A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-12-2015, 06:53 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
Emotion is the only moral realism. Tongue

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
27-12-2015, 07:12 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(24-12-2015 03:58 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(23-12-2015 03:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
It's objectively wrong to torture babies just for fun.

And I can think of example where it would be the right thing to do.

Next?

Drinking Beverage

Such as....?

Are you just saying that you can think of an example where torturing babies is the right thing to do for some other reason then just for fun, such as saving the lives of a community or something?

"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
27-12-2015, 07:14 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(27-12-2015 05:11 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(26-12-2015 06:10 PM)mordant Wrote:  The "should be" is promulgated by the society the individual is living in. The "should" is most often driven by what sustainably promotes the sort of civil society that most members of most societies prefer to live in.

Most civil societies sanction murder and theft, and protect their young. These policies are so universally regarded as necessary in so many societies that they are virtually universal and enshrined in civil law.

The moral absolutist fears their society could promote things they are conditioned to find repugnant, such as cannibalism I suppose or (to some people) gay sexuality or whatever. But the reality is that societies that promote ethics and standards that make too many people unhappy loose their cohesion. Societies don't change rapidly and don't change randomly. Western society is not likely to suddenly decide to legalize cannibalism because literally no one desires it. It has decided after quite a bit of deliberation to legalize gay relationships because most people, including heterosexuals, now deem it necessary to societal cohesion and general fairness, etc.; the only holdouts are people with arbitrary dogmas to defend which now are at odds with society -- or at least the society of 2015 as opposed to 1965.

Morality is simply the informal and formal consensus of society about what is in its best interests to promote or discourage. Nothing more. But of course in practice it ends up looking and feeling like relatively objective and clear cut morality, and then along comes theism and hijacks it and claims to be its inventor and protector.

IMO morality should die when religion dies. It seems to me that what you're talking about could be better described as what is "legal" and/or "socially acceptable". With morality being the notion that there are certain things that a person should and shouldn't do simply because of their nature. I just don't believe in any kind of concept of right and wrong. I don't believe that any action can possess the quality of rightness or wrongness, and I don't believe that there is any obligation for humans or other animals to be nice to other humans/animals. It's only my preference to love and care for my dog, while killing other animals and eating their flesh. There's no right or wrong part of the equation. Selecting which animals are allowed to live is really no different than selecting which humans (which are also animals) get to live.

Atheists who believe in morality are inconsistent and confused. You hear lots of atheists claiming things like "an atheist is a better person because he does good for goodness sake, instead of fear of eternal punishment," without realizing that "good" is purely subjective. They will also talk about "evil" things done in the name of religion, as if they have the knowledge that some things are "good" or "evil" and that they know which actions are good/evil.

I would even go further than tomasia's "baby torturing." How about total destruction of earth. Suppose a person had the ability to totally destroy every living thing on this planet. Why would that be wrong?

I was hoping you'd show up.

It always interesting to have folks here have to argue against both objective morality, and moral nihilism.

"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
27-12-2015, 07:17 AM (This post was last modified: 27-12-2015 01:40 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(25-12-2015 01:32 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Moral absolutism exists inside a conceptual vacuum where actions only have a limited number of consequences, which given even our current limited understanding of determinism, belies an infantile understanding of reality.

No ones talking about moral absolutism, but objective morality, moral realism.
Moral absolutism is not contextually dependent, while moral realism can be.

Quote:If having fun torturing a baby still somehow resulted in a net gain of alleviation of pain and suffering (I'll leaving it up to your imagination to create such a weird convoluted hypothetical)?

The fact that you have to create such a scenario, to place the action in a situation were it results in a net gain of alleviation of pain and suffering to make it right, would be an appeal to moral realism, just not moral absolutism.

If it were subjective, you wouldn't have to do that at all, rather than attempting to change the context, you'd just have to simply change the word wrong to 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
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
27-12-2015, 10:57 AM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
(27-12-2015 07:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(25-12-2015 01:32 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Moral absolutism exists inside a conceptual vacuum where actions only have a limited number of consequences, which given even our current limited understanding of determinism, belies an infantile understanding of reality.

No ones talking about moral absolutism, but objective morality, moral realism.
Moral absolutism is not contextually dependent, while moral realism can be.

Quote:If having fun torturing a baby still somehow resulted in a net gain of alleviation of pain and suffering (I'll leaving it up to your imagination to create such a weird convoluted hypothetical)?

The fact that you have to create such a scenario, to place the action in a situation were it results in a net gain of alleviation of pain and suffering, to make it right, would be an appeal to moral realism, just not moral absolutism.

If it were subjective, you wouldn't have to do that at all, rather than attempting to change the context, you'd just have to simply change the word, wrong to right.

And you clearly don't understand what subjectivity means. This could be the single stupidest fucking post I've read from you. Laughat

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
27-12-2015, 11:05 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(27-12-2015 10:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And you clearly don't understand what subjectivity means. This could be the single stupidest fucking post I've read from you. Laughat

You possibly don't understand the difference between subjective and relative, or the difference between moral absolutism and moral objectivism. Something can be relative and still be objective.

"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
27-12-2015, 11:09 AM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
(27-12-2015 11:05 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 10:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And you clearly don't understand what subjectivity means. This could be the single stupidest fucking post I've read from you. Laughat

You possibly don't understand the difference between subjective and relative, or the difference between moral absolutism and moral objectivism. Something can be relative and still be objective.

You can write words, but clearly not say anything.

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
27-12-2015, 11:10 AM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
Why do you keep writing the same stupid shit on morality when no one here buys your stupidity?

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
27-12-2015, 11:12 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(27-12-2015 11:09 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 11:05 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You possibly don't understand the difference between subjective and relative, or the difference between moral absolutism and moral objectivism. Something can be relative and still be objective.

You can write words, but clearly not say anything.

And you clearly don't know anything about the differences between various moral philosophies.

"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
27-12-2015, 11:16 AM
A Challenge for Moral Realists
(27-12-2015 11:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-12-2015 11:09 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You can write words, but clearly not say anything.

And you clearly don't know anything about the differences between various moral philosophies.

Laugh out load

You trying to claim someone else doesn't understand because you conflate terms and say stupid shit. Laughat

Why do you keep posting this ignorant drivel? Who do you think cares about your bullshit?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: