Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2015, 05:47 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 04:43 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Here, how about this example.

Is absolute zero a real possibility for a substance to achieve?

Theoretically: yes
Realistically: as far as we have ever observed, no

Yes but absolute zero is defined, you are refusing to define extreme good and bad and how that works in regards to context.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 05:50 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 04:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 03:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  That the vast majority of people probably feel the torturing babies for fun is despicable doesn't make it objective.

The vast majority of people believe torturing babies just for fun is objectively wrong/immoral. This doesn't make it objective. If it's not objective we can say that their belief that it is objective is false. That's it's just an illusion.

Illusion? No. Mistaken? Yes.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-06-2015, 05:50 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 05:47 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 04:43 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Here, how about this example.

Is absolute zero a real possibility for a substance to achieve?

Theoretically: yes
Realistically: as far as we have ever observed, no

Yes but absolute zero is defined, you are refusing to define extreme good and bad and how that works in regards to context.

Because it's dependent on the society Dodgy I swear I've said this.

Society today on slavery: slavery is wrong, freedom is right.

Do you want me to go through and define every single moral set of end members for every moral quandary in our society (the U.S. in June 2015)?

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, 05:51 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 05:50 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 05:47 PM)tear151 Wrote:  Yes but absolute zero is defined, you are refusing to define extreme good and bad and how that works in regards to context.

Because it's dependent on the society Dodgy I swear I've said this.

Society today on slavery: slavery is wrong, freedom is right.

Do you want me to go through and define every single moral set of end members for every moral quandary in our society (the U.S. in June 2015)?

It's utterly meaningless if it's literally a survey of public opinion on whether things are right or wrong.

Where does society derive it's values from then? Itself?

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 05:52 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 04:11 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 03:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, not every claim is either true or false. That is shallow and simplistic.

It's true by definition. If you have a claim that is not true, it is false.

not true = false

I claim that green is my favorite color. True or false? How can you judge?

A claim of fact may be true, false, unknown, or even unknowable.

Not everything is reducible to dichotomies.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-06-2015, 05:54 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 04:40 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 04:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Is it true that X is a unique species?

Biological species concept = true
Phylogenetic species concept = true
Morphological species concept = false

It depends on the context when you are talking about a SUBJECTIVE system.

If a claim doesn't meet the criteria of being true, then it is not true.
If a claim is not true, then it is false.

This is something we have to accept. If a claim seems to be true, but doesn't meet the criteria of being true, then it needs to modified in order to be true. Wording is important.

That is far too simplistic. Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-06-2015, 05:55 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 05:51 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 05:50 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Because it's dependent on the society Dodgy I swear I've said this.

Society today on slavery: slavery is wrong, freedom is right.

Do you want me to go through and define every single moral set of end members for every moral quandary in our society (the U.S. in June 2015)?

It's utterly meaningless if it's literally a survey of public opinion on whether things are right or wrong.

Where does society derive it's values from then? Itself?

That's because it is SUBJECTIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Holy fuck.

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, 05:55 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 04:56 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 04:43 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Here, how about this example.

Is absolute zero a real possibility for a substance to achieve?

Theoretically: yes
Realistically: as far as we have ever observed, no

Again, we don't need to know the truth value (whether it's true or false) to know that it has one.

Let's make a claim.... "It is possible for a substance to achieve absolute zero."

This is either possible or not. We don't need to know whether it's possible or not to know that it is either possible or not.

No and no. There may be no fact of the matter.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-06-2015, 05:57 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 10:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

I think you have that backwards.

The framework provides context for consistency by which actions / behaviours / goals can be measured objectively.

The metric is objective, not the framework.

(28-06-2015 11:33 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  ...
Do you agree that every claim is either true or false?

Are there some claims that are neither true nor false?

True vs. not true.

False vs. not false.

Not guilty =/= innocent.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
28-06-2015, 06:04 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 05:55 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 05:51 PM)tear151 Wrote:  It's utterly meaningless if it's literally a survey of public opinion on whether things are right or wrong.

Where does society derive it's values from then? Itself?

That's because it is SUBJECTIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Holy fuck.

I'm just asking what right and wrong mean within a given context. How does an individual decide what is good and bad.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: