Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2015, 03:26 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:21 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:17 PM)tear151 Wrote:  "You can't say God creates morals because he's not real"

Yeah you can say what you like, I'm just saying you can't say that and it be a valid response, apologies if I caused offense.

Well if society is the only reason I'll just create my own values and appease society purely so i don't get lynched. Is that wrong?

Morally? No it isn't wrong because you're following morals as set by society. If those morals change and you don't though, then you've found yourself in a bit of a pickle.

And morals as set by society may not be entirely good or just. Which is why what is moral and immoral, sometimes changes.

How do you measure how good a societies morals are

ok im immoral by definition in your system, why should I care?

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 03:26 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I think the problem for Stevil, Tear, Matt Finey, that without a persuasive argument that explains why our perceptions of morality, our language is seeped in oughts, why we are so inclined to believe morality is objective, the case their selling becomes a hard one, and simplistic because it ignores this perception from being accounted for.

You're telling me that morality is an illusion, while the person on the other end strongly believes it to be real. You'd have to explain that illusion somewhat persuasively if you expect folks to accept your views.
Are you familiar with the term ignostic?
It differs somewhat from agnostic and atheist because it addresses the question more that trying to come to an answer.
The question "Does god exist?"
The agnostic answer "The answer to the question is unknowable"
The atheist answer "There is no evidence to support the claim so I lack a belief in the affirmative or the negative as an answer to the question"
The ignostic answer "The question is incoherrent. What is a god? How can we determine if something is a god or not? How can we falsify a claim that a god exists?"

With regards to moral truths I am ignostic.
The claim is incoherent. This makes moral claims and moral language ineffective.

I don't have to answer your question "Why do some people believe in morality" Just as the atheist doesn't have to answer the question "Why do some people believe in gods?", Just as the skeptic doesn't have to answer the question "Why do some people believe in ghosts or luck or Karma?"

It is simplistic to assume that moral truths exist without first going to length to come up with a coherent definition of what a moral truth is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 03:26 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:21 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:17 PM)tear151 Wrote:  "You can't say God creates morals because he's not real"

Yeah you can say what you like, I'm just saying you can't say that and it be a valid response, apologies if I caused offense.

Well if society is the only reason I'll just create my own values and appease society purely so i don't get lynched. Is that wrong?

Morally? No it isn't wrong because you're following morals as set by society. If those morals change and you don't though, then you've found yourself in a bit of a pickle.

And morals as set by society may not be entirely good or just. Which is why what is moral and immoral, sometimes changes.

Another problem here is you limit the parameters of morality around society, when in fact people, especially those who might protest their societies beliefs, draw certain moral senses from other aspects, such as their empathy.

You also made a revealing moral judgement by stating that a societies morals may not be entirely good. Did you mean it may not be entirely good under the standards of another society?

"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
[+] 2 users Like Tomasia's post
26-06-2015, 03:27 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 02:58 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 02:57 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  We don't hold other animate objects beyond humans as morally accountable either.

Bullshit. We euthanize animals that kill humans all the time.
We don't euthanise animals for the crime of being immoral.
We euthanise animals to remove them as a threat to humans.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 03:28 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:26 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:21 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Morally? No it isn't wrong because you're following morals as set by society. If those morals change and you don't though, then you've found yourself in a bit of a pickle.

And morals as set by society may not be entirely good or just. Which is why what is moral and immoral, sometimes changes.

How do you measure how good a societies morals are

ok im immoral by definition in your system, why should I care?

Society defines morality. Whether they are good or not is subjective and contextual. Once again, it's not black and white good or bad.

If you're immoral by a society's definitions, you'll lose some of the benefits of society. Perhaps your freedom or your sexual attractiveness to a mating female/male or your life if your immorality is deemed dangerous enough.

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, 03:28 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 02:58 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Bullshit. We euthanize animals that kill humans all the time.
We don't euthanise animals for the crime of being immoral.
We euthanise animals to remove them as a threat to humans.

Is that not the same reason we euthanize humans?

"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, 03:29 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 10:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 10:49 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You are simply, factually wrong here to say you'd give that up by not believing in a God. But you keep repeatedly holding that thought.

No I wouldn't be, you would be, because you imagine that God here for me and others, would be something separate from these aforementioned beliefs, when in fact you could say that God is the concept for the whatever forces, and conditions makes/made these things so.

If you think it were possibly for me not to believing in God, yet believe in all these others things, please tell me what it is I would no longer be believing in?

And not-god, simply ANYTHING can be or become the whatever forces/conditions. Because you belief it as apart of God doesn't mean you can't rework beliefs. It's what people do all the time.

I don't know what you believe in in regards to God enough to say what you would no longer be believing in. You've said things about the Bibble being inspired, so you may believe God has a consciousness nature... you wouldn't believe in a conscious Being existing anymore. You wouldn't believe a sentient entity was an actor behind the universe. The universe itself could be that actor. You would be moving your ideas of God onto basically, the universe, and that's seemingly what many people of these types of beliefs do.

Sure, being a Non-Theist who is semi-religious/spiritual/new agey call it what you will isn't very different from being definitively theist at times. Though it is ways, something different.

As for what Morality can be, it can the ideas and judgments of a society on beneficial actions or be the system of values as they are examined, like in moral foundations theory data. I'm a moral nihilist but I don't believe morals don't exist, it's something that "exists" in this context, they don't have any absolute or intrinsic essence. And I don't get bent out of shape by people in general speaking in ways that sound morally objective in common dialogue.

"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, 03:29 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 02:58 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Bullshit. We euthanize animals that kill humans all the time.
We don't euthanise animals for the crime of being immoral.
We euthanise animals to remove them as a threat to humans.

As a threat to society. Which is the same reason we remove human threats from society if they are immoral enough.

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, 03:29 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 02:42 PM)tear151 Wrote:  and what is the meaningful difference between this and moral nihilism?
I am a moral nihilist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 03:29 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:28 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:26 PM)tear151 Wrote:  How do you measure how good a societies morals are

ok im immoral by definition in your system, why should I care?

Society defines morality. Whether they are good or not is subjective and contextual. Once again, it's not black and white good or bad.

If you're immoral by a society's definitions, you'll lose some of the benefits of society. Perhaps your freedom or your sexual attractiveness to a mating female/male or your life if your immorality is deemed dangerous enough.

Again, I said earlier, if I'm immoral in a way that benefits me, that point is irrelevant to normative morals.

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