Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2015, 09:26 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 06:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:40 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  When you raise kids telling them things are Right and Wrong & Good or bad constantly via parents and media/peer influence, they're going to completely accustomed to that thought and most people would take some deeper examination of those thoughts.

It depends on which parents we're speaking of, most parents, like most people, are under the impression that morality is objective, that a claim such as torturing babies just for fun is immoral, is not an opinion, but a fact. I think this sense of morality is so abundant, so seeped into our language, arts, etc... that most of us take it for granted.

The view of morality peddled to us by society is not merely a matter of labeling one thing as right and the other thing as wrong, but what also goes into it is passing on a sense that morality is objective, that moral obligations, and duties exist as a result of this. That when we say slavery is wrong, we are expressing a factual truth.

You can say these beliefs are false, but you have to acknowledge that they're ever present, something sold along with morality, a belief in a objective foundation.

Of course deeper evaluations of morality occur. Like why should we not lie? We can work our way back to the deeper principles, or reasons behind it, like we could a legal prohibition. Understand the spirit of a law, and not just the letter of it.

If you don't believe morality is objective, than you at least have to acknowledge the illusion that it is.

This has been brought up before, It's not a case of anything real like slavery but simply parenting of the type to tell infants, Don't do that it's wrong(because they simply want the child to stop) For instance what I stated previously like eating dirt. Which could in instances be beneficial to an immune system and not always harmful. It's actually not objectively wrong, but like you say, it's so stepped in the arts and language that it becomes this way.

If by illusion you mean, a heavily cultural and socially influenced mindset that plays off the evolved senses of moral values, yes I believe in that illusion. There is not a strong criteria of a case to think there is any innate illusion just like there isn't one to think there is innate absolute morality.

"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
28-06-2015, 09:41 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 09:26 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  This has been brought up before, It's not a case of anything real like slavery but simply parenting of the type to tell infants, Don't do that it's wrong(because they simply want the child to stop) For instance what I stated previously like eating dirt. Which could in instances be beneficial to an immune system and not always harmful. It's actually not objectively wrong, but like you say, it's so stepped in the arts and language that it becomes this way.


You example is perhaps a good case in point. I remember my little cousin being reprimanded for eating candy he found on the floor, his mother had told him shouldn't eat candy from the floor because it's dirty, and he could get sick from it. Though she did not particularly attach any moral framework to this prohibition, she was attaching an objective one. That eating candy from a dirty floor has potential to get you sick, therefore should be avoided, rather than don't eat candy from the floor because it doesn't taste good. Where or not something taste good is matter of preference, saying something is harmful to one's health is not.

When a parents tells a child that eating candy from a dirty floor, can potentially make you sick, they are passing a long what the take to be a "fact", rather than an opinion.

In reality, particularly for cultures and people stuck in a religious mindset, when my parents, or others in my community express something as morally wrong, they imagine themselves as making factual statements, rather than stating a preference. That something is morally bad, as eating candy from the floor is bad for one's health, rather than expressing something subjective.

I've always understood morality as something objective, at least as far back as I can conceive it, every film, cartoon one watches a kid seemed to enforce that, every religious story, community, people, also seemed to express it and understand it in this way. It seems even at an intuitive level to be true. If this perception of moral objectivity is false, than yes it would be an illusion. It wouldn't be an illusion if it were true, it would be real. The illusion here would be that morality is objective, which is not a matter of opinion, either it is or it isn't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 09:59 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 09:03 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 08:01 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If a part of a theory is false, and someone claims that the theory is true, then they are making a false claim. This isn't my opinion.

For example, if I claim that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and that steel is made primarily of copper, then I'm making a false claim even though part of the claim is true.
This might not be what you're saying, but it seems to be very heavily implied, that that logic would work like:

P1 Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and steel is made of cheese
P2 We know steel is not made of cheese
C Therefore, water is not made of hydrogen and oxygen

That line of reasoning is very, very bad.
When two claims are made together you separate them into their component parts, and verify each claim on its own.

That's not what I'm saying at all, and I apologize for being unclear.

The only point I'm making is that every claim about the world is either true or false.

not true = false

If part of a claim is false, then the claim would need to be modified such that all parts of the claim are true, before the claim is true.

Again, my apologies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 10:01 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 09:59 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 09:03 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  This might not be what you're saying, but it seems to be very heavily implied, that that logic would work like:

P1 Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and steel is made of cheese
P2 We know steel is not made of cheese
C Therefore, water is not made of hydrogen and oxygen

That line of reasoning is very, very bad.
When two claims are made together you separate them into their component parts, and verify each claim on its own.

That's not what I'm saying at all, and I apologize for being unclear.

The only point I'm making is that every claim about the world is either true or false.

not true = false

If part of a claim is false, then the claim would need to be modified such that all parts of the claim are true, before the claim is true.

Again, my apologies.

But not every claim about the world is between two options

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
28-06-2015, 10:02 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
Like the Triple Point for a material (like water).

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
28-06-2015, 10:04 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 08:31 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 08:10 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And your example still implies black and white, right or wrong, as if all choices are between two options and two options only.

Here, let me use this example Matt. Even when it comes to mineralogy (which would be further complicated by petrology), it is almost never quite so black and white so as to be between two options.

I present to you, the most common group of minerals on the Earth's surface.
[Image: 8bfea176ce262b0b11f05e5ea0a9726e.jpg]

Your triangle still has corners though. You can't have grey without defining what black and white are.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tear151's post
28-06-2015, 10:11 AM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2015 10:23 AM by tear151.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 09:59 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 09:03 AM)LostLocke Wrote:  This might not be what you're saying, but it seems to be very heavily implied, that that logic would work like:

P1 Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and steel is made of cheese
P2 We know steel is not made of cheese
C Therefore, water is not made of hydrogen and oxygen

That line of reasoning is very, very bad.
When two claims are made together you separate them into their component parts, and verify each claim on its own.

That's not what I'm saying at all, and I apologize for being unclear.

The only point I'm making is that every claim about the world is either true or false.

not true = false

If part of a claim is false, then the claim would need to be modified such that all parts of the claim are true, before the claim is true.

Again, my apologies.

Sub-claim 1: Cat's are alive
sub-claim 2: dogs are cats

Overall claim: sub-claims 1 and 2 are true thus making dogs alive and my argument depends on all my sub claims being true (ok these are premises but I think my point is pretty obvious).

Yeah dogs are alive but the faulty gear ruins the argument if your argument is hollistic

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 10:12 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 10:04 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 08:31 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Here, let me use this example Matt. Even when it comes to mineralogy (which would be further complicated by petrology), it is almost never quite so black and white so as to be between two options.

I present to you, the most common group of minerals on the Earth's surface.
[Image: 8bfea176ce262b0b11f05e5ea0a9726e.jpg]

Your triangle still has corners though. You can't have grey without defining what black and white are.

But are the corners realistic? Do the corners naturally occur? (A pure substance for instance is, for instance, not something that I'm aware of having ever been observed in nature. Ergo, it's used as a reference point but that doesn't make it naturally real. And this is part of the point, end-members, boundaries, even things like infinity, might not be real at all and are arbitrarily defined by humans as reference points. Morality need not have absolutes that are real, or static, in order to be beneficial to a social species as a communal 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
28-06-2015, 10:13 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 10:11 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 09:59 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  That's not what I'm saying at all, and I apologize for being unclear.

The only point I'm making is that every claim about the world is either true or false.

not true = false

If part of a claim is false, then the claim would need to be modified such that all parts of the claim are true, before the claim is true.

Again, my apologies.

Sub-claim 1: Cat's are alive
sub-claim 2: dogs are cats

Overall claim: sub-claims 1 and 2 are true thus making dogs alive and my argument depends on all my sub claims being true.

Yeah dogs are alive but the faulty gear ruins the argument if your argument is hollistic

Defining it as a "sub-claim" doesn't mean it gets left out of the logical loop of being tested as true. LL's breakdown still holds.

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
28-06-2015, 10:18 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
Hell, even elements aren't perfect end-members. The periodic table is a combination of all the elements arranged by the masses and abundance of each isotope of each element.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: