Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-07-2015, 01:56 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 01:04 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 12:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Stevil, didn't seem to have an issue with the question at all.

Because he doesn't care what you think or others think.
It's because I respect that you are allowed to think differently to me.
I'm not going to get angry if your opinion differs to mine.
I'm not going to get angry if you don't have the same knowledge about evolution as I do.
I'm not going to get angry if you disagree with evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
14-07-2015, 02:01 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 01:53 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I don't have beliefs BTW, I'm merely asking questions, challenging the moral beliefs of others.

Uhm, you believe that perceptions of right and wrong are a product of social conditioning. Are you suggesting now, that you don't believe this?

I'm also curious if there is any scientific studies, or research that informs your views of morality? Or if your views are primarily derived from your own evaluations?

Quote:It would seem odd to call an atheist who lives in a highly religious country a contrarian merely because they are atheist.

I think your contrarianism extends well beyond your atheism. That you have the tendency to be on the other end of the moral argument even amongst other atheists, not just theists. This is not a bad thing of course.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2015, 02:24 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 02:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Uhm, you believe that perceptions of right and wrong are a product of social conditioning.
They are likely a product of social conditioning.
We can see social conditioning everywhere, so it is in the mix. I don't know if other things are also in the mix. I'm open to the suggestion but would like to see some supporting evidence for any potential explaination.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
14-07-2015, 02:26 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 02:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm also curious if there is any scientific studies, or research that informs your views of morality? Or if your views are primarily derived from your own evaluations?
my position is that of disbelief. How can we prove a negative? What evidence is there for no god, or no morality , or no fairies.

We have looked but couldn't find it isn't evidence of absence.

I put the proof of burdon onto the claim.
The claim is "that morality exists, that moral sense exists..."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
14-07-2015, 04:16 PM (This post was last modified: 14-07-2015 04:40 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 02:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 02:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Uhm, you believe that perceptions of right and wrong are a product of social conditioning.
They are likely a product of social conditioning.

You mean you believe they are likely a product of social conditioning.

Quote:We can see social conditioning everywhere, so it is in the mix.

We also see evidence of non-social conditioning everywhere. Empathy, imagining ourselves in another person shoes is not a product of social conditioning, or dependent on it, while you believe that certain beliefs, certain perceptions of wrong, are not likely to arise from this innate capacity to empathize, and are better accounted for by social conditioning.

These are all beliefs of yours, even if you want to just present it as things you believe are more likely than not.

Quote:I don't know if other things are also in the mix. I'm open to the suggestion but would like to see some supporting evidence for any potential explaination.

I'm open to suggestions as well as to the accuracy of your beliefs here, particularly in supporting evidence, which I don't think you've provided at any point. And I think your views are more dependent on a denial, and discrediting of the various research into morality, than I am. It's more problematic for your to accept the conclusion of the psychologist observing intuitive moral perceptions in children, than it is for me, or even other atheists besides yourself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2015, 05:21 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 01:27 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
stevil, tear, and Matt, vs everyone else.
...

This, to me, is a revealing statement.

I think you've missed something.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
14-07-2015, 05:31 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 04:16 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 02:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  They are likely a product of social conditioning.

You mean you believe they are likely a product of social conditioning.
Honestly Tomasia, we have been down this path so many times.
If your intent is to try to understand others then don't try so hard to apply your own preconceptions. Don't try to make every position one of belief.

Belief is a close minded position. It is one where you recognise multiple plausible explanations but choose to wave your hand at all but one.

My position is that I can see social conditioning in play, so I accept that as one possible explanation. I also see our intelligence as a way for us to foresee the need for certain rules to ensure we can play together without endangering each other and destabilising the society within which we interact, so this is another explaination, neither of these contradict each other so they might both be in play. I am also open to other explainations. I have heard in this thread two other explanations. one being an imprinted heart from an invisible god, another being a moral sense built into our evolved DNA. I haven't seen any evidence in support of these two options so I currently lack a belief in them, however if you would care to provide some evidence then I would be happy to take a look at the evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2015, 05:50 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 04:16 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And I think your views are more dependent on a denial, and discrediting of the various research into morality, than I am. It's more problematic for your to accept the conclusion of the psychologist observing intuitive moral perceptions in children, than it is for me, or even other atheists besides yourself.
I'd be interested if the research came to some valid conclusions but it doesn't.
I've pointed out its significant flaws.
For some reason you ignore my stated objections.

It seems you think the research that you referenced is valid and solid, and indisputably proves that morals exist and that intuitive moral perceptions exist and are reliable in discovery of morals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2015, 06:02 PM (This post was last modified: 14-07-2015 08:27 PM by Matt Finney.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(13-07-2015 08:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, when it comes to disgust, which is common among adults, it's fairly absent in young children. “Young children will put almost anything into their mouths, including feces” (Haidt). Children perceiving it wrong to hurt others, is not particularly a matter of disgust. If we were to reduce the perception along the lines of Haidt’s moral foundation theory, it would likely fall under “care/harm, fairness/cheating foundations more so than arising out of disgust.

To reduce this perception as a matter of socially engineered repulsion, would be empirically false, in my view.

It ultimately reduces to either nature (biology), nurture (social conditioning), or god (I don't believe in god, but I'll give you that option), or some combination of those. I don't claim knowledge, but if I had to guess, I would say it is a combination of nature and nurture.

What is your guess?

(13-07-2015 08:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If someone harms my child, no social or cultural influence needs to be there, for me to be bothered by it, so why imagine that when this perceptions gets extended to others, including strangers, that it’s a matter of cultural influence? I think yours and stevil views are more dependent on confirmation bias, than you might care to admit.

Caring for young is simply a trait that mammals have. I don't find any great mystery there.

(13-07-2015 08:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I also don’t think your answers is really reflecting on the reasons in which you’re averse to your daughter dating a man who tortures animals just for fun, as opposed to a man who eats meat. If you daughter dated a man from a different cultural in which it was acceptable to eat monkeys, or worms, or snakes, you might be repulsed by his dietary habits, while not be particularly averse to your daughter dating such a man. Where as if the man tortured animals just for fun, you would likely be quite averse to this, for reasons that are not entirely reducible to a matter of disgust. There’s something about the character of a man who tortures animals just for fun, which is not particularly there for a man who merely eats animals one’s culture is disgusted at the thought of eating.

Nobody needs to eat meat.

The reason we eat meat is basically for fun. Americans who eat meat, torture animals for fun.





(13-07-2015 08:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  While there might not be any real rational basis for why we avoid eating certain animals, other than merely disgust. I think there is quite a good deal of intuitive knowledge in place when we’re averse to our daughter dating men who torture animals just for fun, just like if the man were a repeated rapist, or had a violent history with women. We perceive something likely to be harmful in her relationship with such a man, something depraved being brought into it, by a man who derives pleasure from the act of torturing other animals.

It's very well explained by evolution why we would want our offspring to find caring mates rather than psychopaths/sociopaths. Again, just nature and nurture, unless you want to add god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 06:15 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 05:31 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Honestly Tomasia, we have been down this path so many times.
If your intent is to try to understand others then don't try so hard to apply your own preconceptions. Don't try to make every position one of belief.

Belief is a close minded position. It is one where you recognise multiple plausible explanations but choose to wave your hand at all but one.

A belief implies none of these things. You can recognize multiple plausible, or not so plausible explanations and yet believe one is more likely than the other. You can hold a belief, and be open minded about the potential of this belief being wrong.

When you say: “They are likely a product of social conditioning.” You are expressing a belief, it might not be one you feel over confident about, and one in which your fairly open to being wrong, but it’s a belief nonetheless. It’s clearly not a lack of belief.

Quote:My position is that I can see social conditioning in play, so I accept that as one possible explanation.

Uhm, you see social conditioning and non-social conditioning in play. Empathy is not something you see as a product of social conditioning, but built into our DNA.

You believe that certain perceptions of right and wrong as more likely to be product of social conditioning, rather than stemming from empathy, our ability to imagine ourselves in another persons shoes. You don’t like a belief here, you favor one belief over the other.

If you stated you didn’t know, are not sure one way or the other which is more likely here, then perhaps you can say you lack a belief, but this is not the case at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: