Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-06-2015, 05:23 PM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2015 06:12 PM by Chas.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 05:17 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 05:02 PM)Chas Wrote:  What? That isn't even sensible.


Sure you can - if you enjoy being wrong.

Evolved behaviour, emotion, and agreement, are irrelevant to truth.

Except they are facts, so they are entirely relevant.

And what truth would that be?

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
26-06-2015, 05:59 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
Our gut (or Evolved behaviour, emotion) tells us things are either right or wrong, only our mind is able to decipher that it's actually an illusion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 06:13 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 05:59 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Our gut (or Evolved behaviour, emotion) tells us things are either right or wrong, only our mind is able to decipher that it's actually an illusion.

What's an illusion? Our emotions are the basis of our morality. At least they are for people not blinded by religion.

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
26-06-2015, 06:33 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 05:59 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Our gut (or Evolved behaviour, emotion) tells us things are either right or wrong, only our mind is able to decipher that it's actually an illusion.
Behaviour is just behaviour it isn't morality. Morility is our beliefs regarding our choices.

Emotions aren't morality, they are merely our emotional responses to events.
Neither our behaviour nor our emotions tell us what is right or wrong. Many people interpret their own emotions to determine for themselves what is right and what is wrong. But many people's emotions are driven by their preconceived ideas of right and wrong. For example many people can be riddled with guilt base on masturbation or lieing or whatever because they have a personal belief that these things are wrong and then they beat themselves up for behaving wrongly.

People without these beliefs don't feel the guilt emotion for these actions.
I certainly wouldn't feel guilt for having an abortion where-as a Christian might be absolutely distraught by it. So in this case the emotions aren't the driver it is the beliefs that are causing the emotions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 06:36 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 04:15 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  No it doesn't, why do you think it assumes 100% agrees? It almost never is the case.

You've just said that, based on what, makes you proclaim that?
OK, well, I'm just trying to understand what is meant when people claim that society has a morality. It makes no sense to me because society is a collection of individuals. Some of these individuals have their own moral beliefs.

Let's say 99% think it is OK to eat meat and 1% think it is immoral to eat meat.

Can you please explain to me what societies morality is regarding meat eating? Is it moral or immoral from society's perspective to eat meat?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
26-06-2015, 07:36 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 06:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 04:15 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  No it doesn't, why do you think it assumes 100% agrees? It almost never is the case.

You've just said that, based on what, makes you proclaim that?
OK, well, I'm just trying to understand what is meant when people claim that society has a morality. It makes no sense to me because society is a collection of individuals. Some of these individuals have their own moral beliefs.

Let's say 99% think it is OK to eat meat and 1% think it is immoral to eat meat.

Can you please explain to me what societies morality is regarding meat eating? Is it moral or immoral from society's perspective to eat meat?

Morality is derived from society, that doesn't necessarily make morality a static thing shared by each individual within a society.

The vegan's view on the moral quandary of meat is based on a different interpretation of the values of the society they live in than the omnivore. But both derive their moral choice on to eat or not to eat meat from society.

With no society, there doesn't really appear to be a decision to make with regards to the morality of to or not to eat meat. Other animals don't make a distinction and humans before we developed a society where meat isn't necessary for survival didn't really seem to find a moral quandary with it. It isn't black or white. You still seem to keep getting hung up on these either/or scenarios when so rarely is anything either/or.

Perhaps in a 100 years when synthetic meat is common place, the opinions will have pulled a 180 and veganism will be the norm.

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, 07:39 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
As far as explaining societies opinion on the moral nature of any given topic, you're still painting it as if all choices in the moral spectrum are defined as black and white. But I imagine you recognize that the black and white view of morality is not representative of reality. So why do you keep reducing the argument down to these either/or scenarios?

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, 07:59 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 06:33 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 05:59 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Our gut (or Evolved behaviour, emotion) tells us things are either right or wrong, only our mind is able to decipher that it's actually an illusion.
Behaviour is just behaviour it isn't morality. Morility is our beliefs regarding our choices.

I agree, the point I'm trying to make is that our gut reaction (or emotional response, or evolved instinctual response, or whatever you want to call it) to events such as large scale murder for example, defaults to a right and wrong way of thinking, and it's only through careful critical reasoning that we can see things for what they really are. Moral nihilism most certainly isn't the default, after all it appears that we're an extreme minority, even amongst atheists lol.Big Grin


(26-06-2015 06:33 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Emotions aren't morality, they are merely our emotional responses to events.
Neither our behaviour nor our emotions tell us what is right or wrong. Many people interpret their own emotions to determine for themselves what is right and what is wrong. But many people's emotions are driven by their preconceived ideas of right and wrong. For example many people can be riddled with guilt base on masturbation or lieing or whatever because they have a personal belief that these things are wrong and then they beat themselves up for behaving wrongly.

People without these beliefs don't feel the guilt emotion for these actions.
I certainly wouldn't feel guilt for having an abortion where-as a Christian might be absolutely distraught by it. So in this case the emotions aren't the driver it is the beliefs that are causing the emotions.

I think I agree with you here for the most part. I definitely think it's a two way street though. I believe emotions affect beliefs unless checked by critical reasoning, and of course moral convictions cause people to have certain emotions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2015, 08:02 PM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2015 08:06 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 07:36 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Morality is derived from society, that doesn't necessarily make morality a static thing shared by each individual within a society.
Firstly, thanks for taking the time to try and explain this.
I still don't get it.

To say that morality is derived from society, just doesn't make sense to me.

Society doesn't have moral beliefs. Individual people can have moral beliefs but a society isn't a thinking being. It can't have beliefs.

What do you mean whey you say derived from?

The way I see a society is that it is a collection of interacting individuals.
Sure their behaviors and reactions can influence each other. But regardless of this influence we are still left with a collection of individuals. Morality is a belief held by an individual. Some people having a strong influence on others i.e. their own offspring, can get their offspring to accept the lion's share of their own moral beliefs (values). But that family doesn't have a morality. That family is a collection of individuals each with a set of moral believes (or not if some are nihilists).
Just because 3 out of 4 in the family consider meat eating as immoral this does not mean that it is immoral for a family member to eat meat.
Each individual has formed their own moral beliefs, they have not been derived from the "family morals". The parent's may have had a significant influence on the forming of the child's moral beliefs, but these moral beliefs are the child's not a derivation of the family morals.

Same thing goes for society. Society does not have a mind capable of forming moral beliefs. The moral beliefs of each individual member of society cannot be derived from society morals/values because society morals don't exist.

If one single society member's moral beliefs differ drastically from the majority of members of society this does not make that single member immoral.


(26-06-2015 07:36 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The vegan's view on the moral quandary of meat is based on a different interpretation of the values of the society they live in than the omnivore.
What if the individual does not believe that society has morals or values?
What if the individual deems society's values as irrelevant to their own position towards whether it is ok to eat meat or not? They don't even try to attempt to interpret a society's values

Personally I don't care what the perception is on what is acceptable society behavior or not. My choices do not take that into regard. I do however consider the reaction from society based on my actions. If I steal then society's governing law and police will lock me up, so I take that into consideration.
But I certain do not have a goal to be a good society member and to align my actions according to what is perceived as the norm for my society.

I'm too old and stubborn to be worried about fitting in.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
26-06-2015, 08:10 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 06:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 04:15 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  No it doesn't, why do you think it assumes 100% agrees? It almost never is the case.

You've just said that, based on what, makes you proclaim that?
OK, well, I'm just trying to understand what is meant when people claim that society has a morality. It makes no sense to me because society is a collection of individuals. Some of these individuals have their own moral beliefs.

Let's say 99% think it is OK to eat meat and 1% think it is immoral to eat meat.

Can you please explain to me what societies morality is regarding meat eating? Is it moral or immoral from society's perspective to eat meat?

Well even with actual statistics, it's around between 5-10% of people who profess to be vegetarian or vegan. Somewhere around that range or maybe somewhat less are the amount of people likely who think eating meat is immoral.

Do people in the large US population generally exude that eating meat is immoral. It doesn't seem so to me. It seems they don't think it's immoral. Why is that? Well it seems since the majority of people don't deem it immoral, it's majority voice is that it isn't moral. Things fluctuate over time and in pockets of areas. It wouldn't shock me in 20 years if some state initially began to make efforts in banning the consumption of meat. Over time some efforts rise and some fall and influence other people, very few people anywhere these days live in a bubble. And it's not like it's some perfect majority 51 over 49 percent world because societies have plenty of other sub-cultures or various ways to break down a culture. But people are noticeably in some ways always in some criteria of other peoples realm. So of the combined US population of overall, meat eating is deemed immoral. But of the smaller social group of say, upper class college kids on the west coast, I don't know if they are of that same position. They might be more at a mixed equal or majority of them thinking meat eating is immoral.

Humans interact and share values and pickup on other peoples values that they like or think have a admirable quality to them. In I'd guess a point Tomsasia would glee from, people pick up off other people this way like they do with Fashion, the manner of which they speak, random opinion, as well as with 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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: