Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2015, 08:59 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 08:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 08:40 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Dishonesty is disgusting and immoral Drinking Beverage

To repeat the unanswered question:

What is being implied by immoral here, that is not being implied by disgusting?

Societal, effect.

Do you know what it means for a behavior to be a "social behavior"?

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, 09:00 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 08:50 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 08:38 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're a dense fuck. When I care about your opinion, I'll shoot a pig out of the sky and smoke it. Drinking Beverage

I have a good book for you: http://www.amazon.com/After-Virtue-Study...268035040.

The book explains in great detail why this incoherency is present in individuals such as yourself.

"It begins with an allegory suggestive of the premise of the science-fiction novel A Canticle for Leibowitz: a world where all sciences have been dismantled quickly and completely. MacIntyre asks what the sciences would look like if they were re-assembled from the remnants of scientific knowledge that survived the catastrophe. He claims that the new sciences, though superficially similar to the old, would in fact be devoid of real scientific content, because the key suppositions and attitudes would not be present. "The hypothesis which I wish to advance," he continues, "is that in the actual world which we inhabit the language of morality is in the same state of grave disorder as the language of natural science in the imaginary world which I described."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue

Sounds like theistic woo. My give-a-shit meter is bottoming 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
01-07-2015, 09:02 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 08:59 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 08:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  To repeat the unanswered question:

What is being implied by immoral here, that is not being implied by disgusting?

Societal, effect.

Do you know what it means for a behavior to be a "social behavior"?

So something that is disgusting and has a negative societal effect, is immoral?

When you tell me that my dishonesty is immoral here. Are you merely stating that it has a negative societal effect? And not that I ought to avoid acting in ways that have a negative impact on society?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 09:05 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 09:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 08:59 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Societal, effect.

Do you know what it means for a behavior to be a "social behavior"?

So something that is disgusting and has a negative societal effect, is immoral?

When you tell me that my dishonesty is immoral here. Are you merely stating that it has a negative societal effect?

When something is deemed or recognized to have a negative effect on society, it is deemed immoral in most cases.

A dishonest person living in society, is someone I see as being a detriment to society and an immoral person (at the societal level since dishonesty can be an individually beneficial trait. For instance, you're tolerated because other people don't see your dishonesty or don't accept it as a negative attribute. Or they accept that theists are generally dishonest and don't expect honesty from you 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
01-07-2015, 09:11 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 09:05 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  When something is deemed or recognized to have a negative effect on society, it is deemed immoral in most cases.

A dishonest person living in society, is someone I see as being a detriment to society and an immoral person (at the societal level since dishonesty can be an individually beneficial trait. For instance, you're tolerated because other people don't see your dishonesty or don't accept it as a negative attribute. Or they accept that theists are generally dishonest and don't expect honesty from you Drinking Beverage )

But is saying that my dishonesty is immoral, just another way of saying my dishonesty has a negative effect on society? Or is something else being said beyond that. Are you merely stating something descriptive, or implying something perspective here, by referring to it as immoral?

I ask because the common assumption would be that to say it's immoral here would mean that I ought not behave in a way that effects society negatively. But you previously implied that an ought is not being implied.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 09:14 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 09:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 09:05 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  When something is deemed or recognized to have a negative effect on society, it is deemed immoral in most cases.

A dishonest person living in society, is someone I see as being a detriment to society and an immoral person (at the societal level since dishonesty can be an individually beneficial trait. For instance, you're tolerated because other people don't see your dishonesty or don't accept it as a negative attribute. Or they accept that theists are generally dishonest and don't expect honesty from you Drinking Beverage )

But is saying that my dishonesty is immoral, just another way of saying my dishonesty has a negative effect on society? Or is something else being said beyond that. Are you merely stating something descriptive, or implying something perspective here, by referring to it as immoral?

I ask because the common assumption would be that to say it's immoral here would mean that I ought not behave in a way that effects society negatively. But you previously implied that an ought is not being implied.

I could fucking care less about "the common assumption" about "oughts." Facepalm

How people view it, is based on interpretation and not necessarily representative of reality. Your dishonesty can have negative effects, or result in disgust, or be more generally non-beneficial. The black and white world of a moral objectivist theist, means nothing to me.

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, 09:58 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 08:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 08:18 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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

It seems that several other people here, can't make sense of your answers either, like Stevil, Tear, Matt, and myself. So what does that imply? That we're all impaired? Refusing to understand you? Or that you don't make much sense, and have done a very poor job at communicating your objections?

It continuelly boils down to YOU guys refuse to disassociate the "ought" element while Chas, beardman, dlj(I think in his way) are not staying hung up on the idea morality is something talking about the ought.

Matt did bring it up before saying well we're only talking about the Normative means.. You can't only talk about the normative means if you continually just talk about morality and how people examine it. It's not separate. I don't believe in the normative style of morality that you would seem to Tomsi, but all of the talk or disbelieve in normative definitions of morality doesn't mean the description, social implication and communal impact style of morality is something that doesn't exist.

"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
01-07-2015, 10:02 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 09:14 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I could fucking care less about "the common assumption" about "oughts." Facepalm

How people view it, is based on interpretation and not necessarily representative of reality. Your dishonesty can have negative effects, or result in disgust, or be more generally non-beneficial. The black and white world of a moral objectivist theist, means nothing to me.

If your view of morality doesn't have the same connotations as the common view, then it helps to clarify what is you're implying by the term.

What exactly is being implied by saying that my dishonesty is immoral, that's not already being implied by saying it has a negative societal effect?

You keep telling me this or that is not what is being implied, that it's not an ought, that it's not something prescriptive, that it's not that simple, while avoiding clarifying what is being implied.

If you claim that my dishonesty is immoral. Can you explain the meaning of immorality here?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 10:04 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 08:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
While you recognize that disgusting, and harmful are not synonymous with immoral,
...

Actually, they kinda are. See #1 and #6, below:

(07-12-2013 12:00 AM)DLJ Wrote:  ...
Here is some stuff from Jonathan Haidt
http://www.moralfoundations.org/

The 6 "moralities" are:
1. Harm / care (empathy)
2. Fairness / cheating (reciprocity)
3. Liberty / oppression (freedom)
4. Loyalty / betrayal (in-group)
5. Authority / subversion (respect)
6. Sanctity / degradation (purity)
...

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
01-07-2015, 10:04 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 09:58 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It continuelly boils down to YOU guys refuse to disassociate the "ought" element while Chas, beardman, dlj(I think in his way) are not staying hung up on the idea morality is something talking about the ought.

I keep asking for clarification, if we're dissociating the ought element, than what does it mean for you to say something is immoral, are you saying something that is merely descriptive? Absent of any perspective element?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: