Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-07-2015, 03:09 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(06-07-2015 02:18 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(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
I don't drink coffee so I'm not going to label you as evil. You're neither good nor bad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2015, 03:22 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(06-07-2015 03:09 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(06-07-2015 02:18 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Exactly. I don't like coffee. Therefore coffee is immoral. Therefore I must campaign to outlaw this evil.

Unsure
I don't drink coffee so I'm not going to label you as evil. You're neither good nor bad.

So sayeth the man caling himself ... Saint-evil

Ohmy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2015, 05:05 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(06-07-2015 02:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The child's mind is easy to convince and is susceptible to black and white thinking.

Says the guy who only offers black and white thinking, lol. Case in point:

Quote:Not really, they are actually quite simple.
If a person doesn't like something they proclaim it immoral.

No it’s not actually quite simple, but if you were a slight bit more reflective, or even involved any of one of the few examples I highlighted, you’d probably see the answer to that question is not the simple at all. General Lee owned slaves, treated them poorly, even led the side to preserve the institution of it. Yet he still views slavery as a great evil. Claiming that it just him expressing what he doesn’t like, doesn’t address that complex dissonance present in the evil in which he perceives, and the actions and role he plays in all of it. If morality is self-serving, than seeing slavery as evil for him, is self-defeating.

What events, what history, what condition lead him to that perception?

Moving on to another case in point:

Quote:
(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.

The stabbing were committed by two twelve year old girls, so don’t think at 12 they had a lifetime of conditioning. And if she was conditioned apparently that conditioning failed, because she stabbed her victim multiple times. But here she is recognizing something in all of this, that desire for her to die, as the bad part of her, and the one that wanted her to live, as the good part of her. Whatever goes into that doesn’t seem to be the product of social conditioning, those distinctions are far more primordial than that, more instinctual, so easily relatable to us, and even too children.

Girlyman perception of what it means to be a Good father, is likely not so easily reducible to social conditioning. That a desire to be good is no less intrinsic, than a desire to survive, or to find meaning. We are no more socially condition to want to live, than we are in our desire to be good. If we are to find a compelling naturalistic explanation for all this, it wouldn’t be in your appeals to social conditioning, it would be one that recognizes it as a feature of our hardwiring, and perhaps good is an illusions brought along by it.

What’s interesting is that you continually try to present yourself as an outlier, and try and tell us that you have no desire to be good. Yet at the same time claim that children, and others are exposed to a lifetime of such conditioning, yet you somehow managed to escape it? Did you desire to be good at one point, and then just stop once you acquired your moral skepticism?

Quote:People don't live in a cave.

Yet, you are asking questions if you were a man living in a cave. Acting bewildered by the meaning of good, or what it implies. You claim that people don’t live in caves, that they're exposed to a lifetime of conditioning, that makes them well aware of what goodness implies, yet you repeat that you’re bewildered by it’s meaning, on numerous occasions.

If you’re not bewildered, don’t live in a cave, and have been exposed to a lifetime worth of conditioning, so what does good mean, what does it imply? You should know right?

Quote: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.

As if, we were to change the ethnicity, clothing, and tone of voice, and leaving everything else the same, their heros would become villains and the villains hero. I think not. It’s interesting that you ignored all the character virtues the define the hero, and the vices that are characteristic of villains. In an alternative history, alternative narratives, it’s these same virtues being embodied by the reversal of roles than anything else.

Quote: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.

Your assessments of people, is perhaps as astute as Donald Trumps assessments of Mexicans. Man is not a figure that merely seeks to survive, or get stuff. Every gifted novelist, any man in touch with humanity, with real people, and their struggles, knows that. Only men in caves can reduce them the way you do.

Quote:Why do you believe in good and bad? Because you are a Christian and that is how you are taught to believe.

I share much of the same moral senses as everybody else, christians, non-christians, hindu, muslim, american, non-american, atheists, etc… Which shouldn’t be surprising since I didn’t live in a cave, and was exposed to the same things as everyone else, as you would put it. In fact my childhood christian influence was sabotaged by a variety of factors, a language and cultural barrier, that made Sunday service a matter of napping and drawing in my notebooks, or playing with my cousin while the service was underway.

Quote:I've never said that I am enlightened. Where do you get that from.

Probably from the confidence you attach to your explanations, “oh it’s so simple”. But what you don’t recognize that your responses are what are simplistic, lacking a sense of insight, or reflection, produced by means of scratchings one’s ass. It’s why it’s so easy to parody every line of your reasoning, as I do here on numerous occasions, producing the same faithful responses that you do.

The only difference is that I recognize my farce, while you imagine yours as true. It’s a good tool to uncover the contradictions of moral subjectivism, but a poor explanation for those attempting to understand the makeup of our moral perceptions, of what goes into them, what leads these perceptions to take on the forms and distinctions, the sort of innateness of them, our perceptions of moral obligations, that layer of objectivity those perceptions accumulate, our desire to be good. Or why a man of conscious shreds at his own self, when slashing another human being day in and day out. Why he must “makes excuses within his mind to be unaffected, or he finds some way to trample his guilty sensations.” Your views and beliefs have no particular means of accounting for all this, primarily because they seem so out of touch with the moral lives of people, they could only be suggested if one lived in a cave. Only cave people could think they offer something substantive.

While the atheists here may not be able to produce coherent objections, to your premises, or articulate quite whats wrong with them, they at least recognize the crude simplicity of it all. That’s perhaps the area nihilist such as yourself and other would have to work on, to be taken as if you have something serious to say.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2015, 08:29 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
One very simple question for tomasia, or anyone else who'd like to take a stab.

Why is slavery for horses ok, while slavery for humans is not? If not subjective preference, then what?

At least attempt to answer before rejecting nihilism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2015, 08:49 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(06-07-2015 05:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It’s why it’s so easy to parody every line of your reasoning, as I do here on numerous occasions, producing the same faithful responses that you do.
You parody because you don't understand. You refuse to understand, you over complicate things because you make some assumptions (in support of your worldview and in support of your belief in moral virtues). Then you must come up with complex and unsupported stories in support of your worldview. But at no point do you come up with a clear definition that you can test or verify.

This is why religion is so complex, built upon nothing but assumptions and requiring further and further complex notions to attempt to make it work.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
06-07-2015, 10:59 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(06-07-2015 05:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yet, you are asking questions if you were a man living in a cave. Acting bewildered by the meaning of good, or what it implies.
I just want you to provide a coherent definition.

Something written down that we can refer to in order to resolve any disputes as to whether something is good or not.

Without the definition, you putting the label "good" onto something is just your own personal opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2015, 11:53 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(06-07-2015 08:29 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  One very simple question for tomasia, or anyone else who'd like to take a stab.

Why is slavery for horses ok, while slavery for humans is not? If not subjective preference, then what?

At least attempt to answer before rejecting nihilism.

I guess you are not asking me, right?

Otherwise, you would have answered my response in post #659.

I am disappoint.

Sadcryface2

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2015, 03:34 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(06-07-2015 05:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  but a poor explanation for those attempting to understand the makeup of our moral perceptions, of what goes into them, what leads these perceptions to take on the forms and distinctions, the sort of innateness of them, our perceptions of moral obligations, that layer of objectivity those perceptions accumulate, our desire to be good.
You do not need to invoke a magical god with magic rules imprinted onto the hearts of humans, you do not need to invoke an evolved (but thus far undiscovered) evolutionary moral sense in order to explain human behavior.

These wild speculations are unnecessary.

It is easy (although apparently too simple in your mind) to see that parents use the "good" meme to incite their kids to behave a certain way. If you are a good girl you get to eat ice cream etc. They keep it simple so that children can understand. They use the terms "good" and "bad". They encourage and reward "good" behavior and punish "bad" behavior.
Why don't they want their children to be "bad" you say? Surely there must be a god that has imprinted this onto them. Well this is a childish way to think of it.

Parent's don't want their kids to throw food on the carpet because they don't want to spend the time cleaning the carpet. They don't want their kid to draw on the walls, they don't want their kids biting each other. No god is necessary to understand why a parent doesn't want these things.

As adults why don't we go around killing and raping each other, surely this is evidence that a loving and magical god has gifted us with knowledge that these things are wrong, otherwise we wouldn't know any better. Again a very childish explanation.

We don't kill and rape each other because we would then show everyone that we are dangerous and then others would retaliate on us, not because we are immoral, but because we are dangerous.

So then, why don't we steal? Surely it is because god, blah, blah, blah. But actually, our possessions are valuable, they are our food, our clothes, our shelter, they are our assets which can be turned into food, clothes or shelter. Our lives depend on us being able to keep our property. If people steal our stuff we then need to remove those people in order to protect our stuff. No god needed, no unwritten tacit agreement, no evolved innate moral sense required to explain this.

At what point do we need to invoke the necessity for a magical god as our source of morality, at what point do we need to invoke an unproven evolved moral sense? We don't. There is no argument from necessity that requires such things.

Many people, atheists included, really, really want morality to be something that exists. They feel they are good people, they feel they are fulfilling moral obligations and doing good for the world. This is the way they have been conditioned to think, they imagine they have a moral sense and many wonder where it comes from. This wondering, this feeling does not mean that a moral sense exists. But they just assume it exists because it is part of their personal experience. For them it is ridiculous to consider that morality and moral sense don't exist apart from being imagined in their heads. These people won't put an honest attempt at considering what the world would look like without morality. They imagine a strawman of anarchy and mayhem.

A statement of "X is wrong" is nonsensical because there is no stated goal. How can we assess X as wrong without knowing what it is that X is proposed as being wrong for?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2015, 03:43 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
Tomasia you've asked why I don't address your examples and questions.
While anecdotes may make profound sense to religious people whom hear these type of stories all the time in church, anecdotes are not of much value to a skeptic.

(06-07-2015 06:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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?
Evil doesn't exist. The General has a belief that it does exist. If you want to know how he came by that belief, you would need to discuss it with him. I have no interest in his beliefs.

(06-07-2015 06:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that our conditioning via TV programs is that it is bad to kill and good to save. FFS, I really don't know what point you are trying to make. You think she can't have come to that position unless an invisible magical god imprinted her with it? Really?!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
07-07-2015, 04:19 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(05-07-2015 11:19 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Is question:
Are symbiotic relationships more akin to contracts or to mutual enslavement?

I don't know.

(05-07-2015 11:19 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Is question:
Ought question:
Do you think that it is a worthwhile goal, to work towards building a society that embraces equality?

Yes, but no more worthwhile than to work towards a society that embraces inequality. (our current society seems to embrace wealth inequality, who am I to say that that's the wrong way to do it.) As long as I'm on the winning end, I tend to be more tolerable of inequality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: