Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-06-2015, 12:41 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.

I think you really are. And I think that's why this thread is a bit silly as it's founded on that assertion. Some people think so sure, but there are also a great many people who just talk in ways that are more definitive and not exactly clear in the way they actually understand or think of it.

Many people don't hold the ought claims but in general topics will say they think that is wrong. It's easier to breech the other persons mind with more black&white terms of that nature. They aren't ideas that a person may think exists because they say it in that manner.

"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
27-06-2015, 02:39 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 10:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Morality is society dependent. There is no predation without predators. There is no morality without society.
I don't see this.
Why can you not have morality without society? What do you classify as a society?
Can a single person be a society?
A single person can have a belief that masturbation is immoral. So here we have a "morality" without a society.

(27-06-2015 10:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Society need not have a mind in order to dictate a behavior.
How does society dictate behaviour?
In a governed society we have laws. Laws are enforced rules dictated by the government and police, they aren't a moral system, they don't represent the morality of society.


(27-06-2015 10:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Altruistic behavior doesn't require a collective conscious mind among the community exhibiting the behavior.
What does altruism have to do with morality?
What does altruism have to do with society?
A society doesn't exhibit altruistic behaviour. Individuals can behave altruistically, but a society can't.

(27-06-2015 10:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I didn't say that it did make them immoral. That is still a black and white portrayal of morality.
My point is still valid. To say that an individual's morals are derived from society you are implying that society has a morality. I'm trying to work out if society has a morality then how do we discover what that morality is and how does that discovered morality relate to each member of society? If you can't determine that meat eating is immoral according to the society's morality then you can say whether an individual's moral beliefs are conformant or contradictory to society's morality, you can even say that the individual's morality is derived from society's morality. It makes no sense.

(27-06-2015 10:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If the individual does not think society has morals or values, it really isn't relevant as long as they agree to live within the society as a moral actor (agreement here might be remaining within society instead of leaving it).
What if they don't agree to participate as a moral actor. I'm not a moral actor. As far as I am concerned morality does not exist, I have no moral obligations, I have no ability to distinguish right from wrong.

(27-06-2015 10:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  In the same way that it isn't relevant that someone believe in gravity in order to be a pilot, as long as they accept their role as a pilot.
We can observe gravity, a pilot needs to take gravity into account when flying their plane. If the pilot miscalculates gravity then they will be forced to correct their path (otherwise they will crash), gravity is not dependent on the pilot's beliefs.
I cannot observe morality, I do not need to take morality into account when navigating my life. I've never had to correct my behaviour due to miscalculating morality. I haven't crashed and probably never will.

(27-06-2015 10:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I suppose this is dependent on the way you view the context of murder and death as well as the cost/benefit analysis between murder/death and nutrition.
Murder is a legal term, punishable by imprisonment. It's not a moral term.

(27-06-2015 10:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But it may not always be so if meat becomes unnecessary for humanity (not just individuals) to attain proper nutrition.
Meat is already unnecessary for humanity to attain proper nutrition, so what? If people what to eat meat then why should I be motivated to stop them?

(27-06-2015 10:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And society is a collective
Society isn't a collective (like the Borg), society is a container, containing many individuals. There is a massive difference.

(27-06-2015 10:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I am saying that people derive their morality from the society and culture that they live in. If they did not live in a society or in a human culture, they'd have no morality. Only survival instincts.
I don't understand these claims.
A lone person can feel guilt from masturbation. A lone person could feel guilt from killing two deer and only eating one and having the other rot wastefully.

(27-06-2015 10:24 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Morality is an adaptation of altruistic behavior such that individuals behave within a collective for individual and collective survival.
I don't get the above statement.
Morality is a personal belief in the distinction between right and wrong.

(27-06-2015 11:01 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Also, to reiterate why the oxygen example is a bad one.
I just don't see the relationship between morality and society that you are claiming.
I don't see it. Morality is a personal belief, what does that have to do with society?

(27-06-2015 11:01 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  So, morality appears to be society dependent because it is derived from the level of society.
I don't see how morality is derived from society. What do you mean be "derived"?

(27-06-2015 11:02 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I think it is fundamentally flawed and reduces morality down into a concept that is useless and so general at the level of the individual, that it isn't relevant or true.
Morality is fundamentally flawed, it doesn't work as a concept unless you avoid clearly defining your terms, then somehow you can make it work.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2015, 02:43 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 11:12 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Morality IS a description of behavior.
No, morality is a judgement on behaviour, whether a behaviour is deemed as right or wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2015, 02:56 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 02:43 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(27-06-2015 11:12 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Morality IS a description of behavior.
No, morality is a judgement on behaviour, whether a behaviour is deemed as right or wrong.

Only in the black and white world way in which you view morality. That seems far too simplistic and reductionist to me.

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, 03:00 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
"A lone person can feel guilt from masturbation..."

I think this sums up my argument and points and signifies why you don't consider my opinions. You just don't see what I'm saying.

Why does a person feel guilt from masturbating? There is no biological reason for this. There is no behavior independent of society that would cause this shame. Someone might feel guilt or shame from masturbation because of the inherent nature of masturbation in a society that has assigned those feelings of guilt and shame to it.

Rather amazing how social animals can take social cues from other members of the community, no?

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, 03:02 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
Predation is a behavior derived from the need for sustenance. Altruism is a behavior derived from the social nature of organisms that use their socialism as a survival strategy. Morality is a form of altruism whereby social animals in a society use morals as a way of operating more efficiently within the society as an adaptation strategy for survival.

No society, no morality.

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
27-06-2015, 03:03 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
Derived from meaning dependent upon. Comes from. Originates from. Etc

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, 03:05 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
The way you've described morality, makes it seem like it is a trait evolved by each individual within the human species independently. That is highly unlikely and also an unnecessary assumption.

We are social animals. Morality can be described as an attribute and behavior unique to the human animal.

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, 03:05 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
Unless you're trying to talk about humans and human nature/behavior independent of humans being animals and morality as some sort of transcendent and objective truth that exists outside of humans?

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, 03:09 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 02:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(27-06-2015 02:43 PM)Stevil Wrote:  No, morality is a judgement on behaviour, whether a behaviour is deemed as right or wrong.

Only in the black and white world way in which you view morality. That seems far too simplistic and reductionist to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
Quote:Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good or right and those that are bad or wrong

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality
Quote:conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

Honestly, if you remove the capability to distinguish between right and wrong then you aren't talking about morality.
Without right and wrong how can you say something is moral or immoral?
How can you assert moral normatives?
How can you insist upon moral obligations?

How can you make moral judgements?

It all falls apart without the concepts of right and wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: