" have worked out that the behaviour you're advocating is not something I'd like to happen to me. That is sufficient reason for my not doing it, or, if I do feeling "guilty" about it.
You won't buy any of this, of course, so now you tell me what makes murder and theft wrong.

[jomifl]

Johnysid, there is a subtle difference between child sacrifice and meditation.. If you cannot see it I am willing to explain it to you.
What has materialism got to do with morality? surely materialism is an absence of morality. A comparison of something that exists with something that doesn't, really only yields one result, which is contained within the beginning of this sentence.

[mibn2cweus]

Mibn.. Surely without existence relationships would be pointless, not vice versa. Furthermore is a "point" required for existence? Does space exist? What is its "point"?

Without existence relationships would not exist. The "point" is that our own existence is conditional. The point of space is that we exist in it.

Regarding voltage, (since I'm an electronics technician, amongst other things) . . .
Voltage is not an entity but a quantitative measure of the relationship between entities defined by the imbalance in electrostatic charge between them that when provided a conduit will tend to seek equilibrium.

[jake-the-peg]

Let's be clear about materialism

In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance, and reality is identical with the actually occurring states of energy and matter. (wikipedia)

As opposed to the idea that shopping makes you happy.


As far as I can see that is an idea pretty much born out by all observations and has nothing whatsoever to do with ethical philosophy

What is your justification for your opening remark?

I also cannot see your link between there the idea that there is no (presumably independant way ) of verifying any belief to the idea that all beliefs are identical.

That seems very sloppy logic to me

I think many moral philosophers particularly those who support this view would say that "good" and "evil" come down in essence to an indication of a societies' approval or disapproval of a certain behaviour.

Not that murder is ethically equivilent to child care

I think you're attempting to put words in their mouths.

Or can you point me to a materialist philosopher who actually says child sacrifice is equivilent to meditation?

[jackthehat]

Does anyone have a link to a blog where I can read more about this?