Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-06-2015, 11:07 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 11:06 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  TBD

"Slavery is wrong."

Do you believe that the above is a true claim?

In the context of society today, yes.

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
27-06-2015, 11:07 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
Would slavery be morally wrong if there were no 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
27-06-2015, 11:11 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
Again, all that you're talking about is societal norms.

You're talking about morality in a descriptive sense, while this thread is aimed at talking about morality in a normative sense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2015, 11:12 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 11:11 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Again, all that you're talking about is societal norms.

You're talking about morality in a descriptive sense, while this thread is aimed at talking about morality in a normative sense.

No, I am talking about morality as a society-derived behavior. Morality IS a description of 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
27-06-2015, 11:12 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
I sincerely don't know how many more times I have to explicitly give my definition of morality as a description of behavior. Dodgy

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
27-06-2015, 11:27 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 11:00 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  TBD,

What is your biggest problem with moral nihilism?

Is it that you think that the moral nihilist is simply wrong in defining what people mean when they talk about morality?

One thing to keep in mind, is that when we talk about defining words, we generally like to define them in a context that most people would use. With the majority of people being religious, I think it's fair to say that most people believe in some type of moral realism. A moral realist believes that certain actions are either "right" or "wrong" regardless of anyone's opinion or societal norms. A moral realist might say something like "slavery is wrong whether any particular society accepts it or not". The only real claim that a moral nihilist is making is that behaviors like slavery or murder are not capable of possessing qualities such as moral or immoral (right or wrong). It's a "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" scenario for nihilists. One person might believe that slavery is right, another might believe that slavery is wrong, whereas a nihilist would say they are both wrong because rightness and wrongness aren't qualities that the behavior of slavery can have.

Is. Not ought.

From Wikipedia:
Quote:Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism) is the meta-ethical view that nothing is intrinsically moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense

Is, again. Not ought.

The video you posted early at post #64 was pushing the position of moral oughts.

(27-06-2015 11:11 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Again, all that you're talking about is societal norms.

You're talking about morality in a descriptive sense, while this thread is aimed at talking about morality in a normative sense.

I think that almost everyone here can buy into the idea that is-morality is contextual (with the obvious exception of our theist friend who is a self-confessed moral realist / objectivist.

But if you are insistent that we stick to the normative sense, and let's get Stanford in on this...
Quote:“The term “morality” can be used either:

1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
a) some other group, such as a religion, or
b) accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

What “morality” is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories? To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. … “Morality” has also been taken to refer to any code of conduct that a person or group takes as most important.

Among those who use “morality” normatively, all hold that “morality” refers to a code of conduct that applies to all who can understand it and can govern their behavior by it...”

... then what is your issue with those here who agree with the above oughtiness?

Huh

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
27-06-2015, 11:52 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
DLJ,

When someone makes a claim such as "slavery is wrong", they are implying that because it is wrong, it "ought" not to be done. I don't think I'm going out on a limb with this claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
27-06-2015, 11:53 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 11:07 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(27-06-2015 11:06 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  TBD

"Slavery is wrong."

Do you believe that the above is a true claim?

In the context of society today, yes.

Ok, how about this?

"Slavery is wrong regardless of what any particular society has to say about it, and if a society embraces slavery, they are wrong for doing so."

Is the above a true statement?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2015, 12:00 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 11:53 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(27-06-2015 11:07 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  In the context of society today, yes.

Ok, how about this?

"Slavery is wrong regardless of what any particular society has to say about it, and if a society embraces slavery, they are wrong for doing so."

Is the above a true statement?

Given human history, that doesn't appear to be a true statement.

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
27-06-2015, 12:02 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 11:52 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  DLJ,

When someone makes a claim such as "slavery is wrong", they are implying that because it is wrong, it "ought" not to be done. I don't think I'm going out on a limb with this claim.

Indeed, and no one, I think, except Mr Theist, is saying that from a 'universe giving a shit about anything' perspective there is anything 'objective' or 'absolute' about this.

The message I'm hearing from TBD etc. is that using, Stanford's tidbit of "Among those who use “morality” normatively, all hold that “morality” refers to a code of conduct that applies to all who can understand it and can govern their behavior by it...”, current, dare I say, 'civilised' governance holds that a moral society would deem slavery to be wrong.

Although a quick glance around the world, we observe that not all societies concur, as there are plenty of examples of sex-slavery, labour-slavery and even mind-slavery (e.g. the christian cults).

Perhaps I'm not seeing the point you are trying to make.

Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: