Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2015, 08:08 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 07:06 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 07:01 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  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.

Nonsense. Identifying the delusion of religion doesn't equate to ignoring it, or its history, why would identifying the delusion of morality be any different?

(28-06-2015 07:06 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

"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."

This sounds a lot like, "we know that slavery is wrong now, but they didn't know back then."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 08:18 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 08:08 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 07:06 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

Nonsense. Identifying the delusion of religion doesn't equate to ignoring it, or its history, why would identifying the delusion of morality be any different?

(28-06-2015 07:06 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

"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."

This sounds a lot like, "we know that slavery is wrong now, but they didn't know back then."

You're not trying to understand what I'm saying, are you?

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, 08:24 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 08:18 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're not trying to understand what I'm saying, are you?

I think I understand, I just disagree. If it looks like I've misunderstood, please correct me, and I apologize if I have misunderstood.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 08:29 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 08:24 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 08:18 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're not trying to understand what I'm saying, are you?

I think I understand, I just disagree. If it looks like I've misunderstood, please correct me, and I apologize if I have misunderstood.

You misunderstand that context matters. So, when you say "we know that slavery is wrong now, but they didn't know it then," you're ignoring the context of the situation at the time when slavery was socially normal and acceptable. Different societies, at different times, different moral understanding of right and wrong.

We have accepted that our previous assumption about slavery is okay, was not. The "slavery is morally acceptable and okay and right" was contextual at the time and based on societies norms at that time. Our understanding of slavery now is a different context, and we accept it (in the U.S. as morally wrong).

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, 11:04 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 06:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 06:31 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.
Nah, you can be influenced by things that you aren't dependent on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 11:05 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 07:07 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "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.

Nihilism doesn't ignore information.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 06:12 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 05:50 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 04:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Quote:il·lu·sion
iˈlo͞oZHən/Submit
noun

a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses.
"the illusion makes parallel lines seem to diverge by placing them on a zigzag-striped background"

a deceptive appearance or impression.
"the illusion of family togetherness"

a false idea or belief.

I think it falls under the definition of an illusion.

You stated they are mistaken in believing that torturing babies just for fun is objectively wrong. Yet this perceptions of objectively is abundant, permeates our moral language and discussion and debates, so much so that it's taken for granted. Only a handful of folks believe morality is subjective, or subscribe to moral nihilism.

Now, if torturing babies just for fun is not objectively wrong, but subjectively wrong. Do you believe right or wrong are a matter of personal preference, like other subjective good and bad? If not, can you please define subjective, in a way that distinguishes it from objective?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-06-2015, 06:16 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 11:05 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 07:07 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "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.

Nihilism doesn't ignore information.

"Nah, you can be influenced by things you aren't dependent upon."

Okay. And? You can also be influenced by things that you do depend on.

"Nihilism doesn't ignore information."

Okay. If you say so. I've explained why not nihilism several times.

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
29-06-2015, 01:32 PM (This post was last modified: 29-06-2015 01:53 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
TheBeardedDude Wrote:
(28-06-2015 11:04 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(28-06-2015 06:37 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  If it's dependent upon something, it's influenced by it. Especially if it isn't static.
Nah, you can be influenced by things that you aren't dependent on.

Okay. And? You can also be influenced by things that you do depend on.
I don't think that you have established a dependant relationship between a person's moral beliefs and their society.

A stranded person alone on a desert island can feel guilt from being lazy, from swimming all day rather than spending their time building shelter, finding fresh water, finding food etc.
They have no society, but they feel guilt for letting themself down. They believe that they "ought" to built shelter, but they can't be bothered. they consider their inactions to be immoral.

Perhaps they see a nest of eggs and they disturb it. They later see the mother come back and abandon the nest. They feel guilt for having destroyed the nest. They consider it immoral even though there is no society.


A person can have moral beliefs independent of society. But they can also be influenced (in forming their moral beliefs) by other people (individuals) or by media (TV, internet, books), they can't be influenced by society, society is a container, not a thing, but they can be influenced by specific touch points (interactions) of specific people (parents, friends, role models, etc). People are more likely to be influenced at a younger age or at a time of personal crisis (religions target these people), older people are less likely to be influenced. A male irreligious man brought up in western culture but relocated to Saudi Arabia is much less likely to consider woman driving cars as immoral, or kissing in public as immoral etc.


EDIT: I've just thought of a way some moral beliefs can be dependent on society.
A person with a desire to live within a society may come to a personal belief that stealing from other society members is immoral. They might come to this belief because of course they don't want their own stuff to be stolen from other society members and they can understand why other society members would get angry at them if they stole from them.
Without society you can't have a moral such as "it is immoral to steal from other society members". So some moral beliefs are dependant on there being a society. It is derived from the desire to belong to a society, rather than being derived from society. Completely the opposite of "influence"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
29-06-2015, 01:46 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-06-2015 08:18 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're not trying to understand what I'm saying, are you?

How many times are you going to pull out this card? If it's a common theme for you, the problem is likely you. lol.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: