Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2015, 10:24 AM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2015 10:28 AM by Matt Finney.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 10:12 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Morality need not have absolutes that are real, or static, in order to be beneficial to a social species as a communal behavior).

No one said that the morality can't be beneficial (of course we would have to agree what we mean by beneficial). Someone could make the case that a religion is beneficial, but that would have zero effect on the truth value of said religion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 10:26 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 10:01 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But not every claim about the world is between two options

Not sure what you mean here...

Do you mean some claims are true, some claims are false, and some claims are something else?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 10:30 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 10:26 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 10:01 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But not every claim about the world is between two options

Not sure what you mean here...

Do you mean some claims are true, some claims are false, and some claims are something else?

True or false doesn't mean that there only two options. True, false, right, wrong, these can all be pieces of a spectrum, and the spectrum itself can slide so that what is "right" at any one time, is "wrong" at another.

Because it's humans defining a 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, 10:32 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 10:24 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 10:12 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Morality need not have absolutes that are real, or static, in order to be beneficial to a social species as a communal behavior).

No one said that the morality can't be beneficial (of course we would have to agree what we mean by beneficial). Someone could make the case that a religion is beneficial, but that would have zero effect on the truth value of said religion.

But you can ask why the religion appears to confer positive effects or what about the religion confers these positive effects and find real phenomena.

Group therapy in a sense. Placebo effect. Inadvertently receiving counseling. Positive thoughts. A form of meditation, etc.

Is the religion's dogma true? That's not what is necessary to ask anything about the inadvertent positive (or negative) side effects. That question can be addressed independently.

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, 10:34 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
This has been a fascinating discussion, but I'm not sure I have any more to really contribute. Time to spend time with the family and attempt to remove these fucking ink stains from my new shorts.

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, 10:35 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 10:12 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 10:04 AM)tear151 Wrote:  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).

Yes but it at least exist in theory, we are talking about moral theory, what are the corners of your morality, even if they don't exist in the real world as anything other than shades of grey.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 10:37 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 10:35 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 10:12 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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).

Yes but it at least exist in theory, we are talking about moral theory, what are the corners of your morality, even if they don't exist in the real world as anything other than shades of grey.

In theory they exist, doesn't mean that they exist in reality. Smile

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, 10:42 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 10:37 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 10:35 AM)tear151 Wrote:  Yes but it at least exist in theory, we are talking about moral theory, what are the corners of your morality, even if they don't exist in the real world as anything other than shades of grey.

In theory they exist, doesn't mean that they exist in reality. Smile

Ok, so what, in theory, does something purely good, and something purely bad look like? and how do you justify these criteria, and what makes the good better than the bad?

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 10:43 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 10:30 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  True or false doesn't mean that there only two options. True, false, right, wrong, these can all be pieces of a spectrum, and the spectrum itself can slide so that what is "right" at any one time, is "wrong" at another.

Because it's humans defining a behavior.

Except of course when it comes to subjective morality, than something can be right and wrong at the same time. It's only if we assume morality is objective (not the same as absolute), can we say something can be right in a particular context (at one point in time), and wrong in another (another point in time).

I guess the question would be, if something is morally right at one point in time, do we mean this wrong as subjective or objective? Are we using wrong in an objective or subjective sense.

What it's interesting is that atheists who subscribe to subjective morality, while rejecting moral nihilism, tend to continually use objective analogies, rather than subjective ones.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 10:44 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 10:42 AM)tear151 Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 10:37 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  In theory they exist, doesn't mean that they exist in reality. Smile

Ok, so what, in theory, does something purely good, and something purely bad look like? and how do you justify these criteria, and what makes the good better than the bad?

I'm not the one arguing that the end members need be so precisely defined as "purely evil" or "purely good."

That's why I keep saying "context matters"

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: