A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2016, 12:02 PM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2016 12:08 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 11:33 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I disagree. I don't believe that anything is wrong (nor right for that matter).

How do you know that it's wrong? Can you prove it?

No I don't think I can prove it anymore so than I can prove to a solipsist that a reality outside of his own mind is sure to exist. In fact on the argument of objective morality, I'd find myself in the same position if the question was about objective truth, asked by someone who believes truth is subjective.

But I do have a question as to how your own nihilism is workable. Lets say you have children, let's say your son is verbally abusing another child, participating in bully another kid, perhaps his teachers even turn a blind eye here.

Do you avoid using the word "wrong"? Do you avoid telling them that's it wrong, because of your moral nihilism?

Or would you tell them something along the lines, that it bother daddy's sensibilities, feeling, so they should avoid doing it because it upsets you? etc..?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 12:13 PM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2016 12:22 PM by DLJ.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 07:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
Another possible alternative, which I’d take it that most folks here wouldn’t be comfortable suggesting, is crediting religion as the source of the beliefs in objective morality, in moral obligation, in a morality that bindings on all parties.
...

When you say "source of the beliefs in objective morality," do you mean that religion was the source of the 'concept' of objective morality?

If so, to you mean 'morality' in the psychological sense or the philosophical sense?

(03-01-2016 07:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
Most people are not atheists, and subscribe to some sort of religious perception of the world, nearly all the major religions hold view of objective morality. And nearly every moral argument, the structure of our moral protest, the opposition to slavery, to lynching, to gay rights, presuppose that morality is objective.
...

Errrm... Islam, for example holds that morality (and every thought and deed) is whatever Allah has already written ... sounds like the definition of subjective to me.

Which means of course that gays have the right to die screaming, I suppose.

(03-01-2016 07:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
In fact even here, it seems that many folks want to talk out of both sides of their mouth, by trying to preserve a non-exist middle positions that rejects Matt Finney’s Moral Nihilism, and one that rejects objective morality.
...

I don't recall disagreeing with Matt.

I do have an issue with his use of the term 'preference' but that's beside the point.

I reject the very term 'objective morality' as out-dated. 'Intrinsic' and 'contextual' ethics are the preferred terms in my line of work.

And I've yet to see an example of an intrinsic ethic. Which is, after all the very challenge opined by the OP.

(03-01-2016 10:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
Does anyone disagree that torturing babies just for fun is wrong?
...

Me.

See post #32 for my explanation.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
03-01-2016, 12:20 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 12:02 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 11:33 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I disagree. I don't believe that anything is wrong (nor right for that matter).

How do you know that it's wrong? Can you prove it?

No I don't think I can prove it anymore so than I can prove to a solipsist that a reality outside of his own mind is sure to exist. In fact on the argument of objective morality, I'd find myself in the same position if the question was about objective truth, asked by someone who believes truth is subjective.

But I do have a question as to how your own nihilism is workable. Lets say you have children, let's say your son is verbally abusing another child, participating in bully another kid, perhaps his teachers even turn a blind eye here.

Do you avoid using the word "wrong"? Do you avoid telling them that's it wrong, because of your moral nihilism?

Or would you tell them something along the lines, that it bother daddy's sensibilities, feeling, so they should avoid doing it because it upsets you? etc..?

Definition of Moral Nihilism from Google:
Quote:Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong

intrinsically ... did you spot that?

You gave a context so ... contextually right/wrong.

QED

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 12:21 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 12:13 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 10:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
Does anyone disagree that torturing babies just for fun is wrong?
...

Me.

See post #32 for my explanation.

Thumbsup

Just one of the dozens of inferences in the Holy Vileble where the LORD thinks murdering infants is Thumbsup

Maybe the dashing of the infants wasn’t just for fun Consider

PSALM 137:9
…8 O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, How blessed will be the one who repays you With the recompense with which you have repaid us. 9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
03-01-2016, 12:27 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 12:20 PM)DLJ Wrote:  intrinsically ... did you spot that?

You gave a context so ... contextually right/wrong.

QED

I think if we're speaking about contextually right and wrong, we're speaking more so about moral relativism than moral nihilism. And in fact I'd wonder what distinction you might be making here when appealing to contextual right and wrong, that distinguishes it from an appeal to moral relativism?

But my question was specifically directed to Matt, who from my experience doesn't believe in contextual right and wrong either.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 12:33 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(02-01-2016 08:50 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  And by the way; I have helped to raise two children and have observed many. In solitude most are prone to be outwardly kind and giving unless upbringing has shown them to be otherwise.

Judging from your previous postings, I question both your observations and your conclusions. Drinking Beverage

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
03-01-2016, 12:38 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(02-01-2016 08:33 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  SCIENTISTS DISCOVER THROUGH STUDYING TODDLERS THAT HUMANS ARE INHERENTLY ALTRUISTIC, NOT SELFISH

It's an interesting article that could confirm what both sides have speculated: that humans have an innate altruism.

It does nothing to prove that there is a god that put it there.

Science can show through evolution, biology, etc. that social species have an innate altruism.

I do not see this article as a point in your favor.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
03-01-2016, 12:39 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 12:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 12:20 PM)DLJ Wrote:  intrinsically ... did you spot that?

You gave a context so ... contextually right/wrong.

QED

I think if we're speaking about contextually right and wrong, we're speaking more so about moral relativism than moral nihilism. And in fact I'd wonder what distinction you might be making here when appealing to contextual right and wrong, that distinguishes it from an appeal to moral relativism?
...

Again from Google:
Quote:Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

Yes and no.

All good up until the word "and". After that it's bollocks. Hence, it's worthless.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 12:41 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 07:16 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The f****** intent is for the continuation of f****** life. If that's a f****** deepity to you, which isn't a real word, then go end your life, because evidently, you feel that life isn't very significant, nor is the intent of it, which, by the way, is to continue.

I'm fairly certain jesus would not approve of this post...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
03-01-2016, 12:48 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 12:39 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 12:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I think if we're speaking about contextually right and wrong, we're speaking more so about moral relativism than moral nihilism. And in fact I'd wonder what distinction you might be making here when appealing to contextual right and wrong, that distinguishes it from an appeal to moral relativism?
...

Again from Google:
Quote:Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

Yes and no.

All good up until the word "and". After that it's bollocks. Hence, it's worthless.

Perhaps I need to reframe my question. Earlier you said it was contextually right/wrong, in the example of your child bullying some.

What the contextual part of that example, that makes it contextually wrong? Matt's feelings of uneasiness? It's wrong given what context here?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: