Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-06-2015, 03:10 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 03:09 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(27-06-2015 02:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

So you believe that there are absolute rights and wrongs? And that rightness and wrongness are objectively 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
27-06-2015, 03:13 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.
That seems far too simplistic and reductionist to me.
But isn't that how we come to understand things, but breaking them down to simple clear and understandable terms and then show how those build up the more complex structures?
If we insist on asserting a complex term i.e. "morality is derrived from society" and refuse to break that down then we aren't going to be able to understand it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2015, 03:15 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 03:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(27-06-2015 02:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  That seems far too simplistic and reductionist to me.
But isn't that how we come to understand things, but breaking them down to simple clear and understandable terms and then show how those build up the more complex structures?
If we insist on asserting a complex term i.e. "morality is derrived from society" and refuse to break that down then we aren't going to be able to understand it.

Breaking it down into simpler terms so as to be able to communicate it (defining things as black and white for simplicity sake) doesn't negate the fact that it is more complex.

Behaviors are complex and we often define sub-behaviors or define the same behavior in different ways depending on context.

That's why we have juries for some trials. "Murder is wrong*"

*unless it is deemed necessary for any given reason based on the context of the situation*

We live in a complex world.

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, 03:19 PM (This post was last modified: 27-06-2015 03:23 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 03:00 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "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?
Because they have a personal belief that it is wrong and that they shouldn't do it.
But that conflicts with their desire to do it. So if they do it they then feel guilt for succumbing to temptation.

(27-06-2015 03:00 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  There is no biological reason for this.
There is no biological reason for any moral beliefs. Beliefs come about via memes, superstition, conditioning, tradition, external influences, etc


(27-06-2015 03:00 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  There is no behavior independent of society that would cause this shame.
Yes there is. A lone person can have this belief and can feel guilt without the influence of society.
EDIT: even if there was a society of three, one person might claim that masturbation is wrong, another might say it is right. The third person, having listened to these two people may have been more convinced by person one and so may feel guilt.
Society hasn't deemed that masturbation is wrong. There are two individuals convinced it is wrong and one individual convinced it is right.
Society is divided. But this third person has chosen to take on the beliefs of the first person rather than the beliefs of society.

(27-06-2015 03:00 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.
That could be one way to come about this shame, but it isn't the only way.

Quote:Rather amazing how social animals can take social cues from other members of the community, no?
Sure, we have the ability to influence each other because we interact with each other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2015, 03:22 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
In the same post, you describe morality as an evolutionary adaptation (a behavior), but also as some sort of individually evolved trait?

Where does the personal belief of morality come from?

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, 03:24 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 03:22 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  In the same post, you describe morality as an evolutionary adaptation (a behavior), but also as some sort of individually evolved trait?

Where does the personal belief of morality come from?

And to follow up on this, if morality is at the individual level, why is it unique to 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, 03:26 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 03:05 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.
Morality isn't a behaviour, it isn't evolved biologically. It is a belief system. A personal belief system owned by an individual, an optional property (variable) of an individual.

Edit: There is no reason to assume that moral beliefs are unique to humanity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
27-06-2015, 03:27 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 03:26 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(27-06-2015 03:05 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.
Morality isn't a behaviour, it isn't evolved biologically. It is a belief system. A personal belief system owned by an individual, an optional property (variable) of an individual.

You called morality a belief, and that beliefs come from memes (and other social constructs).

You are arbitrarily separating out human behavior in order to define morality (and other beliefs) as not being 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, 03:28 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 03:26 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(27-06-2015 03:05 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.
Morality isn't a behaviour, it isn't evolved biologically. It is a belief system. A personal belief system owned by an individual, an optional property (variable) of an individual.

Edit: There is no reason to assume that moral beliefs are unique to humanity.

Please show me morality in another species.

(And keep in mind, what I'm saying is that any other species that evolves a society, would evolve morality. But we know of no other living beings with 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, 03:29 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 03:10 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  So you believe that there are absolute rights and wrongs? And that rightness and wrongness are objectively true?
No, I don't believe in these things. Many people do though.

I think in order to make a judgement of right and wrong, a goal needs to be first articulated, then we can make a judgement as to whether an action takes us towards that goal or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: