Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-07-2015, 03:17 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(04-07-2015 07:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  I suggest you learn more about evolution.
It's hard to take you seriously. Through all the arrogance and douchery that exudes from you.

The silliness of insisting I learn more about evolution (although in principle it is a great topic and everyone could gain value from learning more about it) but no doubt the intent of your remark is as a put down.

The link you provided isn't really part of accepted evolutionary theory. It's highly speculative, unsupported guff.
Quote: Sociobiological explanations of human behavior are still controversial. The traditional view of social scientists has been that morality is a construct, and is thus culturally relative, although others argue that there is a science of morality.

And a link to Dawkins, is laughable, as great as the guy is with regards to evolution, he certainly isn't shy of going way off the plantation due to his motivation to replace religion, religion speaks of morality so Dawkins feels the need to stumble his way through it, speculating as he goes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2015, 03:47 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(04-07-2015 12:19 PM)tear151 Wrote:  Is stoning women to death for adultery in Saudi Arabia correct if that's what their moral sense tells them?

Meaningless question because it is grossly underspecified. Wrong to whom? Or are you implying there are moral absolutes? Consider

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
05-07-2015, 06:35 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(04-07-2015 03:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-07-2015 12:19 PM)tear151 Wrote:  Is stoning women to death for adultery in Saudi Arabia correct if that's what their moral sense tells them?

Meaningless question because it is grossly underspecified. Wrong to whom? Or are you implying there are moral absolutes? Consider

So it's right for them, and wrong for you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 06:44 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(04-07-2015 03:58 AM)Stevil Wrote:  It seems your idea of "moral sense" is somewhat similar to Tomasia's. He also thinks that human's have a moral sense. Perhaps he is aligned with many other Christians whom believe that we have morality imprinted on our (metaphorical) hearts.

You're right. I do think human's have a moral sense, that the moral law is written with their (metaphorical) hearts. That even though you act is if you don't know what Good means, in reality your perhaps not as confused as you let on, that you know what being a good person is, what being a good father is. That kindness is a character of goodness, while wanton cruelty is not, etc.. That man has a sense of fairness, a sense of justice, even if they are not particularly fair or just.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 08:02 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(05-07-2015 06:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You're right. I do think human's have a moral sense, that the moral law is written with their (metaphorical) hearts. That even though you act is if you don't know what Good means, in reality your perhaps not as confused as you let on, that you know what being a good person is, what being a good father is. That kindness is a character of goodness, while wanton cruelty is not, etc.. That man has a sense of fairness, a sense of justice, even if they are not particularly fair or just.

Obviously I can't speak for stevil, but for myself, I don't feel any confusion at all. Nihilism frees you up to make your own path. In fact, I would say that you are confusing what you believe to be moral truth, with what in reality is nothing more than subjective preference.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 08:22 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(05-07-2015 06:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-07-2015 03:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  Meaningless question because it is grossly underspecified. Wrong to whom? Or are you implying there are moral absolutes? Consider

So it's right for them, and wrong for you?

Aren't you getting dizzy yet, going around in circles?

Blink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
05-07-2015, 08:32 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(05-07-2015 08:02 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Obviously I can't speak for stevil, but for myself, I don't feel any confusion at all. Nihilism frees you up to make your own path. In fact, I would say that you are confusing what you believe to be moral truth, with what in reality is nothing more than subjective preference.

I think to summarize morality as subjective preference, offers no real account of moral sensibilities at all. If it was a matter of preference why does a man like Robert E. Lee who led the confederate army, view slavery as evil? Why would a man like Aquinas who also supported slavery in his time, view it as not part of the original order?

Clearly there's something more operating here than preference. What is it that's giving light to these perceptions, that's contrary to the very acts they justify, or even being fought for?

The only interesting response by atheists to the reality of our moral perceptions is the claim that morality is an illusion. Yet, when someone does suggests that, it doesn't seem to be the case that they found this position persuasive, but as the result of their atheism, it just has to be an illusion. If a man came to me and told me my moral perceptions are an illusion, it's more than likely that whatever case he has for that is non-existent. All he would be telling me is that he's an atheists, and that morality can be nothing other than an illusion as a result.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 09:10 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
Why is it OK to have horses as slaves, but not people?

Would it be OK to have chimps as slaves? Why? Why not?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 09:36 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(05-07-2015 09:10 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Why is it OK to have horses as slaves, but not people?

Would it be OK to have chimps as slaves? Why? Why not?


To whom are these questions directed?

To Tommy? He's the only one who holds to intrinsic morality.

Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 09:57 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
Oh help, I've wandered into the Philosophy area...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKbP-M8vVtw

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: