Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-07-2015, 06:24 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(07-07-2015 06:18 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(07-07-2015 06:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  That may be the first sensible thing you have ever posted here. Well done.

Then why do you guys keep using that fallacy? Huh

Nobody has but you in this thread. This isn't some topic using morality to prove evolution or proof god.

It's arguing about morality itself and what it means beyond some manner of how people talk about it and use it in a poor context. About the topic of what is what we claim moral values or moral sense is... Or is it even a thing that exists in any form? Or just not in a normative absolute form but only a social form. These posts you're jumping on against are not on some argument on how they come about proofing anything else.

"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
07-07-2015, 06:37 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(07-07-2015 06:18 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(07-07-2015 04:19 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I don't know.


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.

Fascinating.

[Image: mr-spock-fascinating-o.gif]

I don't think equality will ever exist on a global scale, and I don't think anybody really wants it either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2015, 06:49 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(07-07-2015 06:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-07-2015 05:29 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  My name is chas. I have nothing to offer in the discussion, so I'm simply going to claim intellectual superiority.

No, i am offering an evolutionary basis for morality which you are too fucking ignorant to understand. Read a book. Drinking Beverage

I can easily see how evolution causes altruism and empathy, and how these things can be beneficial to the survival of a society, but fail to see how that's incompatible with moral nihilism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2015, 07:04 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(07-07-2015 06:18 AM)diddo97 Wrote:  
(07-07-2015 06:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  That may be the first sensible thing you have ever posted here. Well done.

Then why do you guys keep using that fallacy? Huh

When have I? 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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-07-2015, 07:06 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(07-07-2015 06:49 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(07-07-2015 06:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, i am offering an evolutionary basis for morality which you are too fucking ignorant to understand. Read a book. Drinking Beverage

I can easily see how evolution causes altruism and empathy, and how these things can be beneficial to the survival of a society, but fail to see how that's incompatible with moral nihilism.

It's not.

It's just doesn't really make sense for someone to understand that but claim they don't think morality exists. That is to say, Morality of all contexts and not just a specific one.

To say that and say I don't believe in nominative morality at all, sure that's fine. But simply saying morality isn't merely that in discussion when you are talking about social implications and impacts based on humans moral senses is silly. You are talking about the total meaning. The thread has never been one sided to only bickering against absolute moral/black&White ways because it's about questioning how people talk and communicate. There still are plenty of atheists who don't believe in moral truths who will say things like in a gay rights conversation about denial of equality being wrong... It doesn't always mean they think there is a definitive wrong, people communicate in fluctuated thoughts and sometimes being firm and rigid makes a point come across better to the opposition.

"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
07-07-2015, 07:06 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(07-07-2015 06:49 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(07-07-2015 06:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, i am offering an evolutionary basis for morality which you are too fucking ignorant to understand. Read a book. Drinking Beverage

I can easily see how evolution causes altruism and empathy, and how these things can be beneficial to the survival of a society, but fail to see how that's incompatible with moral nihilism.

I never claimed it was incompatible - I have expressed no opinion on that; my point is that there is an actual basis for morality, that it is not woven from whole cloth.

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
07-07-2015, 07:09 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(07-07-2015 07:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  When have I? Consider


Indeed. I have never seen Chas use this argument..

MORALISTIC FALLACY
(also known as: moral fallacy)

Description: The assumption that what ought to be is what is -- that the undesirable opposes nature.

This is the opposite of the naturalistic fallacy.

Logical Form:

X ought to be wrong.
Therefore, X is wrong.
Example #1:

Adultery, as well as philandering, is wrong.
Therefore, we have no biological tendency for multiple sex partners.
Explanation: While, morally speaking, adultery and philandering may be wrong, this has no bearing on the biological aspect of the desire or need. In other words, what we shouldn’t do (according to moral norms), is not necessarily the same as what we are biologically influenced to do.

Example #2:

Being mean to others is wrong.
Therefore, it cannot possibly be part of our nature.
Explanation: While, morally speaking, being mean to others may be wrong, this has no bearing on the biological aspect of the desire or need. Again, what we shouldn’t do (according to moral norms), is not necessarily the same as what we are biologically influenced to do.

Exception: An argument can certainly be made that an ought is the same as an is, but it just cannot be assumed.


From here.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2015, 07:20 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
I've been on vacation for the last week and a half, and I hate typing on this damn phone. Will elaborate when I get home this evening.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2015, 08:21 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(06-07-2015 08:49 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.

Let's break down what I think you mean by this question. You're asking that morality be defined in such a way, that we can apply it to variety of different context, and situations, and by appealing to the criteria of this definition, be able to categorize certain things as good and bad? Sam Harris seems to be interested in that enterprise. Maybe he'll even succeed in this endeavor, by creating a measurable criteria, a threshold in which something would qualify as predefined notion of Good, and Bad. And maybe we'd even be able to see what items fall under these different labels, meet or don't mean this predefined criteria. That seems to be what you’re looking for, but an enterprise which I’m not interested in, and which I think in the end is pointless, and completely out of sync with everyday moral conceptions and struggles of people. These everyday questions of morality, are not dependent on explicit knowledge of what good and bad means, are not issues of taxonomy. A child can recognize that there is something “wrong” in treating someone in a way they would not want to be treated, without knowing what “wrong” means is some broad context. Just like people can recognize there’s something wrong “with torturing babies just for fun”, without being able to articulate or be entirely cognizant of the factors and components of what “wrong” means here.

While the question that might interest you is the theoretical and philosophical structure to frame moral questions, the question that interest me, are ones of the everyday reality, the perceptions of morality of everyday people, what forms them. If one says social conditions, that I’d want to know more about what you think those are, if that is in fact an adequate explanations. If one says evolutionary factors, the same inquiry applies. What’s the best natural explanation or understanding for all this, in contrast to a teleological view. If you don’t understand the disinfection between the questions you have in mind, and the ones I do, you’re likely to continually ask me questions that are not relevant, or not of my interests. My interest is the genealogical question here.

When someone expresses their view of morality, the first question I ask, is how do these views align with those seemingly intuitive perceptions of people. When those views are entirely disjointed from the manifest image, or don’t particularly account it, you’re dealing with the views that are likely to be hodgepodge. If you can’t see why this is an important starting point for any explanation of morality, or even any philosophical or theoretical moral construction one desires to create, that is part of your problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-07-2015, 09:10 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(07-07-2015 07:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  ...
my point is that there is an actual basis for morality, that it is not woven from whole cloth.

[Image: astronomy-was-born-of-superstition-eloqu...usseau.jpg]

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