Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2015, 01:07 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 06:46 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Sorry, you keep asking the same questions over and over again while coming back to "society is made up of individuals" comments. I've addressed these and don't know how many other ways I could say the same thing.

Morals don't exist (would never have evolved) in a non-social species. It's a behavior evolved from the adaptation of social structures into large communities of individuals (societies).
Thanks for trying.

I think our understanding of things is so fundamentally different.
I cannot for the life of me understand the statement you make about "morality is derived from society" Even in the simplest society of three people where we have total knowledge of each person's moral belief on the topic of masturbation, you cannot show me how the morality of society is derived. In fact you have said that you cannot understand my question of "show me how it is derived". If we can't show how it is derived in a simplistic scenario then we don't have a hope in hell of working out how it is derived in a society made up of millions of people. It becomes an indefensible claim because at best all you can do is assert, you cannot explain or show.

All I have to go on is your assertions.
"morality is derived from society" because of society's "structures"
and your insistence that morality is NOT a distinction between right and wrong.
In your moral landscape, I have no idea what might be meant by "immoral" or "moral" or by "moral obligation" or by "moral oughts".

I feel it is all left vague and undefined which then leaves you open to apply the label "moral" or "immoral" however you see fit, without having to articulate why these labels are applied as you apply them.

I personally feel that in order to discuss, ponder, debate morality it is crucial to define key terms and crucial to show how and why labels such as "moral", "immoral" would be applied to various situations.

I don't accept a criticism that this is approach is overly reductionist and "black and white" that criticism seems to me to be somewhat of a cop out. To state that it is all a complex thing and that I am just to trust your assertions, I have nothing to go on. I'm not going to accept your assertions or anyone's assertions for that matter.

But thank you for your efforts TheBeardedDude, you have been honestly trying and putting effort in, we are just too far away from each other in our mindsets on this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
28-06-2015, 01:12 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 01:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 06:46 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Sorry, you keep asking the same questions over and over again while coming back to "society is made up of individuals" comments. I've addressed these and don't know how many other ways I could say the same thing.

Morals don't exist (would never have evolved) in a non-social species. It's a behavior evolved from the adaptation of social structures into large communities of individuals (societies).
Thanks for trying.

I think our understanding of things is so fundamentally different.
I cannot for the life of me understand the statement you make about "morality is derived from society" Even in the simplest society of three people where we have total knowledge of each person's moral belief on the topic of masturbation, you cannot show me how the morality of society is derived. In fact you have said that you cannot understand my question of "show me how it is derived". If we can't show how it is derived in a simplistic scenario then we don't have a hope in hell of working out how it is derived in a society made up of millions of people. It becomes an indefensible claim because at best all you can do is assert, you cannot explain or show.

All I have to go on is your assertions.
"morality is derived from society" because of society's "structures"
and your insistence that morality is NOT a distinction between right and wrong.
In your moral landscape, I have no idea what might be meant by "immoral" or "moral" or by "moral obligation" or by "moral oughts".

I feel it is all left vague and undefined which then leaves you open to apply the label "moral" or "immoral" however you see fit, without having to articulate why these labels are applied as you apply them.

I personally feel that in order to discuss, ponder, debate morality it is crucial to define key terms and crucial to show how and why labels such as "moral", "immoral" would be applied to various situations.

I don't accept a criticism that this is approach is overly reductionist and "black and white" that criticism seems to me to be somewhat of a cop out. To state that it is all a complex thing and that I am just to trust your assertions, I have nothing to go on. I'm not going to accept your assertions or anyone's assertions for that matter.

But thank you for your efforts TheBeardedDude, you have been honestly trying and putting effort in, we are just too far away from each other in our mindsets on this.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that morality isn't about judging something as right or wrong, what I'm saying is that the "right" and "wrong" is context dependent and that context varies from society to society (within the same timeframe and between timeframes).

And that this context is defined by society as a whole because that is the unit it emerges from. (Just like in my last example with species. The concept of a species emerges from different fields of science like biology or paleontology which also are made up of individuals without a single brain).

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, 01:13 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 12:15 PM)Tomasia 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.

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?

How about the claim that this glass of water is hot? Is this true or false or does it depend on the observer's opinion of what temperature range equates to the "hot" label?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 01:54 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 01:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  How about the claim that this glass of water is hot? Is this true or false or does it depend on the observer's opinion of what temperature range equates to the "hot" label?

Too ambiguous. We don't know what you mean by hot.

We don't need to know the truth value of claim to know that it has one.

Does God exist? I don't know, but he either does or he doesn't. The claim "God exists" is most definitely either true or false. Of course we would have to define what we mean by God, in the same way we would have to define what we mean by "hot".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 02:17 PM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2015 02:21 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 01:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 12:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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?

How about the claim that this glass of water is hot? Is this true or false or does it depend on the observer's opinion of what temperature range equates to the "hot" label?

If you claim the temperature of a glass of water is 212°F. The claim is either true of false.

My wife sometimes thinks it's hot in our room, while I think it's a bit chilly. In this scenario it's not that she's wrong, and I'm right, or vice versa. But that hot is being used subjectively, we're saying something about how we feel. In this scenario there are no real right or wrong answers, no true or false responses. Of course hot could be used to mean something other than is, but I'm assuming this is what is being implied by your question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 02:35 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 01:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think our understanding of things is so fundamentally different.
I cannot for the life of me understand the statement you make about "morality is derived from society" Even in the simplest society of three people where we have total knowledge of each person's moral belief on the topic of masturbation, you cannot show me how the morality of society is derived. In fact you have said that you cannot understand my question of "show me how it is derived". If we can't show how it is derived in a simplistic scenario then we don't have a hope in hell of working out how it is derived in a society made up of millions of people. It becomes an indefensible claim because at best all you can do is assert, you cannot explain or show.

All I have to go on is your assertions.
"morality is derived from society" because of society's "structures"
and your insistence that morality is NOT a distinction between right and wrong.
In your moral landscape, I have no idea what might be meant by "immoral" or "moral" or by "moral obligation" or by "moral oughts".

Couldn't we just say that it's derived by whatever the cultural zeitgeist is at the time. Or the way in which a particular brand of soda, becomes a household item, the way fashion, or musical taste develop? That certain actions like slavery begun to look disgusting, or becomes unfashionable, and it becomes fashionable to oppose slavery? Support for slavery, like the confederate flag becomes frown worthy, something unpopular, a social faux pax, like owning an android device.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 02:41 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 02:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 01:07 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think our understanding of things is so fundamentally different.
I cannot for the life of me understand the statement you make about "morality is derived from society" Even in the simplest society of three people where we have total knowledge of each person's moral belief on the topic of masturbation, you cannot show me how the morality of society is derived. In fact you have said that you cannot understand my question of "show me how it is derived". If we can't show how it is derived in a simplistic scenario then we don't have a hope in hell of working out how it is derived in a society made up of millions of people. It becomes an indefensible claim because at best all you can do is assert, you cannot explain or show.

All I have to go on is your assertions.
"morality is derived from society" because of society's "structures"
and your insistence that morality is NOT a distinction between right and wrong.
In your moral landscape, I have no idea what might be meant by "immoral" or "moral" or by "moral obligation" or by "moral oughts".

Couldn't we just say that it's derived by whatever the cultural zeitgeist is at the time. Or the way in which a particular brand of soda, becomes a household item, the way fashion, or musical taste develop? That certain actions like slavery begun to look disgusting, or becomes unfashionable, and it becomes fashionable to oppose slavery? Support for slavery, like the confederate flag becomes frown worthy, something unpopular, a social faux pax, like owning an android device.

No. If you're a slave you experience it as wrong. You learn from personal experience that it "ought" not be permitted.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-06-2015, 02:49 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 02:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No. If you're a slave you experience it as wrong. You learn from personal experience that it "ought" not be permitted.

The slave learns from his experience, that he shouldn't be treated in such away by other human beings? That the way in which he is being treated is "wrong"? That he's no lesser than his master, no lesser of a human being, but an equal, deserving of the same rights and liberties as everyone else?

Is this the sort of things he learns from his personal experience?

And not merely that it sucks to be a slave?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
28-06-2015, 02:55 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 01:54 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 01:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  How about the claim that this glass of water is hot? Is this true or false or does it depend on the observer's opinion of what temperature range equates to the "hot" label?

Too ambiguous. We don't know what you mean by hot.

We don't need to know the truth value of claim to know that it has one.

Does God exist? I don't know, but he either does or he doesn't. The claim "God exists" is most definitely either true or false. Of course we would have to define what we mean by God, in the same way we would have to define what we mean by "hot".

Actually, after further thought, I would say it's false. The water is no more hot than it is cold. Hot and cold aren't properties water can have. 80 degrees is hotter than 70 degrees but that doesn't tell us anything about the glass of water in your hand.

This doesn't mean you can't make true claims about the glass of water though. We could say...

This glass of water feels hot to me.

This glass of water is at a temperature that stevil would consider to be hot.

This glass of water is 90 degrees.

etc....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 03:25 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 02:49 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 02:41 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No. If you're a slave you experience it as wrong. You learn from personal experience that it "ought" not be permitted.

The slave learns from his experience, that he shouldn't be treated in such away by other human beings? That the way in which he is being treated is "wrong"? That he's no lesser than his master, no lesser of a human being, but an equal, deserving of the same rights and liberties as everyone else?

Is this the sort of things he learns from his personal experience?

And not merely that it sucks to be a slave?

Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: