Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-06-2015, 04:23 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 04:02 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  No. I am not claiming "society has a morality."

Morality is derived FROM society.
You have asserted this many times, but I don't understand what you mean by it.
And I don't know how you know that morality is derived from society.

Society is just a container. In and of itself society is nothing.

If you have two members of society with a conflicting viewpoint e.g. one thinks masturbation is immoral the other thinks masturbation is moral
Q: Then how in this scenario does a third person derive their own moral beliefs from this society?


I can understand that the third person can be influenced by person 1 and decide that they agree that masturbation is immoral, but they can instead be influenced by person 2 and agree that masturbation is moral. Or they could ignore the opinions of both these people and come to a stance all by themselves.
But still we would have a society with three individuals, two of which agree on the morality of masturbation and the other which disagrees with these two.

There is no society standard on the topic of the morality of masturbation.

Really, what does it mean when you say "Morality is derived FROM society."
If we derive morality from this society then what is the answer? Is masturbation from the context of this society moral or immoral?


If you come back with the answer "It's not black and white" then really your "derived from" appears to me to be a useless term. You can't derive anything from the society. You are left guessing. And then perhaps just ignoring society and coming up with your own beliefs independant of society.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2015, 04:27 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 04:23 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(27-06-2015 04:02 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  No. I am not claiming "society has a morality."

Morality is derived FROM society.
You have asserted this many times, but I don't understand what you mean by it.
And I don't know how you know that morality is derived from society.

Society is just a container. In and of itself society is nothing.

If you have two members of society with a conflicting viewpoint e.g. one thinks masturbation is immoral the other thinks masturbation is moral
Q: Then how in this scenario does a third person derive their own moral beliefs from this society?


I can understand that the third person can be influenced by person 1 and decide that they agree that masturbation is immoral, but they can instead be influenced by person 2 and agree that masturbation is moral. Or they could ignore the opinions of both these people and come to a stance all by themselves.
But still we would have a society with three individuals, two of which agree on the morality of masturbation and the other which disagrees with these two.

There is no society standard on the topic of the morality of masturbation.

Really, what does it mean when you say "Morality is derived FROM society."
If we derive morality from this society then what is the answer? Is masturbation from the context of this society moral or immoral?


If you come back with the answer "It's not black and white" then really your "derived from" appears to me to be a useless term. You can't derive anything from the society. You are left guessing. And then perhaps just ignoring society and coming up with your own beliefs independant of society.

Social behaviors, derive from social constructs. Without social constructs, there would be no social behaviors.

Morality, is a social behavior. It appears unique to human societies. Thus, it logically follows that morality is derived from society in the same way that any other social behavior (parental care) is derived from social constructs.

I honestly can't make it any clearer than that. But if you keep rejecting my "morality is a behavior" under the assumption that you both understand and don't understand morality, I don't know wha else to say.

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, 04:29 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
And once again ( for the example of why is masturbation wrong or not wrong), you're still painting morality as black and white and unchanging. Different societies, different views. Same society at a different time, different views.

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, 04:51 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 04:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And once again ( for the example of why is masturbation wrong or not wrong), you're still painting morality as black and white and unchanging. Different societies, different views. Same society at a different time, different views.
No, I'm not painting morality as static.

I have provided one example of one hypothetical society. Made up of three people who each hold a belief regarding the rightness or wrongness of masturbation. Two of them believe masturbation is immoral, one of them believes masturbation is moral.

It is quite concievable at some point in time that an individual changes their position (belief) regarding the morality of masturbation. It is also conceivable that other people join this society, bring their own beliefs with them.

What I am struggling with is the concept that this society has a morality rather than has a collection of individuals each with their own personal moral beliefs.

I am trying to work out how to derive what the morality is regarding masturbation given this hypothetical society. If we can't derive it then morality isn't derived from society.
Can you show me, given the hypothetical three person society I have created, how we derive a morality from this society?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2015, 04:52 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 04:51 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(27-06-2015 04:29 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And once again ( for the example of why is masturbation wrong or not wrong), you're still painting morality as black and white and unchanging. Different societies, different views. Same society at a different time, different views.
No, I'm not painting morality as static.

I have provided one example of one hypothetical society. Made up of three people who each hold a belief regarding the rightness or wrongness of masturbation. Two of them believe masturbation is immoral, one of them believes masturbation is moral.

It is quite concievable at some point in time that an individual changes their position (belief) regarding the morality of masturbation. It is also conceivable that other people join this society, bring their own beliefs with them.

What I am struggling with is the concept that this society has a morality rather than has a collection of individuals each with their own personal moral beliefs.

I am trying to work out how to derive what the morality is regarding masturbation given this hypothetical society. If we can't derive it then morality isn't derived from society.
Can you show me, given the hypothetical three person society I have created, how we derive a morality from this society?

The. Society. Does. Not. Have. A. Morality.

The individuals derive their moral behavior FROM 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, 04:55 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
What do you mean "show you" in your hypothetical scenario? I don't understand that challenge.

Those three individuals and their behaviors are a construct of their species and their society. From their society, they each draw their individual moral behaviors. Society as a whole will arrange laws and rules based on the society's moral nature (and no, I'm still NOT equating laws and rules with morals). Some people will find their morals congruent with society's explicitly defined rules/laws. Some will not.

The point is that they derive their morality FROM society. That doesn't mean everyone derived the same set of morals.

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, 05:01 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 04:27 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Social behaviors, derive from social constructs. Without social constructs, there would be no social behaviors.
Social constructs?
Father, daughter, teacher, neighbor????
Commerce e.g. specialisation and market places etc?
Property, communal roads????

If I belong to society A and person X belongs to society B, we belong to different societies. Does this mean because we don't exist within a common society that I cannot do an immoral act on person X?

(27-06-2015 04:27 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Morality, is a social behavior. It appears unique to human societies.
These are just assertions. How am I supposed to make sense of these?
A social behaviour is talking.
Is talking a morality? This doesn't make sense.
Do only humans communicate? I'm pretty sure dogs and dolphins are social animals and that they "talk" to each other. "Talking" being a social behaviour hence a moral.

I'm not trying to be silly here. I know it might appear I am trying to be difficult, but if I take what you are telling me, then I come up with this type of nonsense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2015, 05:07 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 05:01 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(27-06-2015 04:27 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Social behaviors, derive from social constructs. Without social constructs, there would be no social behaviors.
Social constructs?
Father, daughter, teacher, neighbor????
Commerce e.g. specialisation and market places etc?
Property, communal roads????

If I belong to society A and person X belongs to society B, we belong to different societies. Does this mean because we don't exist within a common society that I cannot do an immoral act on person X?

(27-06-2015 04:27 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Morality, is a social behavior. It appears unique to human societies.
These are just assertions. How am I supposed to make sense of these?
A social behaviour is talking.
Is talking a morality? This doesn't make sense.
Do only humans communicate? I'm pretty sure dogs and dolphins are social animals and that they "talk" to each other. "Talking" being a social behaviour hence a moral.

I'm not trying to be silly here. I know it might appear I am trying to be difficult, but if I take what you are telling me, then I come up with this type of nonsense.

"If I belong to society A and person X belongs to society B, we belong to different societies. Does this mean because we don't exist within a common society that I cannot do an immoral act on person X?"

Depends. Immoral with respect to your society or theirs? (This is why one should tread lightly when interacting with unfamiliar societies)

A social behavior is talking and communication. I didn't say ALL social behaviors are the same or are moral. (Roles like father, mother, daughter, teacher fireman, etc; are also social constructs but NO, I'm still not saying all social constructs are morals. Morals are an example of social constructs).

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, 05:09 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 04:55 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Those three individuals and their behaviors are a construct of their species and their society. From their society, they each draw their individual moral behaviors.
Masturbation is a behaviour. An opinion that masturbation is wrong is a belief.
Masturbation in and of itself isn't a morality.

Morality is the judgement upon the behaviour of masturbation.

A person who believes masturbation is immoral can masturbate and then feel guilty from breaking their believed moral obligation not to masturbate.

If you take away the judgement aspect, all you are left with is a society with several people. Each person masterbates or doesn't masterbate.
An observer has no idea whether the masterbater considers masterbating as immoral or not.
An observer has no way to derive whether masterbation is immoral or not within this society.

Whether masterbation is immoral or not cannot be derrived from this society.

What does immoral mean if we don't make a judgement of whether an action is wrong?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
27-06-2015, 05:12 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-06-2015 05:07 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Depends. Immoral with respect to your society or theirs?
But my society is made up of individuals. Some people believe me punching a person from another society is immoral, some believe that it is moral. I cannot say that my society considers it moral or immoral, the members of my society are divided on this matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: