Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-06-2015, 06:08 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(29-06-2015 04:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I currently have no moral beliefs.

I'm curious to hear how those who object to moral nihilism, respond to this claim.

Do they believe Stevil truly doesn't have moral beliefs, even though he's a product of a society similar to theirs? That he sort of broke whatever bonds of influence society has on the moral perceptions of others?

Do they believe he's pulling our leg?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2015, 06:12 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(30-06-2015 05:40 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I find this thread continually bizarre because I don't think the term Moral Nihilism is means what you are claiming it to mean. The way it's been used is to me liking to calling Atheism a stance of anti-theists instead of simply, not believing in any deities.

I'm glad it finally took some time for someone to bring out a thread post that wants to clarify it but as written there, that doesn't still fit the terms that are often stated in this thread.

You find it bizarre because it ties atheism to moral nihilism? Or because you find the arguments for moral nihilism bizarre?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2015, 06:23 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(26-06-2015 03:29 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And not-god, simply ANYTHING can be or become the whatever forces/conditions. Because you belief it as apart of God doesn't mean you can't rework beliefs. It's what people do all the time.


No simply anything cannot be whatever forces/conditions are behind teleological aspects of life. Because God by very definition is synonymous with this. If you propose the FSM here, all you really would be saying is that God can fly, and is made of spaghetti, and constitutes what we would commonly refer to as a monster.

Any "anything" you propose as an alternative to God, wouldn't be an alternative, it would just be you adding additional characteristics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2015, 06:39 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(29-06-2015 08:56 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 04:23 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  No. You're applying a moral sense of right and wrong in a context that doesn't make sense when you apply it to a past society that didn't view it as morally wrong.

It's morally wrong today. It wasn't a good thing then, but we know that now in hindsight. It takes context and learning to decipher a moral stance.

If I said something that is not true, please point it out and show why it's not true.

"Slavery is wrong"

That can be true. It's true today in the U.S. thanks to the context of knowing the harm and damage it has done.

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
30-06-2015, 06:51 AM (This post was last modified: 30-06-2015 06:54 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(30-06-2015 06:39 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-06-2015 08:56 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  If I said something that is not true, please point it out and show why it's not true.

"Slavery is wrong"

That can be true. It's true today in the U.S. thanks to the context of knowing the harm and damage it has done.

Slavery may be objectively harmful and damaging, does this mean that it's objectively wrong here as well? Or is it still "subjectively" wrong? If so, can you or others who believe as you do, clarify the distinction between subjective and objective wrongs?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2015, 06:58 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(30-06-2015 06:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-06-2015 03:29 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  And not-god, simply ANYTHING can be or become the whatever forces/conditions. Because you belief it as apart of God doesn't mean you can't rework beliefs. It's what people do all the time.


No simply anything cannot be whatever forces/conditions are behind teleological aspects of life. Because God by very definition is synonymous with this. If you propose the FSM here, all you really would be saying is that God can fly, and is made of spaghetti, and constitutes what we would commonly refer to as a monster.

Any "anything" you propose as an alternative to God, wouldn't be an alternative, it would just be you adding additional characteristics.

It wouldn't HAVE TO BE "adding" them it could be "removing" characteristics. Being synonymous doesn't mean they can't exist without each other. What is it that you think the non-deity believing Buddhists or "spiritual"/atheist but think there is innate meaning/goals/value in the world types of people are lacking?

The "very definition" if God isn't even that.. That is YOUR idea of God. You still won't grasp things if you don't stop boxing in the views based on your ideas of what you think they are instead of the basic concepts. Think of the concepts outside of your preconceptions of them.

(30-06-2015 06:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You find it bizarre because it ties atheism to moral nihilism? Or because you find the arguments for moral nihilism bizarre?

I clearly explain this question already in the sentence stating it itself. So what you can't grasp out of that is on you. I don't quite get what's hard for you here. There aren't "arguments for moral nihilism" here, the positions being argued aren't what moral nihilism is. Moral Nihilism isn't a position like Stevils, that's something far more "beyond"(for lack of a better term) Moral Nihilism. Moral Nihilism is just disbelieving in innate or absolute morality. It doesn't mean you don't believe there is a cultural/social/biological element of what morality is. I think he ignores that element of morality because it's ether deemed too "flimsy" as hes stated or he really doesn't think it's relevant.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
30-06-2015, 07:10 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(30-06-2015 06:39 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Slavery is wrong"

That can be true. It's true today in the U.S. thanks to the context of knowing the harm and damage it has done.

I'm going to attempt to construct your basic argument, please correct me if I make an error.

1. If a behavior causes harm and damage, then that behavior is morally wrong (ought not to be done).
2. Slavery is a behavior that causes harm and damage.
C: Slavery is a behavior that is morally wrong (ought not to be done).

The problem lies in premise number 1. We can look back to Stevil's claim that "this glass of water is hot." This is false because it is making an implication that doesn't logically follow, and it goes like this. "if I perceive a glass of water to be hot, then that glass of water is hot." Now let me show you an example that is obviously false. "Picasso's paintings are beautiful." The implication is that "if I perceive Picasso's painting to be beautiful, then his paintings are beautiful." Someone else might look at the same painting and make the claim that they are ugly. We would both be making false claims for the same reason, i.e. the beauty/ugliness CAN ONLY be descriptive of our perceptions of the paintings, not the paintings themselves, likewise the wrongness of slavery can only lie in individual's perceptions/opinions, not slavery itself. We can say I don't like slavery, or I don't like Picasso's paintings, and make true claims, but we can't assign attributes to them that they are not capable of possessing and still make true claims.

Claims are either true, false, or incoherent (not claims). If we can't agree on this, we'll never get anywhere.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2015, 07:12 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(30-06-2015 07:10 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 06:39 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Slavery is wrong"

That can be true. It's true today in the U.S. thanks to the context of knowing the harm and damage it has done.

I'm going to attempt to construct your basic argument, please correct me if I make an error.

1. If a behavior causes harm and damage, then that behavior is morally wrong (ought not to be done).
2. Slavery is a behavior that causes harm and damage.
C: Slavery is a behavior that is morally wrong (ought not to be done).

The problem lies in premise number 1. We can look back to Stevil's claim that "this glass of water is hot." This is false because it is making an implication that doesn't logically follow, and it goes like this. "if I perceive a glass of water to be hot, then that glass of water is hot." Now let me show you an example that is obviously false. "Picasso's paintings are beautiful." The implication is that "if I perceive Picasso's painting to be beautiful, then his paintings are beautiful." Someone else might look at the same painting and make the claim that they are ugly. We would both be making false claims for the same reason, i.e. the beauty/ugliness CAN ONLY be descriptive of our perceptions of the paintings, not the paintings themselves, likewise the wrongness of slavery can only lie in individual's perceptions/opinions, not slavery itself. We can say I don't like slavery, or I don't like Picasso's paintings, and make true claims, but we can't assign attributes to them that they are not capable of possessing and still make true claims.

Claims are either true, false, or incoherent (not claims). If we can't agree on this, we'll never get anywhere.

Morality is not about "oughts"

Morality is a social behavior that describes benefits or detriments to a 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
30-06-2015, 07:14 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
Not all claims are subject to only being right, wrong, or incoherent. Especially in a SUBJECTIVE system like morality (or mineral classification or definitions of species, as I've pointed out)

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
30-06-2015, 07:17 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(30-06-2015 07:10 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 06:39 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Slavery is wrong"

That can be true. It's true today in the U.S. thanks to the context of knowing the harm and damage it has done.

I'm going to attempt to construct your basic argument, please correct me if I make an error.

1. If a behavior causes harm and damage, then that behavior is morally wrong (ought not to be done).
2. Slavery is a behavior that causes harm and damage.
C: Slavery is a behavior that is morally wrong (ought not to be done).

The problem lies in premise number 1. We can look back to Stevil's claim that "this glass of water is hot." This is false because it is making an implication that doesn't logically follow, and it goes like this. "if I perceive a glass of water to be hot, then that glass of water is hot." Now let me show you an example that is obviously false. "Picasso's paintings are beautiful." The implication is that "if I perceive Picasso's painting to be beautiful, then his paintings are beautiful." Someone else might look at the same painting and make the claim that they are ugly. We would both be making false claims for the same reason, i.e. the beauty/ugliness CAN ONLY be descriptive of our perceptions of the paintings, not the paintings themselves, likewise the wrongness of slavery can only lie in individual's perceptions/opinions, not slavery itself. We can say I don't like slavery, or I don't like Picasso's paintings, and make true claims, but we can't assign attributes to them that they are not capable of possessing and still make true claims.

Claims are either true, false, or incoherent (not claims). If we can't agree on this, we'll never get anywhere.

Let me add another example that shows the falsity.

1. If a behavior causes harm and damage, then that behavior is morally wrong (ought not to be done).
2. Hunting non-human animals is a behavior that causes harm and damage (at least to the non-human animals we are hunting).
C: Hunting non-human animals is morally wrong.

Would you agree that hunting (human predation on other species) is morally wrong?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: