Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2015, 10:07 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 10:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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?

Not. Beneficial. To. Society.

Do you fucking read posts?

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, 10:08 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 10:04 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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?

If we were any clearer, we'd be transparent crystalline Quartz.

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, 10:10 AM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2015 10:14 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 10:07 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 10:02 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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?

Not. Beneficial. To. Society.

Do you fucking read posts?

So immoral is just another way of saying something is not beneficial for society, while moral is another way of saying something is beneficial?

i.e when you tell me that my dishonesty is immoral, all you're saying here, is that my dishonesty is not beneficial to society?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 11:19 AM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 10:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 10:07 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Not. Beneficial. To. Society.

Do you fucking read posts?

So immoral is just another way of saying something is not beneficial for society, while moral is another way of saying something is beneficial?

i.e when you tell me that my dishonesty is immoral, all you're saying here, is that my dishonesty is not beneficial to society?

Post 586

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, 01:27 PM
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, ...

" tacit agreement, social contract, "
These are imaginary right? Things that have never been agreed upon, never discussed, never signed off.

"empathy" is a personal emotion and has nothing to do with agreement or defining right and wrong for society or between two people.

"cost/benefit" not sure where you are going with that one.

"Negotiated agreement", sure if you draw up a legal contract you are bound by law to adhere to the contract, to be compliant to the contract, but I don't know what that has to do with morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 01:33 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 11:19 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Post 586

(01-07-2015 11:19 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 10:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So immoral is just another way of saying something is not beneficial for society, while moral is another way of saying something is beneficial?

i.e when you tell me that my dishonesty is immoral, all you're saying here, is that my dishonesty is not beneficial to society?

Post 586

Let’s see I can piece together your view here.

In post 581, when you were asked to explain the meaning of immorality, you expressed it as “not beneficial to society”. In light of your other post, we can likely expand this to mean, things which have a negative effect on society, and are generally non-beneficial.

Any of these particular components can be expanded on even more so by you, but the important thing here, is that you’re implying something entirely descriptive rather than prescriptive, when it comes to labeling something as immoral. If this is accurate, you avoid taking that imperceptible leap Hume speaks of, of shifting from an is to an ought. So when saying something about dishonesty being immoral, you’re more or less describing the effect of that dishonesty, it’s consequences on society, and not implying that dishonesty ought to be avoided, or that actions which have a negative affect on society are to be avoided. To say something is immoral for you, would be sort of like saying that some actions has/or will have a negative impact on society, or in other words you’re merely stating an is, saying something descriptive.

Is this the gist of your position?

If so….

Your particular notion of morality, attempts to do away with normative ethics, and chooses to render itself exclusively to the descriptive domain. Though it’s not all together clear as to why you need to use moral language at all, to describe things that are beneficial/not beneficial, or harmful/not harmful, negative/positive impact, or why these descriptive terms will not suffice. It’s also not clear as to why you believe that descriptive statements about what is harmful, beneficial, negative/positive impact, all of which encompass the meaning of morality for you, are subjective rather than objective.

When my doctor informs me that my high sugar diet is harmful to my health, he is in fact making an objective claim. Where as in your view, for you to claim that something is immoral, is subjective? I’m hoping you can reconcile these aspects as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 01:42 PM
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).
Morality is a belief (rather than a behaviour), a judgment on events(actions resulting from choices made by actors knowing the difference between right and wrong).

"that human exhibit" - Morality isn't confined to humans.


"from the social construct of a society" Which construct in particular? I don't agree that morality is dependent on society.

"that benefits the society (altruism on the societal scale)". I don't agree that morality must be based on an altruistic goal for the benefit of society. Why have you picked that goal? Why must it be altrusitic, why can't the self benefit?

Our definitions of morality are miles apart.
The approach I have taken is to try and discover what morality is.
I feel the approach you have taken is to define morality in such a way that limits it to your own ideas.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 01:44 PM (This post was last modified: 01-07-2015 01:50 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 01:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 04:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  Negotiated agreement, tacit agreement, social contract, cost/benefit, empathy, instinct, ...

" tacit agreement, social contract, "
These are imaginary right? Things that have never been agreed upon, never discussed, never signed off.

"empathy" is a personal emotion and has nothing to do with agreement or defining right and wrong for society or between two people.

"cost/benefit" not sure where you are going with that one.

"Negotiated agreement", sure if you draw up a legal contract you are bound by law to adhere to the contract, to be compliant to the contract, but I don't know what that has to do with morality.

Did people agree or sign a contract to start thinking Flannel clothing was cool? When ripped jeans were being worn by lots of people was there a universal conscientious among everyone that it was something popular? Are skicaps called Toques or Beanies? Depends on where you are from and when you are from. These themselves of course aren't moral quandaries but these are social ideas that spread the same way. The differences are moral questions are going to be more along, is this thing harmful, is it fair, is it respectful, does it break tradition... and more along that lines of dealing with moral values.

This is how society functions and feeds off itself. Yes, it starts with individuals having their own ideas and those influence others, who influence many more and comes back to that person and ideas alter and shift over time. I don't know what it is anymore that makes you seem resistant to thinking these types of processes exist.

Yes this is morality in a "descriptive" as they call it sense. If you want to say Morality is only Morality in this world of Oughts and absolute topics then you're limiting actual philosophically and socially defined ideas of what morality is for only 1 angle upon what it is.

(01-07-2015 10:04 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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?

That is going to entirely depend on the person saying X is immoral. I don't generally use the term because it is silly, I'll just take the step further to what I intemperate the value of what they say is immoral. Like someone saying Gay-Marriage is "Immoral" because it violates their moral value of tradition. While others say disallowing gay marriage is immoral because it violates their moral value judgement of fairness. And seemingly in some cases fairness or empathy are stronger values for people than the sanctity or honor in traditional values.

"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
01-07-2015, 01:54 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 01:44 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Did people agree or sign a contract to start thinking Flannel clothing was cool? When ripped jeans were being worn by lots of people was there a universal conscientious among everyone that it was something popular? Are skicaps called Toques or Beanies? Depends on where you are from and when you are from. These themselves of course aren't moral quandaries but these are social ideas that spread the same way. The differences are moral questions are going to be more along, is this thing harmful, is it fair, is it respectful, does it break tradition... and more along that lines of dealing with moral values.

This is how society functions and feeds off itself. Yes, it starts with individuals having their own ideas and those influence others, who influence many more and comes back to that person and ideas alter and shift over time. I don't know what it is anymore that makes you seem resistant to thinking these types of processes exist.
I agree these things exist. I'm not resistant to the idea of influence.
Sorry, I don't have time to read through the rest of this post. I will get back to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 02:00 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 01:44 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes this is morality in a "descriptive" as they call it sense. If you want to say Morality is only Morality in this world of Oughts and absolute topics then you're limiting actual philosophically and socially defined ideas of what morality is for only 1 angle upon what it is.


What you seem to miss is that descriptive ethics is merely talking about people's beliefs about morality, in some sense a study of normative ethics. It seems, that you and perhaps others here, are reimagining all this, and trying to remain exclusively in the descriptive domain to avoid is/ought problems. This is problematic for a variety of reasons, but we'll just let it be.

In reference to when you refer to something as immoral or moral, you are not implying something prescriptive, but merely stating something descriptive? Would that be correct?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: