Some thoughts on moral relatisism.
Moral relativism is a fact in the world we live in. Each person inevitably constructs his own set of morals, his own system for judging what is "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong". Even if one were to believe that morality was not relative, that there was "objective morality" of a divine presence, he would not know what those"objective morals" were. He would not be able to definitively state what acts were "objectively good" or "objectively bad" since we have no way of divining god's morals. This leaves us in a world of moral relativism even if we believe there is a divine moral standard.
Each person creates their own sense of morality. There are a few base propositions upon which larger moral structures can be erected. Ideas like ultilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number is the most desirable), master-morality (as opposed to slave-morality, Nietzscheian morality), nihilism, or hedonism define what is most valuable in this world, and are ideas around which a larger sense of morality can be constructed. Religions also provide such core ideas; belief in the god of the bible or the Koran, or belief in any god who was good enough to author a book, provides a person with something more concrete, though undoubtedly also man made, on which to base moral principles. Whether a person sees god, mankind, or himself as the most important thing in the universe, his sense of morality will shape itself to protect the thing most valued. When we act in a way that we recognize as detrimental to us individually, but we still think is "right", it is because we are placing ourselves below something we value more. Though these values might be somewhat abstract, they produce in us a sense that we are not more important than others, that our wants and needs are not supreme.
Does this mean that one person cann't say that anothers acts are "right" or "wrong" since their morals are subjective? I say no. A person can say acts are "good" or "bad" since they consider how the acts will affect something, hopefully something other than themselves, that is not subjective. An act can be bad for humanity or "bad" because it creates unnecessary sorrow in the world. Our reasoning for why such an act is morally "wrong" is solid as long as what is considered valuable is shared. Someone who values something else more, say themselves or even their country or religion, might view such a morally questionable action as "right". Everyone values something (nihilists excluded), so everyone will have an opinion on moral issues. People who value the same thing will agree on most issues. Our evolution as social animals has left us with most people agreeing on most issues, especially the major ones (murder, rape, theft, ect.).
What can 3D printing do for medicine? The "sky is the limit," says Northwell Health researcher Dr. Todd Goldstein.
- Medical professionals are currently using 3D printers to create prosthetics and patient-specific organ models that doctors can use to prepare for surgery.
- Eventually, scientists hope to print patient-specific organs that can be transplanted safely into the human body.
- Northwell Health, New York State's largest health care provider, is pioneering 3D printing in medicine in three key ways.
An ordained Lama in a Tibetan Buddhist lineage, Lama Rod grew up a queer, black male within the black Christian church in the American south. Navigating all of these intersecting, evolving identities has led him to a life's work based on compassion for self and others.
- "What I'm interested in is deep, systematic change. What I understand now is that real change doesn't happen until change on the inside begins to happen."
- "Masculinity is not inherently toxic. Patriarchy is toxic. We have to let that energy go so we can stop forcing other people to do emotional labor for us."
We were gaining three IQ points per decade for many, many years. Now, that's going backward. Could this explain some of our choices lately?
There's a new study out of Norway that indicates our—well, technically, their—IQs are shrinking, to the tune of about seven IQ points per generation.
Here's why generalists triumph over specialists in the new era of innovation.
- Since the explosion of the knowledge economy in the 1990s, generalist inventors have been making larger and more important contributions than specialists.
- One theory is that the rise of rapid communication technologies allowed the information created by specialists to be rapidly disseminated, meaning generalists can combine information across disciplines to invent something new.
- Here, David Epstein explains how Nintendo's Game Boy was a case of "lateral thinking with withered technology." He also relays the findings of a fascinating study that found the common factor of success among comic book authors.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.