Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2015, 02:09 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 01:42 PM)Stevil 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).
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.

Our definitions are miles apart, I engaged in this conversation to give you another perspective on morality (from a behavioral perspective). It isn't about limiting it to my "own ideas" but to be more inclusive by defining morality in a way that would make it more widely applicable (thus it could become a view of morality more easily applied to the behaviors of other species).

Thus, I'm not saying that beneficial behaviors or even altruistic senses of right and wrong are unique to humans, but labeling anything as "moral" or "immoral" is unique to humans as far as we've ever really used those terms (even the religious would be reluctant to apply moral or immoral to their imaginary friends for fear of these terms losing some sort of applicability directly to humans). So, what is it that separates humans from other animals (including other social animals)? It appears to be the formation of societies (not only groups of the same species working together, but a collective with shared goals and values that they explicitly communicate with one another and amend through time, explicitly or implicitly).

My view of morality is more subjective than you seem to like as it largely rejects end-member "moral choices" (black/white right/wrong).

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, 02:12 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 01:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 11:19 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Post 586

(01-07-2015 11:19 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  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.

You generalize so much that you create straw men. Until you stop interjecting your version of your interpretation of morality into what I explicitly write, you'll never fucking get it.

But I operate under the assumption that understanding isn't your goal, you dishonest prick.

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
01-07-2015, 02:17 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 01:42 PM)Stevil 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).
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.

But one other piece I want to be explicit about, the notion that the self can't benefit when the society benefits is an example of how you oversimplify what I say. The self can benefit when the society benefits, but the society can't always benefit when the individual does (like economic policies that favor the 1%)

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, 02:24 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 02:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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?

It's not a merely, to avoid the ought problems, it's because I don't think there is one. That would exist if I thought there was any absolute or higher essence of morality out there. I don't believe the thing actually exists, that's why I "avoid it"

I would say peoples beliefs about morality and the basis formed by our human Mammalian evolutionary factors is what creates morality. I guess sure I'm merely staying something descriptive in that essence

"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
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
01-07-2015, 02:25 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 02:12 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But I operate under the assumption that understanding isn't your goal, you dishonest prick.

Yea, whatever. Judging that I have plenty of amiable relationships with folks here I disagree with constantly, I'll take your accusations of dishonesty with a grain of salt.

Come talk to me when you get rid of that chip off your shoulder.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 02:27 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 02:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 02:12 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But I operate under the assumption that understanding isn't your goal, you dishonest prick.

Yea, whatever. Judging that I have plenty of amiable relationships with folks here I disagree with constantly, I'll take your accusations of dishonesty with a grain of salt.

Come talk to me when you get rid of that chip off your shoulder.

Go fuck yourself you dishonest shithead

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, 02:31 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 02:24 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's not a merely, to avoid the ought problems, it's because I don't think there is one. That would exist if I thought there was any absolute or higher essence of morality out there. I don't believe the thing actually exists, that's why I "avoid it"

I would say peoples beliefs about morality and the basis formed by our human Mammalian evolutionary factors is what creates morality. I guess sure I'm merely staying something descriptive in that essence

From what I can gather about your view, particularly when you implied, that you don't generally use the term immoral, or moral because it's silly, is that in your view rather than rendering it entirely meaningless when people claim something is moral or immoral, you try and peel it away to understand what they mean by it. If it's some appeal to tradition, if they are saying something is harmful to society, etc....? And then deciding if you agree with their sentiment or not.

My question would be why do you find it silly to use such terms, but yet don't think it's silly for others to use them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 02:41 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 02:27 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Go fuck yourself you dishonest shithead

You really are one nasty son of a bitch aren't you? I'm not sure how to take much of any of your responses, other than as a pathetic attempt to troll.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2015, 02:44 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 02:31 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 02:24 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's not a merely, to avoid the ought problems, it's because I don't think there is one. That would exist if I thought there was any absolute or higher essence of morality out there. I don't believe the thing actually exists, that's why I "avoid it"

I would say peoples beliefs about morality and the basis formed by our human Mammalian evolutionary factors is what creates morality. I guess sure I'm merely staying something descriptive in that essence

From what I can gather about your view, particularly when you implied, that you don't generally use the term immoral, or moral because it's silly, is that in your view rather than rendering it entirely meaningless when people claim something is moral or immoral, you try and peel it away to understand what they mean by it. If it's some appeal to tradition, if they are saying something is harmful to society, etc....? And then deciding if you agree with their sentiment or not.

My question would be why do you find it silly to use such terms, but yet don't think it's silly for others to use them?

Oh I do think it's silly for them to use them. It's not like they're not going to stop using them though but I also think just because they use them, doesn't mean they believe in an aboslute morality.

I think that's the issue that's what motivated the OP. Hearing that and being annoyed. If it's a general population of people saying it, sure they could mean it they could also have that loose liberally moral relativist position. Though it could be people of an atheist, none absolute moral degree who just say it when they don't mean the strongest implication of what they say. That's just how people communicate constantly. Like saying that movie sucks, when they don't like that movie. I'll give you a tinge of credit that there's some element to the similar to "musical taste" case you kept making in the past. It's just got some other value system elements that makes it different in my view.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
01-07-2015, 02:51 PM
Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-07-2015 02:41 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(01-07-2015 02:27 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Go fuck yourself you dishonest shithead

You really are one nasty son of a bitch aren't you? I'm not sure how to take much of any of your responses, other than as a pathetic attempt to troll.

I've said it before, insult me but don't insult my mother, asshole.

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: