A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2016, 02:51 PM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 02:33 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 02:27 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're assuming that when I say "extrapolated out to the level of society" I mean it's a unanimous decision. I did not say that nor intentionally imply it.
I'm not making that assumption. I don't know what you mean by "extrapolated out to the level of society", whether than means unanimous, or majority, or determined by the governing power or what.

All I see is a diverse society with differing views, I don't know how a single answer can be extrapolated out of society. But I would be very keen to hear your view. I'm interested in it, not just wanting to argue with you. I respect your opinions TBD.

In the event it isn't obvious, I ascribe to the belief that morality only exists as a societal construct. In a species without societies or communities, morals are irrelevant concepts and instead it's about individual survival.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 02:51 PM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 02:44 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 02:23 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Your discussion of morality as complex while ascribing to the belief that morality is objective and not subjective or relative, is contradictory.

You assert that unambiguously, slavery was wrong. But at the same time, describe morality as being a spectrum of gray. You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Some moral questions are difficult to answer, often involving a wide variety of considerations, some are less so. No one is going to debate whether or not torturing babies just for fun is immoral or not.

You do Facepalm

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 02:54 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 02:20 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Fatbaldhobbit,

I wouldn't say "speaks" per say, as it is not within the traditional audible realm that comes from the ear.

That's a meaningless distinction. You are asserting that communication took place.

(03-01-2016 02:20 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I know it wasn't/ isn't mental illness because it positively affected my productivity and abilities within society and habitat as opposed to making them worse.
That does not follow. Although most forms of mental illness inhibit social interactions it is not always the case.

A false belief can still have a positive effect. (JT Eberhard has a good speech on this.) But its still a false belief.

(03-01-2016 02:20 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Prior to my salvation and even after I have had much experience with negativity and evil on many many varied and vivid levels, none of which or at all confusable with the intent of GOD. Simply put; one is forward and outwardly bebefitial to all involved, the other is hidden, invidious, greedy and causes only negativity when observed truthfully.
Countless atrocities have been done in the name of god. When was the last war fought in the name of satan? How many suicide bombers yell "satan rocks" when they go boom?

(03-01-2016 02:20 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If a task was ever easy then it never did get my attention or motive me. Patience, and perceverance will guide me by God's will and time and grace regardless of my general inability to covey any specific message or act any certain way.
If an all-powerful god had an all important message to convey to beings he loved then it is the responsibility/obligation of that deity to do so.

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
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
03-01-2016, 02:56 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 02:26 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As long as the parents are doing what God wants, it's moral. Right Tomasia?

Without immoral institutions like religion and corrupt governments (judging them as such from my moral perspective), we would be a lot better off as a species.

Well according to you morality is whatever anyone wants it to be. There are no right or wrong answers to moral questions. At best it amounts to swinging popular opinion in your favor, endorsing laws and positions favorable to your individual palette. Ain't that right?

"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, 02:59 PM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 02:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 02:26 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As long as the parents are doing what God wants, it's moral. Right Tomasia?

Without immoral institutions like religion and corrupt governments (judging them as such from my moral perspective), we would be a lot better off as a species.

Well according to you morality is whatever anyone wants it to be. There are no right or wrong answers to moral questions. At best it amounts to swinging popular opinion in your favor, endorsing laws and positions favorable to your individual palette. Ain't that right?

No, it isn't correct. Your reading comprehension is fucking awful.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 03:01 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 02:59 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 02:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well according to you morality is whatever anyone wants it to be. There are no right or wrong answers to moral questions. At best it amounts to swinging popular opinion in your favor, endorsing laws and positions favorable to your individual palette. Ain't that right?

No, it isn't correct. Your reading comprehension is fucking awful.

No, you're just inconsistent.

"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, 03:07 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 02:51 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 02:33 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I'm not making that assumption. I don't know what you mean by "extrapolated out to the level of society", whether than means unanimous, or majority, or determined by the governing power or what.

All I see is a diverse society with differing views, I don't know how a single answer can be extrapolated out of society. But I would be very keen to hear your view. I'm interested in it, not just wanting to argue with you. I respect your opinions TBD.

In the event it isn't obvious, I ascribe to the belief that morality only exists as a societal construct. In a species without societies or communities, morals are irrelevant concepts and instead it's about individual survival.
OK, given our past conversations, I understand that you are of the position that for morality to exist then it must be in the context of a society. I don't agree with that, but that point isn't pertinent to the question I've just asked.

My question was "How do we extrapolate a moral answer from a society of diverse opinions"?

In the examples in this thread between you and Matt you guys were discussing two societies, regarding slavery. In one society slavery was moral, in another slavery was immoral.

I am asking, how can we determine that within a particular society that slavery is immoral when you are going to have some people consider it moral and some people consider it immoral. How do we extrapolate the answer from this society as to whether it is moral or immoral within the context of this society?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 03:08 PM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 03:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 02:59 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  No, it isn't correct. Your reading comprehension is fucking awful.

No, you're just inconsistent.

Where did I ever say that morality is "what anybody wants it to be?"

Your straw men are idiotic. Maybe you should pray for a brain.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
03-01-2016, 03:11 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 03:08 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 03:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, you're just inconsistent.

Where did I ever say that morality is "what anybody wants it to be?"

Your straw men are idiotic. Maybe you should pray for a brain.

When you claim that morality is subjective"

Subjective:
"Subjectivity, a subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery, as opposed to those made from an independent, objective, point of view"

"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, 03:12 PM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 03:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 02:51 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  In the event it isn't obvious, I ascribe to the belief that morality only exists as a societal construct. In a species without societies or communities, morals are irrelevant concepts and instead it's about individual survival.
OK, given our past conversations, I understand that you are of the position that for morality to exist then it must be in the context of a society. I don't agree with that, but that point isn't pertinent to the question I've just asked.

My question was "How do we extrapolate a moral answer from a society of diverse opinions"?

In the examples in this thread between you and Matt you guys were discussing two societies, regarding slavery. In one society slavery was moral, in another slavery was immoral.

I am asking, how can we determine that within a particular society that slavery is immoral when you are going to have some people consider it moral and some people consider it immoral. How do we extrapolate the answer from this society as to whether it is moral or immoral within the context of this society?

I think you have my opinion backwards. Society extrapolates its rules, laws, and customs from the morals of its constituents. Not the other way around.

But it does pose and interesting conundrum about what to do when living in a society that governs in a way that you deem immoral. Who is correct? Society or the individual? That's contextual and highlights the reason why we've issues within society. And it's also why the way one responds to these moral questions can make a big difference too.

Is a punishment levied by the government unjust? Perhaps, but killing in the name of it (or taking over federal land) is not an adequate response.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: