Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-06-2015, 06:51 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(17-06-2015 06:30 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Sigh, No dear.
It's "then" right ?
Education and formation are part of the picture.
You think man is a creature of "moral failing" because you are indoctrinated by religion to think in those terms. You hang around the wrong people, AND you PROJECT your (religious bull) shit onto other people.

No, I don't think that's a reason. I know plenty of people for which there is a deep sense of good about them, if everyone was like them, than I'd have to conclude that man is good. But for me they are an exception not the norm. If a sociopath like Hitler could convince an entire nation, even the best educated among them, to go along with him, what does that say about human nature?

I'm not saying that because we're not particularly good creatures, that we are evil ones either, but rather by in large we tend to be pretty finicky, and our moral sensibilities are quite fragile at best. We could hear of the half a million civilian casualties or the Iraq war, and yet fail to be even slightly moved by it. A thing that stirs our emotion one day, can feel quite banal the second or third time around.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2015, 07:44 AM (This post was last modified: 17-06-2015 07:52 AM by epronovost.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(17-06-2015 06:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-06-2015 05:42 AM)epronovost Wrote:  Morals are rules bounderies and limitations on which an animal gives an emotional charge based on personnal feelings. Causing pain makes you a threat to others which reduce their chance of survival and prosperity and will be met by an equal threat to yours.

So morals are rules enforced by threats of retaliations and violence, or punishment of some sort?

If I were to avoid doing things solely out of fear of retaliation would that make me moral?

Yes it would make you moral, but perhaps not has much has some other persons. We don't judge people on the virtue of their thoughts because we can't read them, but on the virtue of their actions. There is no difference in the behavior of someone who has integrated the rules, boundaries and limitations of any society through is education to someone who's just has observant of them because of fear of retaliation.

If presented with the two individuals, who exhibit the exact same behavior in regard to others, we will always prefer the one who has completely integrated the rules, boundaries and limitations to the one that still needs a threat because we will trust the first one more with our safety in prevention to a situation where the threat of retaliation would became void.

The first one also does moral behavior in fear of retaliation, but the retaliation comes from his own mind in the form of guilt, shame and self-disgust instead of relying on an external source. You can never escape yourself, but you can believe you can escape he judgement of others in some situations.

Morals are laws that received emotional attachment to them. We grew found of them because we loved what they did for us and the services they provided in guiding our actions and structuring our society in a more efficient manner. Human beings relate to things emotionally. We attach personal meaning to people, animals, objects and even philosophical concept because we perceive the good, the happiness, the pleasure they provided us with. That's why if you show me a chocolate bar I will get happy, because it will remind me how tasty it is and how it delivered me of hunger at some point, etc. Morals are to laws, boundaries and limitations what your favorite meal or treat is to food. Morals don't necessarly equal good and immoral doesn't necessarly equal bad. We would like to think so. It help us operate in society to think so, but it's not always true. You can commit terrible act for moral reasons. In fact, most crimes are motivated by a sense of morality not by predation or psychotic urges. Does that answers your question?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2015, 07:59 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(17-06-2015 07:44 AM)epronovost Wrote:  
(17-06-2015 06:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So morals are rules enforced by threats of retaliations and violence, or punishment of some sort?

If I were to avoid doing things solely out of fear of retaliation would that make me moral?

Yes it would make you moral, but perhaps not has much has some other persons. We don't judge people on the virtue of their thoughts because we can't read them, but on the virtue of their actions. There is no difference in the behavior of someone who has integrated the rules, boundaries and limitations of any society through is education to someone who's just has observant of them because of fear of retaliation.

If presented with the two individuals, who exhibit the exact same behavior in regard to others, we will always prefer the one who has completely integrated the rules, boundaries and limitations to the one that still needs a threat because we will trust the first one more with our safety in prevention to a situation where the threat of retaliation would became void.

The first one also does moral behavior in fear of retaliation, but the retaliation comes from his own mind in the form of guilt, shame and self-disgust instead of relying on an external source. You can never escape yourself, but you can believe you can escape he judgement of others in some situations.

Morals are laws that received emotional attachment to them. We grew found of them because we loved what they did for us and the services they provided in guiding our actions and structuring our society in a more efficient manner. Human beings relate to things emotionally. We attach personal meaning to people, animals, objects and even philosophical concept because we perceive the good, the happiness, the pleasure they provided us with. That's why if you show me a chocolate bar I will get happy, because it will remind me how tasty it is and how it delivered me of hunger at some point, etc. Morals are to laws, boundaries and limitations what your favorite meal or treat is to food. Morals don't necessarly equal good and immoral doesn't necessarly equal bad. We would like to think so. It help us operate in society to think so, but it's not always true. You can commit terrible act for moral reasons. In fact, most crimes are motivated by a sense of morality not by predation or psychotic urges. Does that answers your question?

We're basically on the same page after all then and we're arguing semantics... I still do challenge your assertion the individual who has internalised moral law is better, one who has not but deceives the crowd into thinking they have to purse their own agenda, while not someone you want to be a threat to you, to be that person has a lot of benefits, my question to you is, why don't you personally throw away moral law and free yourself of these emotional shackles and pursue your own agenda?

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2015, 08:58 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(17-06-2015 06:30 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-06-2015 06:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If this were the case it wouldn't matter what I believe than right? Evolution "built" me in such away, than I'd just continue to act as a sort of "moist robot", where my chemistry pushes me to act in one way or the other, and I'm just sort of going along for the ride?

I'm curious when you look at humanity, historically and in the present, do you imagine man is overwhelming good. If evolution "built" us to be moral, to be empathetic, would you say our history shows that we're by in large, empathetic, and good creatures? For me, I would say man is more a creature of moral failing, more prone to indifference, and callous disregard, than empathy. If someone were to assess us as moral creatures, we'd likely receive a failing grade.

Sigh, No dear.
It's "then" right ?
Education and formation are part of the picture.
You think man is a creature of "moral failing" because you are indoctrinated by religion to think in those terms. You hang around the wrong people, AND you PROJECT your (religious bull) shit onto other people.

Funny how that works.

Yet another thread on morality, and Tomasia is still spouting the same ignorance. Drinking Beverage

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
17-06-2015, 08:58 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(17-06-2015 06:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-06-2015 06:06 AM)DLJ Wrote:  It is enough, for me.

For any given ethical framework / governance system / axiology that defines right vs. wrong or good vs. bad, a given behavioural scenario can be identified as acceptable or not acceptable.

Why do you need more than that?

Blink

But when you say contextually wrong, would that mean that in a particular context something can be objectively wrong? If you claimed that in a particular context something is wrong, and someone said no in this particular context it would be right, would one of you be incorrect? Or are there no right or wrong answers even in a particular context?

I noticed you have bounced from using the word 'intrinsic' to the word 'objective'.

In the system of governance that I have finished teaching for today, 'intrinsic' and 'contextual' (i.e. innate or situational) are words used to categorise 'goals' ... relating to 'ought'.

Whereas, 'objective' and 'subjective' are words used to categorise 'metrics' ... relating to 'is'.

Your question mixes these terms which makes it hard to answer without some long-winded explanations.

Trying to keep it simple...
Regarding the metrics, one can measure something objectively as containing more wronginess than rightiness for a given axiology.

Regarding the goals, one can argue (but only retrospectively) that a decision was wrong or right for a given desired outcome.

I hope that helps to clear up your confusion.

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
17-06-2015, 09:18 AM (This post was last modified: 17-06-2015 09:28 AM by tear151.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(17-06-2015 08:58 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(17-06-2015 06:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But when you say contextually wrong, would that mean that in a particular context something can be objectively wrong? If you claimed that in a particular context something is wrong, and someone said no in this particular context it would be right, would one of you be incorrect? Or are there no right or wrong answers even in a particular context?

I noticed you have bounced from using the word 'intrinsic' to the word 'objective'.

In the system of governance that I have finished teaching for today, 'intrinsic' and 'contextual' (i.e. innate or situational) are words used to categorise 'goals' ... relating to 'ought'.

Whereas, 'objective' and 'subjective' are words used to categorise 'metrics' ... relating to 'is'.

Your question mixes these terms which makes it hard to answer without some long-winded explanations.

Trying to keep it simple...
Regarding the metrics, one can measure something objectively as containing more wronginess than rightiness for a given axiology.

Regarding the goals, one can argue (but only retrospectively) that a decision was wrong or right for a given desired outcome.

I hope that helps to clear up your confusion.

Smile

So this begs the question, why the axiology. You can have all your fancy tools for measuring wrongness and rightness in a given axiology, just as theologians have the same for measuring biblical correctness and incorrectness. In a similar way to disregarding theology and attacking the bible instead, I'm doing the same here.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2015, 09:37 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(17-06-2015 07:59 AM)tear151 Wrote:  We're basically on the same page after all then and we're arguing semantics... I still do challenge your assertion the individual who has internalised moral law is better, one who has not but deceives the crowd into thinking they have to purse their own agenda, while not someone you want to be a threat to you, to be that person has a lot of benefits, my question to you is, why don't you personally throw away moral law and free yourself of these emotional shackles and pursue your own agenda?

I think you misunderstood a portion of my argument. A person who follows rules, boundaries and limitations because he fears retribution for any wrong doing isn't necessarily trying actively to deceive people into thinking he internalised the threat of retribution. An individual who deceive people into thinking he is a moral person is braking a boundaries and a limitation that we call fraud. There is important risk in deceiving people. You must be much smarter and careful than all those who surround you. If you are found out, they will remove trust from you and refuse to believe you, help you or even engage with you for fear of being fooled again. All cooperative structure like society are based on trust and respect. You need both in equal quantity for a community to work efficiently. If you deceive people, you will reduce their trust dramatically and the better you are deceiving the worst it will be if you are caught.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2015, 09:43 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(17-06-2015 06:30 AM)tear151 Wrote:  If I can only have it for myself and not give it to others why is this a bad thing? Where does this owing what i want for myself to others come from?

What right do you have to claim fair treatment that you refuse to mete out yourself?

If you shit on others they will act to make your happiness harder to attain.

There's two reasons right there.

Oh, and before we go any further, I hold as axiomatic that the use of force in anything other than proportionate defense is wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2015, 09:58 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(17-06-2015 09:43 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(17-06-2015 06:30 AM)tear151 Wrote:  If I can only have it for myself and not give it to others why is this a bad thing? Where does this owing what i want for myself to others come from?

What right do you have to claim fair treatment that you refuse to mete out yourself?

If you shit on others they will act to make your happiness harder to attain.

There's two reasons right there.

Oh, and before we go any further, I hold as axiomatic that the use of force in anything other than proportionate defense is wrong.

It's not a case of claiming, it's a case of forcibly taking, other people acting to make your happiness harder is something that can easily be taken into account by someone ignoring moral rules.

No you can't just hold that as axiomatic, in that case I hold it as axiomatic that God exists and unicorns are the fundamental reason for happiness. You're not even arguing at that point you are literally just saying.... X is true.

If I use force for my own interests and do so successfully why should I listen to someone insisting that it's wrong?

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2015, 10:05 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
*didn't read*

Morals are subjective and cannot be objective.

This is so very black and white... that, for the life of me, I can't understand what all the fuss and debate is about.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: