Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xepherys
Hmmm, I have to say that I do now see the majority of your points and can't say I disagree, per se. On a note of specifics, however, I'd have to say it's easier to observe cultural interactions (between people and/or a person and society) in larger groups than in smaller. In small groups, as with any statistically oriented data, you do not have a large enough sample group. It's easier to see the down side of canabalism in NYC than it is to see it in a tribe of 60. If you lose 10% from it, 6 is not nearly as terrifying as 6,000 (or whatever 10% of the population of NYC would work out to be... I'm sure it's probably more than that).
Otherwise, yeah... I suppose... ;-)
|
Honestly, I'm not really sure either. The issue you bring up about the physical "concreteness" that gravity (or other things like that) seem to have versus the abstract qualities of morality is something I've been struggling to get my head fully around for a while. Sometimes I feel like I've got it, usually I don't. I've come to the present state of thinking all things have a certain level of objective reality, and subjective reality.
As for the cannabalism - I agree. The larger population would give a better sample. What I meant to say is that I think it's easier to come to a uniform moral understanding in smaller groups. Incidentally, I think this is where Marx lost touch with reality. I think you and I can talk long enough and eventually agree on some basic morals, and if you live down the street and we see each other and know each other, it's more likely we'll stick to what we agree on. So maybe it's easier to observe the effects of morals / ethics in larger populations, but easier to agree on them in smaller?