Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2015, 03:36 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:34 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As a threat to society. Which is the same reason we remove human threats from society if they are immoral enough.
The immoral judgement is unnecessary. All we need to determine is if they are dangerous to society.

And danger might include immorality if the action deemed immoral is considered a danger.

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, 03:37 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:21 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And morals as set by society may not be entirely good or just. Which is why what is moral and immoral, sometimes changes.
Society doesn't set morals.
Society is a collection of people, each with their own person moral beliefs or lack of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 03:38 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:21 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And morals as set by society may not be entirely good or just. Which is why what is moral and immoral, sometimes changes.
Society doesn't set morals.
Society is a collection of people, each with their own person moral beliefs or lack of.

Morals are derived from society. I completely disagree that society doesn't set 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
26-06-2015, 03:39 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:21 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And morals as set by society may not be entirely good or just. Which is why what is moral and immoral, sometimes changes.
Society doesn't set morals.
Society is a collection of people, each with their own person moral beliefs or lack of.

This argument seems to insist that morals exist outside of the level of society. Which I think is absurd. Altruism as a behavior might (because I see it as an ancestral trait to morals), but not morality. That requires society in order to be defined.

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, 03:40 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:26 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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..

Of course you don't have to answer that question. But if you wanted to persuade people, or argue that morality is an illusion make a convincing case for this, then attempting to answer that question would help.

The common objection made by those who disagree with the moral nihilist position, is that the arguments are too simplistic. And I can't say they are entirely without warrant. It's not hard to see why other atheists reject these views quite strongly. Even if in the end their objections are not well articulated.

I've given you ideas on why it is believed on how there is actually some conflation on how it differs in how various cultures raise their young.

When you raise kids telling them things are Right and Wrong & Good or bad constantly via parents and media/peer influence, they're going to completely accustomed to that thought and most people would take some deeper examination of those thoughts. There's a great deal of pointing out how that happens at high rates for teenagers and early adults when they come to a contrast with how reality isn't black&white.

When you have a collection of people with opinions that largely bulk together, you start to get those as "collectively held believes" it's exactly how and why society does have collective moral shape. And some studies show why there are split groups like conservative vs liberal positions, and it often aligns to different collective moral value judgments.

"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, 03:42 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:38 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Society doesn't set morals.
Society is a collection of people, each with their own person moral beliefs or lack of.

Morals are derived from society. I completely disagree that society doesn't set morals.
How do you derive morality from society?
Does it come to a majority vote? Or is it decided by those in power? Or is there some other way?

Does this mean that if a person deems it immoral to eat meat therefore becomes a vegitarian and if society deems it a moral to eat meat then this vegitarian is demonstrably wrong and should therefore eat meat?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
26-06-2015, 03:45 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:38 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Morals are derived from society. I completely disagree that society doesn't set morals.
How do you derive morality from society?
Does it come to a majority vote? Or is it decided by those in power? Or is there some other way?

Does this mean that if a person deems it immoral to eat meat therefore becomes a vegitarian and if society deems it a moral to eat meat then this vegitarian is demonstrably wrong and should therefore eat meat?

Customs. Values. Laws. Rules. Education. Knowledge. Needs. Morality is multifaceted and derives from the collective body of knowledge and opinions of society

Your example/question still uses morality in black and white terms. Don't be so reductionist.

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, 03:45 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:39 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:37 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Society doesn't set morals.
Society is a collection of people, each with their own person moral beliefs or lack of.

This argument seems to insist that morals exist outside of the level of society. Which I think is absurd. Altruism as a behavior might (because I see it as an ancestral trait to morals), but not morality. That requires society in order to be defined.
Well, no. It insists that morality is a personal belief system and only applies to the individual holding their own personal belief. It doesn't apply to anyone else and doesn't apply to society at large.

It is in the eye of the beholder and strange if they insist that others ought to conform to their own person moral beliefs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 03:46 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
Behaviors are complex actions. You seem to want them to always be defined by a single cause. That simply isn't true.

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, 03:46 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:38 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Morals are derived from society. I completely disagree that society doesn't set morals.
How do you derive morality from society?
Does it come to a majority vote? Or is it decided by those in power? Or is there some other way?

Does this mean that if a person deems it immoral to eat meat therefore becomes a vegitarian and if society deems it a moral to eat meat then this vegitarian is demonstrably wrong and should therefore eat meat?

No, what he means is that without society, morality is a meaningless concept.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: