Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-07-2015, 05:27 PM (This post was last modified: 06-07-2015 06:58 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(05-07-2015 01:52 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You are not actually correct in your assessment of moral nihilists.

I wasn’t providing an assessment of moral nihilist. Though some nihilist might subscribe to the views I highlighted of morality being an illusion. I don’t think they are faithful to your own views, which tends to be too noncommittal to be interesting, that you tend to express you disbeliefs, rather than offering anything to consider believing.

Quote:It seems you want answer, regardless whether that answer is "here is the proof" or "I believe this to be the case”

Pointing out that a one way conversation is uninteresting, is not the same as suggesting that I want answers. A conversation without interesting counterpoints gets boring real quick. I’m not looking for answers as much as I’m looking for something interesting. As I commonly repeat here, I care little about what you don’t believe in, the only interesting thing is what people do believe in for me.

Quote:People often have strong moral convictions however people's moral convictions often differ from each other and there is no way to discover whose moral conviction is correct.
People whom believe in morality often point to their religious text or point to a "moral sense". But none of these people can substantiate why they think their religious text or moral sense is correct.

How often do you confront people’s strong moral convictions? Is it primarily among strangers on the internet? With your family and friends? I think you’d have a false sense of moral confrontations if you imagine these sort of discussions we have to be analogous of them. If there’s a particular area in a man’s life in which he’s most prone to delusions, it’s in the realm or morality. We’re self-justifying creatures, more prone to preserve ourself with lies, than expose our vulnerabilities by confessing our moral transgressions. A parent who abuses his child, might justify his actions as saying they were for his own good, for the “well-being of the child, so he grows to be strong”, and he may even take this lie to his grave believing it were the truth, concealing that his abuse was a product of his own resentments, that his child was a scapegoat for.

While there may be a great deal of confusion as to what our best political choices should be, what laws we should support, or oppose, how should we handle ourselves in our larger societies, or what the consequences of some of our choices should be. I think the world of morality is much more intimate and smaller than that, and in reality involves our everyday interactions with the people in our lives, than the theoretical ones. While girlyman may be an amoralist, I think when he says he desires to be a good father, or a good person, that’s there’s something universal in what he means by good. That no one is particularly confused by the meaning of a good friend, or a good mother and father, even if we might not see ourselves as any of these things. Everyone seems able to recognize that there’s some good in kindness and love, which is not present in hatred and cruelty. The confusion here is when we conceal our hatred and cruelty, our resentments, and parade them as justice, as kindness, and love. That confusion is the facade.

But you being who you are, will doubt all of this of course, not finding a suggestion of what happens in the minds of others as convincing, while at the same time not offering a counterpoint, just reiterating you disbelief.


“As reliable employment as overseeing is, it is no easy chore on the spirit. I say, no man of conscious can take the lash to another human day in, day out without shredding at his own self. Takes him to a place where he either makes excuses within his mind to be unaffected, or he finds some way to trample his guilty sensations. So, I trampled. With frequency.”

Either you imagine what is expressed here is true, or it remains in some unfamiliar space, as if the quote were mere gibberish, that all your responses would amount to is that repeated refrain: “I lack belief”
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Tomasia's post
05-07-2015, 06:53 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(05-07-2015 05:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...that you tend to express you disbeliefs, rather than offering anything to consider believing.
I guess what I am offering is for you to question what morality is, to define what it is in a coherent manner. To apply that definition to various situations and see if it gets you anywhere. See if you can come up with something that is more tangible or testable.
"offering anything to consider believing"
If you must believe in something, I am attempting to get you to consider that morality is unnecessary to explain our experiences and observations in the world, and unnecessary in order to have a safe and thriving society to participate within.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
05-07-2015, 09:03 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(05-07-2015 04:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-07-2015 01:46 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Nice choice of article ... to shoot down your own position.

Huh

That's why i chose it. If there was an interesting competing position for me, it would be molded along that vein.

Quote:For reference, please provide a citation regarding Dennett's assertion that morality is an illusion. Thanks.

"Daniel Dennett took a different view. While it is true that materialism tells us a human being is nothing more than a “moist robot”—a phrase Dennett took from a Dilbert comic—we run a risk when we let this cat, or robot, out of the bag. If we repeatedly tell folks that their sense of free will or belief in objective morality is essentially an illusion, such knowledge has the potential to undermine civilization itself, Dennett believes. Civil order requires the general acceptance of personal responsibility, which is closely linked to the notion of free will. Better, said Dennett, if the public were told that “for general purposes” the self and free will and objective morality do indeed exist—that colors and sounds exist, too—“just not in the way they think.” They “exist in a special way,” which is to say, ultimately, not at all. "

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/h...tml?page=2

Cool. Thanks. Use of the conditional ... duly noted.

Yes, I watched that 'naturalism' workshop. All three days of it.

The Lady Chatterley's Lover gambit - it's a slight over-statement of Dennett's position but I can understand why it's a bone of contention.

Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2015, 09:11 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(05-07-2015 04:48 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(05-07-2015 03:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, it is natural. It is a man-made construct.

Dafuq that mean? I thought artificial iff man-made, like by definition. Hobo

1. Humans orchestrate artificial selection.
2. Humans have evolved through natural processes.
C. Artificial selection = natural selection.

Simple.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
06-07-2015, 05:15 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(05-07-2015 03:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-07-2015 03:50 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  An artificial construct?

No, it is natural. It is a man-made construct.

Morality evolved, it is a natural product of man's evolution. If anything, it is part of our extended phenotype.

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
06-07-2015, 06:51 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(05-07-2015 06:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I guess what I am offering is for you to question what morality is, to define what it is in a coherent manner. To apply that definition to various situations and see if it gets you anywhere. See if you can come up with something that is more tangible or testable.

Uhm, I think your question would be better suited for a consequentialist, my view are more inlined with virtue ethics. And a part of my religious beliefs. And I think we've had this discussion before as well.

I also think that you and I are operating or two different questions here. I'm interested in real world morality, how we perceive right and wrong in our most immediate interactions. People don't tend to present their moral views as subjective, they express them in ways that preserve components of duty and obligations, oughts, present them as if they are making objective statements. These perceptions are complex, and often contradictory. General Lee can have slaves, and treat them badly, and fight to preserve the institution of slavery, yet see slavery as a great evil? How would we explain how that perceptions of evil formed in him?

Recently I was reading an account of one of the little girls involved in the slender man stabbings, who said that the good side of her wanted the girl she stabbed to live, while the bad side of her wanted her to die. What leads her to label the side that wanted her to live as Good, and the one that wanted her to die as Bad. What is it that doesn't allow it to be the other way around?

In reality most people go their entire lives without anyone or anything explicitly defining what good is, yet they know that things like kindness, honesty, courage, love, justice, mercy, selflessness etc.. are good things, while cruelty, hatred, selfishness, etc are not. No child is particularly confused when he watches a cartoon who the villain is, or who the good guys are. They don't need their parents to make that distinction for them. What is the root of these distinctions? If we are assuming a naturalistic explanation, a non-teleological explanations, what's the best one we can offer?

These are not your questions of course. And you likely wouldn't have the slightest clue as to how to begin to answer them, since you don't seem to share the same curiosity or interest here as I do. All you'll likely repeat is how you lack a belief.

Quote:If you must believe in something, I am attempting to get you to consider that morality is unnecessary to explain our experiences and observations in the world, and unnecessary in order to have a safe and thriving society to participate within.

Uhm, "morality", good and bad, are a part of our experiences and observations in the world, so how do we explain these experience and observations, how they developed, why we see them as objective, and reject claims that reduce them to personal preferences?

You can say we can do away with all these distinctions, and we'll just be fine. Maybe that's even true, though I don't think your particularly enlightened here on the subject as you imagine, but nonetheless, that doesn't really concern me as much, as to what lays at the root of these distinctions, particularly what's the best non-teleological, non-theistic, natural explanations we can offer here. All I ever get are answers that ignore the question entirely.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2015, 08:01 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
This conversation reminds me of a quip I made at a Univ. of Kansas student's houseparty:

"Great. Now that you Philosophy Majors have hashed THAT out, who's gonna make my coffee?"

"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
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
06-07-2015, 10:20 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(06-07-2015 08:01 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  This conversation reminds me of a quip I made at a Univ. of Kansas student's houseparty:

"Great. Now that you Philosophy Majors have hashed THAT out, who's gonna make my coffee?"

Coffee is immoral.

Angel

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2015, 02:00 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(06-07-2015 06:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  People don't tend to present their moral views as subjective, they express them in ways that preserve components of duty and obligations, oughts, present them as if they are making objective statements.
Agreed.

(06-07-2015 06:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  These perceptions are complex
Not really, they are actually quite simple.
If a person doesn't like something they proclaim it immoral.

(06-07-2015 06:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  , and often contradictory.
They avoid being contradictory by avoiding to sufficiently define morality. They leave definitions wide open for personal interpretation so that they can make a claim and not have some "smart" arse show them how they are contradicting their own definitions.

(06-07-2015 06:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What leads her to label the side that wanted her to live as Good, and the one that wanted her to die as Bad. What is it that doesn't allow it to be the other way around?
Simple - English language and a lifetime of conditioning.


(06-07-2015 06:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In reality most people go their entire lives without anyone or anything explicitly defining what good is,
People don't live in a cave.
Santa gives presents to good boys and girls. Most kids shows have good guys and bad guys. Most action movies have good guys and bad guys.


(06-07-2015 06:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No child is particularly confused when he watches a cartoon who the villain is, or who the good guys are.
Yep, the bad guy is the person with the rough voice the dark clothes and the black hat. They ugly black or mexican or russian or the arab with the bushy beard, the witch that eats little children, the one with the cackle laugh. The good guys are the good looking ones, the white american with the sparkly teeth.
Anyone who competes against the person that the show focuses on as the hero is the villian, the bad guy.

(06-07-2015 06:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What is the root of these distinctions?
Stereo typing.
Commercialism.
The child's mind is easy to convince and is susceptible to black and white thinking.

(06-07-2015 06:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If we are assuming a naturalistic explanation, a non-teleological explanations, what's the best one we can offer?
People want to survive. People like being given stuff and like being treated in a friendly way. They don't like being punched or laughed at and when they watch tv they put themselves in the shoes of the "hero" any one that is mean to the hero is perceived as being a meanie. This isn't rocket science Tomasia, there is no wonder and awe regarding how to people know who is the "bad" person.

(06-07-2015 06:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  since you don't seem to share the same curiosity or interest here as I do.
I am curious as to why people believe in morality when it most likely doesn't exist. I suspect that people just make big assumptions and are conditioned into it.

(06-07-2015 06:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Uhm, "morality", good and bad, are a part of our experiences and observations in the world, so how do we explain these experience and observations, how they developed, why we see them as objective, and reject claims that reduce them to personal preferences?
I consider them to be personal preferences, unnecessary beliefs etc.
Why do you believe in good and bad? Because you are a Christian and that is how you are taught to believe.
Why do others believe, perhaps religion, perhaps conditioning, I would imagine that their are many ways and they are different for each person.

(06-07-2015 06:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't think your particularly enlightened here on the subject as you imagine
I've never said that I am enlightened. Where do you get that from.
I'm just asking the question "Is morality really a thing?"
Most other people assume it is and skip past that question.

This doesn't mean that I am enlightened, it just means I am not willing to make that assumption.


(06-07-2015 06:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  what's the best non-teleological, non-theistic, natural explanations we can offer here. All I ever get are answers that ignore the question entirely.
Conflation of survival with the concept of morality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2015, 02:18 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(06-07-2015 02:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  ...
If a person doesn't like something they proclaim it immoral.
...

Exactly. I don't like coffee. Therefore coffee is immoral. Therefore I must campaign to outlaw this evil.

Unsure

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: