Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2015, 03:47 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:39 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

I'm lost now. Now you're defining morality only on a personal level? That's not how I see it at all. For instance, altruism wouldn't exist if it were only an individually beneficial behavior. Morals are the same way. There wouldn't be individual morals without a society. There would be behaviors.

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, 03:48 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

There. There you go. Short, sweet, and to the point.

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, 03:48 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?

This is the entire process of the social contract idea. And it doesn't only work on "right or wrong" principals or ideas. It's just as equally into harmful, fairness, sacred, tradition, purity, and such things.

Is it okay to discriminate upon gays? Well it was something over the last 2 decades on the social rise due to swaying opinions via conflating how well harm/fairness vs tradition are battling each other as moral values that people care about in this situation. As the fairness side has had more sway, the results of the society have changed. The societies stance has changed because it was a position some individuals had.. then more individuals had, then even more individuals had, then a majority of individuals had, and so on.

"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
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
26-06-2015, 03:50 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:45 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.
Morality is a personal belief that something is right or that something is wrong.

Law is enforcable rules that a governed society must obey or face consequences. Law obedience is not equate to morality.
Customs are traditions, doing things because that is the way they have been historically done. I am not a traditionalist, I don't consider it morally wrong to cast aside traditions.
Knowledge - I don't know how one gains knowledge on moral truths, I guess it depends on your epistemology.

"Morality is multifaceted and derives from the collective body of knowledge and opinions of society "
I wholeheartedly disagree. I person swimming against the tide of society isn't an immoral person.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
26-06-2015, 03:51 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:50 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:45 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.
Morality is a personal belief that something is right or that something is wrong.

Law is enforcable rules that a governed society must obey or face consequences. Law obedience is not equate to morality.
Customs are traditions, doing things because that is the way they have been historically done. I am not a traditionalist, I don't consider it morally wrong to cast aside traditions.
Knowledge - I don't know how one gains knowledge on moral truths, I guess it depends on your epistemology.

"Morality is multifaceted and derives from the collective body of knowledge and opinions of society "
I wholeheartedly disagree. I person swimming against the tide of society isn't an immoral person.

"Morality is a personal belief that something is right or that something is wrong."

That wouldn't exist without 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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
26-06-2015, 03:52 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
And going against the grain of society, isn't how I'd define immoral. Please stop reducing my points into straw men.

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, 03:53 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:48 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  This is the entire process of the social contract idea. And it doesn't only work on "right or wrong" principals or ideas. It's just as equally into harmful, fairness, sacred, tradition, purity, and such things.

Is it okay to discriminate upon gays?
If the social contract idea tries to answer questions such as "Is it okay to..."
Then the social contract idea is fundamentally flawed.

If we are defining law then the question is "Is society unsafe if we allow ..."
Whether something is OK or not is up to the individual to decide for themself, its not for government to dictate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 03:53 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:52 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And going against the grain of society, isn't how I'd define immoral. Please stop reducing my points into straw men.

well i wouldnt, weve reached a stalemate.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 03:55 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:48 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  This is the entire process of the social contract idea. And it doesn't only work on "right or wrong" principals or ideas. It's just as equally into harmful, fairness, sacred, tradition, purity, and such things.

Is it okay to discriminate upon gays?
If the social contract idea tries to answer questions such as "Is it okay to..."
Then the social contract idea is fundamentally flawed.

If we are defining law then the question is "Is society unsafe if we allow ..."
Whether something is OK or not is up to the individual to decide for themself, its not for government to dictate.

Not always. The individual might make a choice that is harmful to large numbers of people in society. Your views seems to have morality as a system of anarchy whereby anyone and everyone could argue they are morally correct.

By your system, I see an argument that someone would argue that their murder of innocent people was just their moral decision. Who is society to tell them it's 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, 03:56 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:53 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:52 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And going against the grain of society, isn't how I'd define immoral. Please stop reducing my points into straw men.

well i wouldnt, weve reached a stalemate.

You wouldn't what?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: