Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2015, 10:46 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 10:44 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  That's why I keep saying "context matters"

Context only matters in an objective moral framework. Moral realist appeal to context. If context makes something immoral or moral, you wouldn't be taking about subjective morality at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 10:50 AM
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.
The problem here again, is that you're taking a 'whole' claim..."Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and steel is made of cheese".... a single entity.
The claimS... 'water is made of hydrogen and oxygen' is true or false independent of 'steel is made of cheese' being true or false.

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LostLocke's post
28-06-2015, 11:01 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 10:44 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 10:42 AM)tear151 Wrote:  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"

what are they then? How do you judge contexts i.e an answer that isn't it depends on the context.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 11:33 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 10:50 AM)LostLocke 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.
The problem here again, is that you're taking a 'whole' claim..."Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and steel is made of cheese".... a single entity.
The claimS... 'water is made of hydrogen and oxygen' is true or false independent of 'steel is made of cheese' being true or false.

Do you agree that every claim is either true or false?

Are there some claims that are neither true nor false?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 12:08 PM
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]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Any chance you could explain? I'm not sure if this is supposed to be contradictory to my claim that every claim is either true or false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 12:09 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 12:08 PM)Matt Finney 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]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Any chance you could explain? I'm not sure if this is supposed to be contradictory to my claim that every claim is either true or false.

Not every true or false claim is between two options or two end members. Very often, answers are along a spectrum.

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, 12:13 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 12:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 12:08 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Any chance you could explain? I'm not sure if this is supposed to be contradictory to my claim that every claim is either true or false.

Not every true or false claim is between two options or two end members. Very often, answers are along a spectrum.

Still, I hold that every claim is either true, or it isn't true. A claim can't be both true, and not true at the same time. Agree?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 12:15 PM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2015 12:21 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 12:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Not every true or false claim is between two options or two end members. Very often, answers are along a spectrum.

Can you provide an example of a claim that's neither true nor false, but is along a spectrum instead?

Are these claims true of false:

God exists. T/F

Morality is objective. T/F

Morality is subjective. T/F

Or are they along a spectrum instead?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 12:53 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 12:13 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 12:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Not every true or false claim is between two options or two end members. Very often, answers are along a spectrum.

Still, I hold that every claim is either true, or it isn't true. A claim can't be both true, and not true at the same time. Agree?

A claim can more likely to be correct or more likely to be wrong, or somewhere in between.

Ideally you'd be able to discern true from false in all scenarios, unless you're talking about a complex system. Then parts may be correct and other parts incorrect.

Take climate for example. It is true that the carbon cycle plays a role. As well as orbital parameters. And solar output. And anthropogenic influence. It's true that they all effect change on the climate, but they don't all effect change in the same way to the same degree. Sometimes they positively feedback into one another. Sometimes negatively.

You keep assuming that morality can only be a spectrum bounded by "absolutely right" and "absolutely wrong" and I keep saying that THIS IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING. Please stop asking me the same questions about a straw man version of my proposition that morality is a behavior of the human animal.

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, 01:02 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 12:13 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 12:09 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Not every true or false claim is between two options or two end members. Very often, answers are along a spectrum.

Still, I hold that every claim is either true, or it isn't true. A claim can't be both true, and not true at the same time. Agree?

We are talking about a SUBJECTIVE system where "right" and "wrong" are subject to different interpretations based on context or societal values/beliefs.

It's like defining a species (another system of defining things into categories for the ability to communicate).The system of a species is largely flawed because we aren't even certain it represents a true natural unit, maybe a genus does. For instance, there are at least 3 different species concepts (biological species concept, morphological, and phylogenetic), and they don't all give the same "true" answers about classifying species and some have limited use depending on context (I can't use the biological species concept for fossils and the phylogenetic species concept is difficult to use because of the lack of detailed phylogenies of different branches of life).

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: