Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2015, 06:21 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 06:04 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 05:55 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

It's society-dependent. Culture. How you're raised. Societal norms. Etc

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, 06:31 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 06:21 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 06:04 PM)tear151 Wrote:  I'm just asking what right and wrong mean within a given context. How does an individual decide what is good and bad.

It's society-dependent. Culture. How you're raised. Societal norms. Etc
Would that be society-dependant or society influenced?
I see dependant as a much stronger correlation than influence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 06:37 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 06:31 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 06:21 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  It's society-dependent. Culture. How you're raised. Societal norms. Etc
Would that be society-dependant or society influenced?
I see dependant as a much stronger correlation than influence.

If it's dependent upon something, it's influenced by it. Especially if it isn't static.

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, 06:43 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
If you want to sincerely understand my points, reflect on my species example, it's the best I've derived.

The answer to whether or not something is a species (analogous to moral or immoral), is dependent upon the system (analogous to society) and the type of specimen I'm looking at (for a fossil, the biological species concept is irrelevant. For some societies, a particular moral dilemma may be irrelevant).

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, 06:45 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
And then (for my species example) the ability of someone to derive a unique decision on the species being unique, is dependent upon their knowledge of the species in question (analogous to the way in which someone is raised such that their background knowledge and culture influence the morals they derive from society).

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, 06:50 PM (This post was last modified: 28-06-2015 07:30 PM by Matt Finney.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 05:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 04:56 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  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.

Either it is possible for a substance to achieve absolute zero, or it is not possible for a substance to achieve absolute zero. It's either possible or not, are you seriously challenging this claim? These kinds of truths are true by definition. If something is not possible, then it is impossible. Likewise, if something is not impossible, then it is possible. If you won't accept these kinds of truths, there's probably no point in further discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 07:01 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 05:50 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Society today on slavery: slavery is wrong, freedom is right.

Why not just admit that slavery has never been right nor wrong, and that the whole idea that an action or behavior is even capable of possessing the quality of rightness or wrongness, is just another human invention, a religious invention? And that those who believe that actions and behaviors are capable of possessing the quality of rightness or wrongness are simply suffering from a delusion? In other words, why not nihilism?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 07:06 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 07:01 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 05:50 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Society today on slavery: slavery is wrong, freedom is right.

Why not just admit that slavery has never been right nor wrong, and that the whole idea that an action or behavior is even capable of possessing the quality of rightness or wrongness, is just another human invention, a religious invention? And that those who believe that actions and behaviors are capable of possessing the quality of rightness or wrongness are simply suffering from a delusion? In other words, why not nihilism?

Because that ignores human history where it clearly has not always been seen by everyone as wrong during specific intervals of human history where it was common.

And it's not like slavery doesn't still happen in some countries as has been pointed out (like sex trafficking for instance). It's easy to say something is wrong from our past based on our current knowledge and understanding, but not so much during the past.

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, 07:07 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
"Why not nihilism?"

I prefer not to ignore information in order to reach a conclusion. And part of that information, is the context of human knowledge and morality during the past.

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, 07:18 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 06:50 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 05:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  No and no. There may be no fact of the matter.

Either it is possible for a substance to achieve absolute, or it is not possible for a substance to achieve absolute zero. It's either possible or not, are you seriously challenging this claim? These kinds of truths are true by definition. If something is not possible, then it is impossible. Likewise, if something is not impossible, then it is possible. If you won't accept these kinds of truths, there's probably no point in further discussion.

My pardon - I don't think that I meant that response for that post. I'll look back and see what I was trying to respond to.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: