Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-06-2015, 08:06 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
[Image: b57c044982f83619338aad9d36df94f4.jpg]

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, 08:45 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(30-06-2015 07:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  ...
I don't see anyone but the objectivists arguing for "oughts". Consider

I am.

I'm arguing for contextual/conditional, goal-based oughts.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
30-06-2015, 10:36 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(30-06-2015 08:45 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 07:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  ...
I don't see anyone but the objectivists arguing for "oughts". Consider

I am.

I'm arguing for contextual/conditional, goal-based oughts.

Wink
If there are no oughts, then what is the point of a moral judgement?
If you don't have a belief that another person ought not to do X then you can't really make any moral judgement on them.
Without oughts, you could only use your own moral beliefs (opinions) as a guide for yourself as an input (one of many inputs) towards the decisioning on what actions you are personally to choose to take in the future.
You could then not make any outward proclaimation such as "X is immoral"
Unless of course that public proclaimation is equivalent to "I personally wouldn't do X because I personally believe X to be the wrong thing to do, however I realise that you have your own belief system and you are therefore the only one capable of making the right choices for you".

It makes morality somewhat meaningless. No moral judgements, no oughts, no basis for common laws/rules. No ability to decide what is moral/immoral for others of for individuals within a society. Just a pointless concept.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
30-06-2015, 10:45 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(30-06-2015 10:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:45 PM)DLJ Wrote:  I am.

I'm arguing for contextual/conditional, goal-based oughts.

Wink
If there are no oughts, then what is the point of a moral judgement?
If you don't have a belief that another person ought not to do X then you can't really make any moral judgement on them.
Without oughts, you could only use your own moral beliefs (opinions) as a guide for yourself as an input (one of many inputs) towards the decisioning on what actions you are personally to choose to take in the future.
You could then not make any outward proclaimation such as "X is immoral"
Unless of course that public proclaimation is equivalent to "I personally wouldn't do X because I personally believe X to be the wrong thing to do, however I realise that you have your own belief system and you are therefore the only one capable of making the right choices for you".

It makes morality somewhat meaningless. No moral judgements, no oughts, no basis for common laws/rules. No ability to decide what is moral/immoral for others of for individuals within a society. Just a pointless concept.

So you're agreeing with me?

Huh

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 03:36 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(30-06-2015 10:45 PM)DLJ Wrote:  So you're agreeing with me?

Huh
I'm not sure. Big Grin

Depends what you are meaning when you say "I'm arguing for contextual/conditional, goal-based oughts. "

I agree that a claim of X is right or wrong requires context and a goal.
e.g. If you want to become a great pianist then you ought to practice playing the piano.

But, when people make claims "You ought to do the right thing" or "you can't do that because that is immoral" they don't generally declare the goals, or the context. And certainly you can't just assume the goals and context on behalf of a third party.
So you really can't make that moral judgement of someone else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 04:00 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2015 05:44 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 03:36 AM)Stevil Wrote:  ...
I'm not sure. Big Grin

Depends what you are meaning when you say "I'm arguing for contextual/conditional, goal-based oughts. "

I agree that a claim of X is right or wrong requires context and a goal.
e.g. If you want to become a great pianist then you ought to practice playing the piano.

But, when people make claims "You ought to do the right thing" or "you can't do that because that is immoral" they don't generally declare the goals, or the context. And certainly you can't just assume the goals and context on behalf of a third party.
So you really can't make that moral judgement of someone else.

I think, then, that we are agreeing.

I am in the habit of not listening to those who play the 'right thing' or 'morality' card without tying it to a justification based on a given context or some conditions and goals.

These people are usually theists and/or objectivists and are not worth my time (unless I'm in the mood to embarrass them in a discussion).

I've just had this situation regarding fasting during Ramadan being the 'right thing'. I asked them why and the answers were unsatisfying.

I don't make a judgement of (about) them, I just put them in the 'dumbfuck' category and either move on (if they aren't impacting me personally or societally) or work on a persuasion / demolition plan if their beliefs and therefore their practices do impact me and those around me.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
01-07-2015, 04:34 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(30-06-2015 08:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 07:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  I don't see anyone but the objectivists arguing for "oughts". Consider

What are the non-nihilist, non-objectivists arguing for then?

Negotiated agreement, tacit agreement, social contract, cost/benefit, empathy, instinct, ...

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
01-07-2015, 06:27 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 04:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-06-2015 08:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  What are the non-nihilist, non-objectivists arguing for then?

Negotiated agreement, tacit agreement, social contract, cost/benefit, empathy, instinct, ...

But aren't these supposed negotiated agreements, tacit agreements, social contracts, indicating what one ought to do? A contract typically list one's obligations, one's duties, or "oughts"?

When you engage in these cost benefit analysis, and at the end of it you declare that a certain act is immoral, what does this mean? That you ought to avoid doing it? That others ought to avoid it?

Assuming you did some cost benefit analysis and determined that something would be objectively harmful to society, what would it mean to add an extra layer to saying something is harmful, by referring to it as immoral?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 06:30 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
If x number of people in a society believe that y is wrong, THEN THE ONLY CLAIM YOU CAN EVER MAKE (if you want to make true claims)IS THAT X NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN A SOCIETY BELIEVE THAT Y IS WRONG. To say "x number of people in a society believe that y is wrong, therefore y is wrong (even if just for that society)," is a fundamental flaw in logic. It's drawing totally illogical conclusions. And to make a blanket claim that people should be concerned for the well being of society, or that people should have empathy, is also a fundamental flaw. If we agree on a common goal that people want to live in a peaceful and cooperative society, than we could debate about what characteristics (like empathy, compassion, etc.) people ought to have in order to achieve that goal. But to suggest that people ought to have certain goals is simply false.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Matt Finney's post
01-07-2015, 06:34 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 06:27 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 04:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  Negotiated agreement, tacit agreement, social contract, cost/benefit, empathy, instinct, ...

But aren't these supposed negotiated agreements, tacit agreements, social contracts, indicating what one ought to do? A contract typically list one's obligations, one's duties, or "oughts"?

When you engage in these cost benefit analysis, and at the end of it you declare that a certain act is immoral, what does this mean? That you ought to avoid doing it? That others ought to avoid it?

Assuming you did some cost benefit analysis and determined that something would be objectively harmful to society, what would it mean to add an extra layer to saying something is harmful, by referring to it as immoral?

Too simplistic. Required/mandated/legal/ought are not the same as moral.

'Moral' does not necessitate 'ought', nor does 'ought' necessitate 'moral'.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: