Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2015, 09:23 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 09:20 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 09:19 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Your conflation that your supporting isn't in the criteria of ought is what is hard to understand.

Unless you bicker and think ought is only one super strict concept that isn't a range based on your positions, it's hard to imagine how you think you aren't inputting an expectation or desire for it to be a way.

I'm going to make you do something because it would benefit me isn't an ought. Supporting low taxes isn't a case of "Taxes should be low", just "Taxes takes my money away, voting against high taxes preserves my wealth, i like wealth, I will vote against taxes"

If you're doing X and SUPPORTING others to doing X. it's more than just you Liking X. It's taking on your desires and expectations because you liked it to start with.

It is still an ought as Oughts aren't only some idea of "correctness" as it's equally either way still a moral criteria based on your suggestion.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 09:23 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 09:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 09:20 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  Atheism can include objective morality. Atheism can include naturalism.

Any atheism that includes objective morality, is just closeted theism.

It's not particularly coincidental that the main objectors to objective morality, are atheist.
Unless that morality comes from the aliens that seeded the Earth with life. Or comes from the code that is used to run the Universe Simulation. Etc....
None of these things would be a god.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 09:24 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 09:22 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 09:16 AM)tear151 Wrote:  I like X

I will do X

It's not I should do X, or X is good, or X is moral, just... I like X

It's not a case of ought, I agree with matt's video it's just I approve of something because it gives me positive emotional stimuli, I don't expect others to be the same.

(26-06-2015 09:14 AM)tear151 Wrote:  ...
If I was poor, I'd support high taxes, if I was rich, I would support low taxes, this isn't hard to understand bucky.

So if you were poor, you would believe that there ought to be higher taxes and
if you were rich, you would believe that there ought to be lower taxes.

Hmmmm.

Drinking Beverage

Facepalm no, by support I mean I would act in a manner that brings about high or low taxes, I would accept that poor people would want high taxes, and I wouldn't say they were wrong for this, merely act in the best of my ability to prevent their goals from being realised.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 09:26 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 09:23 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 09:20 AM)tear151 Wrote:  I'm going to make you do something because it would benefit me isn't an ought. Supporting low taxes isn't a case of "Taxes should be low", just "Taxes takes my money away, voting against high taxes preserves my wealth, i like wealth, I will vote against taxes"

If you're doing X and SUPPORTING others to doing X. it's more than just you Liking X. It's taking on your desires and expectations because you liked it to start with.

It is still an ought as Oughts aren't only some idea of "correctness" as it's equally either way still a moral criteria based on your suggestion.

We clearly have a very different idea of what ought means.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 09:27 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 09:22 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 09:16 AM)tear151 Wrote:  I like X

I will do X

It's not I should do X, or X is good, or X is moral, just... I like X

It's not a case of ought, I agree with matt's video it's just I approve of something because it gives me positive emotional stimuli, I don't expect others to be the same.

(26-06-2015 09:14 AM)tear151 Wrote:  ...
If I was poor, I'd support high taxes, if I was rich, I would support low taxes, this isn't hard to understand bucky.

So if you were poor, you would believe that there ought to be higher taxes and
if you were rich, you would believe that there ought to be lower taxes.

Hmmmm.

Drinking Beverage

No it isn't an ought. Anymore so than if I were to say, that if I were desperate I would steal you wallet, implies that I ought to steal your wallet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 09:28 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 09:24 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 09:22 AM)DLJ Wrote:  So if you were poor, you would believe that there ought to be higher taxes and
if you were rich, you would believe that there ought to be lower taxes.

Hmmmm.

Drinking Beverage

Facepalm no, by support I mean I would act in a manner that brings about high or low taxes, I would accept that poor people would want high taxes, and I wouldn't say they were wrong for this, merely act in the best of my ability to prevent their goals from being realised.

Can you think of a situation where you would act in a manner that brings about, let's say, higher taxes where you would simultaneously believe that there ought to be lower taxes?

Sadcryface

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 09:30 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 09:28 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 09:24 AM)tear151 Wrote:  Facepalm no, by support I mean I would act in a manner that brings about high or low taxes, I would accept that poor people would want high taxes, and I wouldn't say they were wrong for this, merely act in the best of my ability to prevent their goals from being realised.

Can you think of a situation where you would act in a manner that brings about, let's say, higher taxes where you would simultaneously believe that there ought to be lower taxes?

Sadcryface

No because I wouldn't hold there ought to be lower taxes.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 09:31 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 09:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 09:20 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  Atheism can include objective morality. Atheism can include naturalism.

Any atheism that includes objective morality, is just closeted theism.

It's not particularly coincidental that the main objectors to objective morality, are atheist.

It's just you making more generalizations because you can't help yourself or are too stupid to not. There is no reason to assertively box those in as "closeted theists"

Theism is merely the belief of the supreme being deity. Thinking morals can just BE just as well as the Universe can just be.. like some people do, like I gave you links and names of actual groups and people in the past do belief..

Ken Wilbur and Holon believers who think everything is made up of parts that circle within the previous part, even ideas and thoughts and consciousness. And think this is the natural order of the universe and consciousness is a higher plane that this order directs man too, but don't think this order is anything other than the way the universe works. Is this spiritual? yes, Newagey? yes, is it an unfounded assertion? yes, does that make it THEISM. NO. Because they don't believe in any deities or prime mover. These terms mean sensible things, there is no benefit to conflating concepts and generalizing senselessly. All you would have to do is say Most instead of asserting ALL in many things you say and you wouldn't seem like an unyielding twit.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
26-06-2015, 09:33 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 09:26 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 09:23 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  If you're doing X and SUPPORTING others to doing X. it's more than just you Liking X. It's taking on your desires and expectations because you liked it to start with.

It is still an ought as Oughts aren't only some idea of "correctness" as it's equally either way still a moral criteria based on your suggestion.

We clearly have a very different idea of what ought means.

Which is why I said early if, only if your idea is strictly rigid to only mean "correctness" which isn't merely what ought means in a moral sense.

If you are supporting an idea you desire and have an expectation of it being so... you have an ought of it being so. You don't need to think it is the "right" way to think it ought to be.

Then again I think the problem you have to start this thread and other points you bring up comes entirely from a less sensible view of how language fluctuates in communication.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 09:34 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 09:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
No it isn't an ought. Anymore so than if I were to say, that if I were desperate I would steal you wallet, implies that I ought to steal your wallet.

Oddly enough, I had my wallet stolen last night (true story).

Whoever took it must have decided that, for them, it was something they ought to do.

If they didn't think that, why did they take it?

Or are you saying that stealing is wrong in an absolute sense and they knew they ought not but in this case hey why not?

If you saying that, you are going for that ol' universal morality argument again i.e. not nihilism.

Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: