Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2015, 02:42 PM
RE: 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. 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 what is the meaningful difference between this and moral nihilism?

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 02:43 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 01:38 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  So it makes no sense to try and talk about moral or immoral outside the context of what boundary conditions any given society has defined at any given time.

Bob is a part of a religion that believes in a moral law. Their holy book states that stealing is immoral. That's it a violation of the moral law.

Would you agree that his belief in a moral law, even it was product of social/religious indoctrination is a false belief. That when he sees stealing as a violation of a moral law, that this violation, this transgression is an illusion?

"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
26-06-2015, 02:44 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 02:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 01:38 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  So it makes no sense to try and talk about moral or immoral outside the context of what boundary conditions any given society has defined at any given time.

Bob is a part of a religion that believes in a moral law. Their holy book states that stealing is immoral.
That's it a violation of the moral law.

Would you agree that his belief in a moral law, even it was product of social/religious indoctrination is a false belief. That when he sees stealing as a violation of a moral law, that this violation, this transgression is an illusion?

I would just say Bob is a dumbass for believing in religion to begin with.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
26-06-2015, 02:45 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
So you're refusing to provide a valid response then?

"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
26-06-2015, 02:46 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 02:45 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So you're refusing to provide a valid response then?

If I believed you were here for honest reasons, I might engage with you and get a meaningful response.

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, 02:47 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 02:42 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 02:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

and what is the meaningful difference between this and moral nihilism?

Apparently it is the difference about how one defines the terms associated with morality and behavior.

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, 02:47 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 02:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 02:39 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

I can't see likes on mobile

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, 02:48 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 02:42 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 02:40 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

and what is the meaningful difference between this and moral nihilism?

I should say that believing that something is objectively wrong given a particular context, that's not moral nihilism, in fact that's not even subjective morality. It's moral realism, or objective morality (but not moral absolutism)

"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
26-06-2015, 02:54 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
Stevil dateline=' Wrote:  Context is important for people who don't believe in objective morality.

No, context is important for folks who don't subscribe to moral absolutism. Moral realist/objectivist that don't subscribe to absolutism, believe things are right and wrong given a particular context.

"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
26-06-2015, 02:57 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 01:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  This is why we don't hold inanimate objects accountable when they seemingly break our moral guidelines. Like a volcano erupting and killing people. That isn't morally right or wrong, because the volcano isn't a member of society, which is where the level at which the moral rules are applied to.

We don't hold other animate objects beyond humans as morally accountable either.

"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: