Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2015, 02:02 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 02:00 PM)tear151 Wrote:  What you're saying can be easily explained by social contract without invoking morality at any point.

What is the difference between a right action and a wrong one?

As I said previously, social contracts (rules, laws, etc) may be derived from morals, but are not in and of themselves morals.

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
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
26-06-2015, 02:03 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 02:00 PM)tear151 Wrote:  What you're saying can be easily explained by social contract without invoking morality at any point.

What is the difference between a right action and a wrong one?
To the latter point:
Context

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, 02:15 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 02:03 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 02:00 PM)tear151 Wrote:  What you're saying can be easily explained by social contract without invoking morality at any point.

What is the difference between a right action and a wrong one?
To the latter point:
Context

That's a means to derive them, what is the fundamental difference between a right and a wrong action, saying context or basically "It depends" is not an answer.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 02:18 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 02:03 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  To the latter point:
Context

That's a means to derive them, what is the fundamental difference between a right and a wrong action, saying context or basically "It depends" is not an answer.

Why not?

If I want to interpret an isotopic trend in a geological record, I need context in order to derive a more meaningful ( more likely to be true) conclusion.

Or to put it another way, any and every conclusion about reality (even when there is a single correct answer) depends on context in order to arrive at the correct conclusion.

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, 02:19 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
You may not like the answer "context", but it really does depend. You're using a very black/white definition of morality, and I've already explained that I don't see it that way.

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, 02:36 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 02:02 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 02:00 PM)tear151 Wrote:  What you're saying can be easily explained by social contract without invoking morality at any point.

What is the difference between a right action and a wrong one?

As I said previously, social contracts (rules, laws, etc) may be derived from morals, but are not in and of themselves morals.
Yes, and laws and rules don't necessarily need underlying moral beliefs. They can come about via practical analysis towards acceptance of clear and transparent common goals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 02:39 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 02:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 02:02 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As I said previously, social contracts (rules, laws, etc) may be derived from morals, but are not in and of themselves morals.
Yes, and laws and rules don't necessarily need underlying moral beliefs. They can come about via practical analysis towards acceptance of clear and transparent common goals.

That's why I said "may be"

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, 02:40 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 02:18 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 02:15 PM)tear151 Wrote:  That's a means to derive them, what is the fundamental difference between a right and a wrong action, saying context or basically "It depends" is not an answer.

Why not?

If I want to interpret an isotopic trend in a geological record, I need context in order to derive a more meaningful ( more likely to be true) conclusion.

Or to put it another way, any and every conclusion about reality (even when there is a single correct answer) depends on context in order to arrive at the correct conclusion.
The thing about morality though is that there is no correct conclusion.
Context is important for people who don't believe in objective morality.
But there is obviously more than just context. There is personal goals, personal beliefs. The "correct" conclusion is only "correct" in the context of the person making the moral claim as to whether X is right or wrong. This isn't just property of this person but it is a combination of this person at this point in time. It might be the case that tomorrow, under the same context this person might consider the opposite to be the "correct" conclusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
26-06-2015, 02:42 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 02:39 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 02:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Yes, and laws and rules don't necessarily need underlying moral beliefs. They can come about via practical analysis towards acceptance of clear and transparent common goals.

That's why I said "may be"
Yes, and that's why I responded with a "yes" and why I clicked the like button on your post. I just wanted to highlight this because I thought it was important. I knew you had it correct, I wasn't attempting to correct you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 02:42 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 02:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 02:18 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Why not?

If I want to interpret an isotopic trend in a geological record, I need context in order to derive a more meaningful ( more likely to be true) conclusion.

Or to put it another way, any and every conclusion about reality (even when there is a single correct answer) depends on context in order to arrive at the correct conclusion.
The thing about morality though is that there is no correct conclusion.
Context is important for people who don't believe in objective morality.
But there is obviously more than just context. There is personal goals, personal beliefs. The "correct" conclusion is only "correct" in the context of the person making the moral claim as to whether X is right or wrong. At this isn't just property of this person but it is a combination of this person at this point in time. It might be the case that tomorrow, under the same context this person might consider the opposite to be the "correct" conclusion.

And how does this differ from anything I've said where context matters in deriving that which may be more or less right/wrong in a moral sense as a defined behavior by society?

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: