A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2016, 06:17 PM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2016 06:21 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 06:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  How could it not be? Morality has no meaning absent a society.

I think morality has it primary meaning in interpersonal interactions, between siblings, and friends, and classmates, or coworkers, wives, and parents, and what small circle you belong to. It's primarily about those moral failings that impact our own small slice of life, failed marriages, poor fathers, the lack of love among family, the selfishness and greed that often erodes our closest relationships.

Society is an abstract concept that lives somewhere out there, one which we think more closely about only as election days get near. It's less about the society we want, and more about who we ought to be, of what it means to be a good person. Everyday morality, the sort of challenges and situations people face in their everyday life, is not about society at all, as much as it is about the individual person caught up in its spirals. It's the father wondering about the life of his child, his relationship to his wife, more so than a man contemplating how to place his ballot.

"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, 06:18 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 03:54 PM)popsthebuilder 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.
Not all religions are corrupt. Faith is not corrupt.

Faith is irrational.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
03-01-2016, 06:22 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 03:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 03:27 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Holy fuck. I gave you the definition of subjective I'm using. Do you read?

You're trying to equivocate.

So you can't provide a single analogy here? You can't provide a single example of your meaning of "subjective" applied to any other topic but morality?

Does morality have it's own unique notion of subjectivity, distinct from the way the term is used for any other topic, like fashion, food, music, art, etc..?

Why, yes. Yes it does. Drinking Beverage

The use of the word 'subjective' here is really in response to the claim that there is some objective morality.

One's views of morality are more complex and far more important than one's views on fashion, music, art, etc.

Your continued use of that comparison has grown tedious. Moral views and fashion views are simply not comparable.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-01-2016, 06:23 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
Hume's Moral Philosophy is worth a read.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2016, 06:25 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 04:14 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 04:03 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  If a deity actually existed and wanted to convey a message to us, he sure wouldn't have chosen you for that task.

[Image: image.png]
As stated; I am nothing. Even so, even just I, by the will of God can be more than enough to accomplish anything if it is God's will.

Wait and see.

I, for one, will not hold my breath. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
03-01-2016, 06:26 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 06:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 03:54 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Not all religions are corrupt. Faith is not corrupt.

Faith is irrational.

It's also unnecessary and has no practical use.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
03-01-2016, 06:30 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 04:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 04:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I'm not too worried about what most professional philosophers think.

No but you took it upon yourself to speak about the moral systems of atheists, being more reasonable than theists. Without addressing what atheists you’re referring to, or which moral philosophy you’re talking about as more reasonable. Atheists who subscribe to subjective morality? Atheists who subscribe to moral realism? Is one group more reasonable than the other?

Is the position of most philosophers (who tend to be moral realist) more reasonable than that of most theists? Is it more reasonable than of those who subscribe to the view that morality is subjective? Are philosophers who subscribe to moral nihilism the more reasonable ones on the question of morality than everybody else? Are moral nihilist more reasonable than those who subscribe to some form of virtue ethics?

Quote:Unfortunately most people in my country believe in some sort of invisible magical undetectable god[…]Your beliefs differ from that of many Christians. Many Christians believe the bible is the inspired word of their god.

Yet only half of them subscribe to christianity. And most of those who identify as Christian are nominally so. Clearly not the sort you mean when speaking of “most christians”. You likely don’t personally know a single person that fits the description you have of “most christians”, who believe the bible is “inspired by God.” Your interactions with such individuals likely doesn’t extend beyond the internet, and perhaps youtube videos.

At least when I interact with unbelievers on the internet, I don’t see them as representative of any other the sort of unbelievers that flock to the internet, but not particularly representative of unbelievers as whole, or even as a majority. In fact though I often make hasty generalizations about atheists on the internet, I do so with reservations, that these generalizations are likely to be sloppy at best, because that's the nature of internet interactions.

I likely know far more about what most Christians believe then you do. Religion as you’ve acknowledged before is something you don’t really get, or understand, so whatever you might have to say about it, can only be taken with a grain of salt. Just like you wouldn’t put much stock in my view of New Zealanders, I don’t put much stock in your view of most Christians. You’re so removed from the life of most Christians, that you’re unable to relate or understand them at all. Their lives are the sort that you have difficult time empathizing with or getting, which is the same for me when it comes to folks like yourself.

If Stevil lives in North America, then your statements above are pretty much bullshit.
We are surrounded by, and interact with, Christians of all sorts day in and day out.

If Stevil does not live in North America, then your statements above are still pretty much presumptuous, arrogant nonsense.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
03-01-2016, 06:42 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 06:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-01-2016 03:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You're trying to equivocate.

So you can't provide a single analogy here? You can't provide a single example of your meaning of "subjective" applied to any other topic but morality?

Does morality have it's own unique notion of subjectivity, distinct from the way the term is used for any other topic, like fashion, food, music, art, etc..?

Why, yes. Yes it does. Drinking Beverage

The use of the word 'subjective' here is really in response to the claim that there is some objective morality.

One's views of morality are more complex and far more important than one's views on fashion, music, art, etc.

Your continued use of that comparison has grown tedious. Moral views and fashion views are simply not comparable.

Even if this were true, that wouldn't mean the use of the word subjective is different. And I would quibble about the complexity part. Subjective preferences in regards to things like music and art, can be quite complex, a great deal of thought and consideration is given to these subjects, endless and endless pages of insight poured over a work of art. Our biology, our environment, upbringing, values all influencing the sort of music and art we respond to.

But regardless, I don't see why it doesn't reduce to the same meaning of subjective; that morality like fashion, and music is a matter of taste, expect that our taste in regards to morality can have some serious ramifications. If I find murdering children as satisfying as I do Sesame Chicken, this might have some serious consequences for those around me.

So is it wrong to say that morality is subjective, just like music and fashion, and everything thing we commonly refer to as subjective is? That for same reason that there is no right or wrong answers to questions of musical preferences, there is no right or wrong answers to question of morality?

That a person who claims that torturing babies just for fun is wrong, is no more correct, than a person who claims that Bob Dylan is a better musician than Justin Bieber.

"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, 06:48 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 06:42 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  That a person who claims that torturing babies just for fun is wrong, is no more correct, than a person who claims that Bob Dylan is a better musician than Justin Bieber.

Making up ridiculous analogies on the fly which just happen to pop into my head is just mental masturbation. Read this and then maybe we will have something concrete to discuss.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
03-01-2016, 06:59 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(03-01-2016 06:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  If Stevil does not live in North America, then your statements above are still pretty much presumptuous, arrogant nonsense.

Stevil lives in NZ, we've had plenty of discussions between us, that what I said is neither presumptuous or arrogant, but likely to be factually correct, based on a variety of his own admissions throughout our relationship here. Stevil exposure to religion is very limited, but that's just a result of circumstance, not any personal failing on his part. And he's expressed often how he just doesn't get it, that in discussions about religion, one of us might as well just be speaking Mandarin.

The same can be said about atheists here, most of whom I have difficulty empathizing with, finding any common set of personal experiences, and only exacerbated by the fact that our interactions are limited to the internet. I'll have as much of a difficulty in getting you, of understanding the bald man that lives on what seems to be farm, with an impecible fashion sense, as you would this brown kid who grew up in a city, as a child of poor immigrants.

"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: