Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2015, 06:46 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 06:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  Too simplistic. Required/mandated/legal/ought are not the same as moral.

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

You say it's too simplistic, without particularly clarify what adding a moral dimension to an observation implies. When I say something is immoral, or moral, I'm saying something prescriptive, rather than descriptive. I'm saying something about how one ought to act, or ought not act. But you claim this is not what you're saying.

So I'll ask the question again:

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
01-07-2015, 07:31 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 06:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 06:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  Too simplistic. Required/mandated/legal/ought are not the same as moral.

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

You say it's too simplistic, without particularly clarify what adding a moral dimension to an observation implies. When I say something is immoral, or moral, I'm saying something prescriptive, rather than descriptive. I'm saying something about how one ought to act, or ought not act. But you claim this is not what you're saying.

So I'll ask the question again:

"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?"

[Image: ca22329677a379735a06f524c3c1de88.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
01-07-2015, 07:52 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 07:31 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 06:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You say it's too simplistic, without particularly clarify what adding a moral dimension to an observation implies. When I say something is immoral, or moral, I'm saying something prescriptive, rather than descriptive. I'm saying something about how one ought to act, or ought not act. But you claim this is not what you're saying.

So I'll ask the question again:

"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?"

[Image: ca22329677a379735a06f524c3c1de88.jpg]

I might disagree with Tomasia's world view, but he is at least logically consistent.

From the claims you make TBD, it seems that you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of logic.

Tomasia is exactly right. If adding the words moral/immoral adds no new information, then why add them at all? It seems that you use the words moral/immoral in a way that almost no one else does, and I would guess that it's because you want to be able to continue making claims that certain things are wrong/immoral. It's silly dude, just let go of those words. If you don't believe in a objective morality, then just admit that moral convictions that people feel are true, are really nothing more than preferences. And if people feel that their convictions are true, then they are only deluding themselves. Now, on the other hand, if a person does believe in an objective morality, then it is totally consistent for them to believe that their moral convictions at least have a chance at being true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
01-07-2015, 08:01 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 07:52 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 07:31 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  [Image: ca22329677a379735a06f524c3c1de88.jpg]

I might disagree with Tomasia's world view, but he is at least logically consistent.

From the claims you make TBD, it seems that you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of logic.

Tomasia is exactly right. If adding the words moral/immoral adds no new information, then why add them at all? It seems that you use the words moral/immoral in a way that almost no one else does, and I would guess that it's because you want to be able to continue making claims that certain things are wrong/immoral. It's silly dude, just let go of those words. If you don't believe in a objective morality, then just admit that moral convictions that people feel are true, are really nothing more than preferences. And if people feel that their convictions are true, then they are only deluding themselves. Now, on the other hand, if a person does believe in an objective morality, then it is totally consistent for them to believe that their moral convictions at least have a chance at being true.

I don't treat human behavior as special or unique when compared to other animal behaviors, and that means that I "don't even have a rudimentary understanding of logic" because I reject the definition used of morality? What a load of shit.

Not once have I claimed morality is objective (how anyone could claim such an idiotic assumption who isn't religious is beyond me) or that the words moral/immoral don't add anything to a discussion. That's another straw man version of what I've said.

Morality is a social behavior that humans exhibit from the social construct of a society that benefits the society (altruism on the societal scale). If you don't understand that, I can't make you get it (I've consistently repeated this).

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
01-07-2015, 08:06 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 06:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 06:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  Too simplistic. Required/mandated/legal/ought are not the same as moral.

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

You say it's too simplistic, without particularly clarify what adding a moral dimension to an observation implies. When I say something is immoral, or moral, I'm saying something prescriptive, rather than descriptive. I'm saying something about how one ought to act, or ought not act. But you claim this is not what you're saying.

So I'll ask the question again:

"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?"

Using this thread as evidence, I'd say it adds a layer of confusion.

You seem to believe that morals come from somewhere other than ourselves and that makes discussion difficult when there has not been shown to be a somewhere else.

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
01-07-2015, 08:08 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 08:01 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Morality is a social behavior that humans exhibit from the social construct of a society that benefits the society (altruism on the societal scale). If you don't understand that, I can't make you get it (I've consistently repeated this).

You're objections have been fairly convoluted and muddled for the most part. You claim that when something is referred to as moral or immoral, that an "ought" is not being implied, while continually refusing to clarify what is being implied.

The unanswered question can be repeated once again, for everyone including yourself, what does it mean to refer to something that is harmful as immoral, if it's not prescriptive?

What are you adding to something being harmful, by claiming it is immoral?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 08:10 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 08:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 08:01 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Morality is a social behavior that humans exhibit from the social construct of a society that benefits the society (altruism on the societal scale). If you don't understand that, I can't make you get it (I've consistently repeated this).

You're objections have been fairly convoluted and muddled for the most part. You claim that when something is referred to as moral or immoral, that an "ought" is not being implied, while continually refusing to clarify what is being implied.

The unanswered question can be repeated once again, for everyone including yourself, what does it mean to refer to something that is harmful as immoral, if it's not prescriptive?

What are you adding to something being harmful, by claiming it is immoral?

Fuck you're dense. When did I say immorality equated with harmful?

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
01-07-2015, 08:12 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 08:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  Using this thread as evidence, I'd say it adds a layer of confusion.

You seem to believe that morals come from somewhere other than ourselves and that makes discussion difficult when there has not been shown to be a somewhere else.

Even if we assume that morality doesn't come from somewhere else, but from our ourselves, the question still remains. If morality is not a matter of oughts, what does it mean for you to refer to an action that is harmful, as immoral? What is being implied by immoral, which is not being implied by harmful?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 08:15 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 08:10 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 08:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You're objections have been fairly convoluted and muddled for the most part. You claim that when something is referred to as moral or immoral, that an "ought" is not being implied, while continually refusing to clarify what is being implied.

The unanswered question can be repeated once again, for everyone including yourself, what does it mean to refer to something that is harmful as immoral, if it's not prescriptive?

What are you adding to something being harmful, by claiming it is immoral?

Fuck you're dense. When did I say immorality equated with harmful?

I didn't say it was equated. But in many cases people refer to certain things that are harmful in some way or the other as immoral, not that all harmful things are immoral.

I'm sure you can think of a variety of things that are harmful, that you deem immoral, without me having to resort to an example. The question is what are you adding to such an observation, by saying it is immoral?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 08:18 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 08:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 08:10 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Fuck you're dense. When did I say immorality equated with harmful?

I didn't say it was equated. But in many cases people refer to certain things that are harmful in some way or the other as immoral, not that all harmful things are immoral.

I'm sure you can think of a variety of things that are harmful, that you deem immoral, without me having to resort to an example. The question is what are you adding to such an observation, by saying it is immoral?

You oversimplify and then ignore anything I've already said. Why the fuck would I answer another asinine question? Consider

If you want to know my answer, go read any of the dozens of other posts I've made. Drinking Beverage

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: