Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2015, 01:16 PM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2015 01:21 PM by tear151.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 01:07 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If you mean to say can I just look at an action or behavior and classify it as good or bad or good or evil, then no I do not agree with them for two reasons.

1) it's too much of a reductionist argument to assert that moral and immoral correlate with black and white concepts of good or evil. Morality is a spectrum of more/less right/wrong.

2) I think you can look at the context of an action or behavior and derive a true conclusion about its rightness or wrongness.

1. How can one come to a true conclusion about rightness and wrongness without prescribing objective value judgements?

2. If it is a spectrum of more right less wrong, it requires ideas of absolute right and wrongness. Similar to how grey requires the existence of black and white.

You are still prescribing judgments of good and evil.

If there is a true conclusion about the rightness and wrongness of things it would not depend on the person because it is true

if it true regardless of the person that is objective and implies the existence of moral truths

you've just asserted objective moral truths

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tear151's post
26-06-2015, 01:26 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 01:16 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 01:07 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If you mean to say can I just look at an action or behavior and classify it as good or bad or good or evil, then no I do not agree with them for two reasons.

1) it's too much of a reductionist argument to assert that moral and immoral correlate with black and white concepts of good or evil. Morality is a spectrum of more/less right/wrong.

2) I think you can look at the context of an action or behavior and derive a true conclusion about its rightness or wrongness.

1. How can one come to a true conclusion about rightness and wrongness without prescribing objective value judgements?

2. If it is a spectrum of more right less wrong, it requires ideas of absolute right and wrongness. Similar to how grey requires the existence of black and white.

You are still prescribing judgments of good and evil.

If there is a true conclusion about the rightness and wrongness of things it would not depend on the person because it is true

if it true regardless of the person that is objective and implies the existence of moral truths

you've just asserted objective moral truths

1) because of how I define morality and behaviors as contextual, morality is inherently subjective.

2) boundary conditions are necessary for assumptions, but boundary conditions may not be realistic. I don't know if there is a such thing as completely right or completely wrong, because it is (seemingly) always contextual

"if it true regardless of the person that is objective and implies the existence of moral truths

you've just asserted objective moral truths"


No, I've asserted objective observations but contextual conclusions that may be more or less right/wrong.

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
26-06-2015, 01:28 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
A "true" conclusion is up to the individual when it comes to conclusions based on observations and behaviors.

It is necessary (completely right, seemingly) to eat, but it may not always be necessary (over eating when there is no reason to do so other than a desire to do so).

Behaviors can be observed and described, and conclusions about causality of those behaviors can be derived from the observations.

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
26-06-2015, 01:28 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 01:26 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 01:16 PM)tear151 Wrote:  1. How can one come to a true conclusion about rightness and wrongness without prescribing objective value judgements?

2. If it is a spectrum of more right less wrong, it requires ideas of absolute right and wrongness. Similar to how grey requires the existence of black and white.

You are still prescribing judgments of good and evil.

If there is a true conclusion about the rightness and wrongness of things it would not depend on the person because it is true

if it true regardless of the person that is objective and implies the existence of moral truths

you've just asserted objective moral truths

1) because of how I define morality and behaviors as contextual, morality is inherently subjective.

2) boundary conditions are necessary for assumptions, but boundary conditions may not be realistic. I don't know if there is a such thing as completely right or completely wrong, because it is (seemingly) always contextual

"if it true regardless of the person that is objective and implies the existence of moral truths

you've just asserted objective moral truths"


No, I've asserted objective observations but contextual conclusions that may be more or less right/wrong.

ok so can something always be wrong within a given context?

What does causality have to do with morality?

so is it necessary (right) not to murder for fun for no contextual reasons that might make it ok?

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 01:31 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 01:28 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 01:26 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  1) because of how I define morality and behaviors as contextual, morality is inherently subjective.

2) boundary conditions are necessary for assumptions, but boundary conditions may not be realistic. I don't know if there is a such thing as completely right or completely wrong, because it is (seemingly) always contextual

"if it true regardless of the person that is objective and implies the existence of moral truths

you've just asserted objective moral truths"


No, I've asserted objective observations but contextual conclusions that may be more or less right/wrong.

ok so can something always be wrong within a given context?

I don't think your question makes any sense given that morality is subjective and contextual.

In a hypothetical scenario, could an action be deemed to always be wrong no matter the observer (assuming only human observers)? That negates the individual perceptions and biases (perhaps through ignorance or a lack of empathy) of morality, and is an impossible question to answer.

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
26-06-2015, 01:33 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
"What does causality have to do with morality?

so is it necessary (right) not to murder for fun for no contextual reasons that might make it ok?"


Behaviors can have causes. Meaning that behaviors can be observed, and causes derived from said observations.

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
26-06-2015, 01:34 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 01:31 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 01:28 PM)tear151 Wrote:  ok so can something always be wrong within a given context?

I don't think your question makes any sense given that morality is subjective and contextual.

In a hypothetical scenario, could an action be deemed to always be wrong no matter the observer (assuming only human observers)? That negates the individual perceptions and biases (perhaps through ignorance or a lack of empathy) of morality, and is an impossible question to answer.

So if my perception is that there is no morality and ignore it and just do what I want does your system allow you to object to my behaviour, how is your system different to no morality at all outside of entirely emotional (and therefore ignorable by everyone else) personal biases.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 01:34 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
Your eating behavior derived from a cause (hunger).

Your defensive behavior derives from a cause (a real or perceived threat).

Your desire to have sex derived from a cause (pleasure and/or reproduction)

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
26-06-2015, 01:35 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 01:34 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 01:31 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I don't think your question makes any sense given that morality is subjective and contextual.

In a hypothetical scenario, could an action be deemed to always be wrong no matter the observer (assuming only human observers)? That negates the individual perceptions and biases (perhaps through ignorance or a lack of empathy) of morality, and is an impossible question to answer.

So if my perception is that there is no morality and ignore it and just do what I want does your system allow you to object to my behaviour, how is your system different to no morality at all outside of entirely emotional (and therefore ignorable by everyone else) personal biases.

Humanity (society) sets boundary conditions for allowed behavior. You can't decouple morality from society and civilization.

Society can also change the boundaries.

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
26-06-2015, 01:37 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 01:35 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 01:34 PM)tear151 Wrote:  So if my perception is that there is no morality and ignore it and just do what I want does your system allow you to object to my behaviour, how is your system different to no morality at all outside of entirely emotional (and therefore ignorable by everyone else) personal biases.

Humanity (society) sets boundary conditions for allowed behavior. You can't decouple morality from society and civilization.

Society can also change the boundaries.

If I can get away with it am I obligated to not break those boundaries?

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: