Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-07-2015, 09:09 AM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2015 09:13 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 08:34 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Sure. I have no problems with someone not liking "x". It's when someone makes the claim, "I don't like x, therefore x is bad (wrong)." X can neither be good, nor bad. The good and bad can only take place in the brains of thinking things. When someone describes something as either good or bad, they are not actually describing the thing, but rather their perception/opinion of the thing, and therefore making a false claim.

Agree?

Let's go back to the example of living in place in which it's legally permissible to torture animals just for fun. Your teenage son tortures animals just for fun.

You already acknowledge that you're not okay with this. If you reprimanded your son for doing this, and he asked you what's the big deal? Would you respond by telling him, because you don't like it?

Then he responds with his taste in music, fashion choices that you don't like as well, yet you don't prohibit him from these choices, so why prohibit him when it comes to torturing animals just for fun?

What would your response be? Clearly you're attempting to state something prescriptive, an ought is being implied, and that you're not just merely stating that you just don't like it. You've attached implications that are not there, when you state a preference, like "I like the Beatles".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 09:27 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 09:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Let's go back to the example of living in place in which it's legally permissible to torture animals just for fun. Your teenage son tortures animals just for fun.

You already acknowledge that you're not okay with this. If you reprimanded your son for doing this, and he asked you what's the big deal? Would you respond by telling him, because you don't like it?

Yes, but I'm a weirdo nihilist.

(15-07-2015 09:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Then he responds with his taste in music, fashion choices that you don't like as well, yet you don't prohibit him from these choices, so why prohibit him when it comes to torturing animals just for fun?

What would your response be? Clearly you're attempting to state something prescriptive, an ought is being implied, and that you're not just merely stating that you just don't like it. You've attached implications that are not there, when you state a preference, like "I like the Beatles".

I'm wouldn't be implying an ought at all. I would only be clearly stating that so long as I'm making the rules, I get to make them at my own preference, as ALL PARENTS DO.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 09:38 AM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2015 09:55 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 09:27 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I'm wouldn't be implying an ought at all. I would only be clearly stating that so long as I'm making the rules, I get to make them at my own preference, as ALL PARENTS DO.

I don't think you'r being entirely forthcoming here, as to why are you making a rule in the first place? No rational basis whatsoever? There are variety of things in which you're likely quite averse to, various foods you'd be disgusted at the though of eating, but you don't particularly create rules on the basis of this, which are binding on your children.

Do you think your biologically programmed, to make these arbitrary rules as well? That you have no particular choice not to?

If i stated a preference, it's likely that I can trace or provide the reasons for why I like certain things and not other things, even if it goes all the way back to how my particular taste buds have been formed, and genetics and social factors. How do you trace the "rule" component here? Rather than just the distaste factor?

Quote:I'm wouldn't be implying an ought at all. I would only be clearly stating that so long as I'm making the rules.

But you're stating a rule. A rule implies an ought, just like laws do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 09:52 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 09:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't think you'r being entirely forthcoming here, as to why are you making a rule in the first place? No rational basis whatsoever? There are variety of things in which you're likely quite averse to, various foods you'd be disgusted at the though of eating, but you don't particularly create rules on the basis of this, which are binding on your children.

Do you think your biologically programmed, to make these arbitrary rules as well? That you have no particular choice not to?

As I've stated, I think our desires (preferences) come from a combination of our nature and nurture. I don't think we're really free to choose what we like/dislike. It's much more like discovering what you like/dislike than choosing. I believe that it is ultimately shaped from the interaction of our biology with it's environment. Every one has a different biology (genes) and a different environment, and hence everyone has different desires and preferences.

A child with a biological predisposition towards psychopathy, who is raised in an environment where that gene is fully expressed, might grow up to be a serial killer, but that doesn't tell us anything about right and wrong, or ought's.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 10:02 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 09:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 09:27 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  ]I'm wouldn't be implying an ought at all. I would only be clearly stating that so long as I'm making the rules.

But you stating a rule. A rule implies an ought, just like laws do.

People follow laws for 1 of 2 reasons.
1. to avoid punishment
2. because the law fits with desires/values the person has anyways

Same with rules. In my home state of Indiana for example, you can't purchase alcohol on Sundays. I would guess very few Hoosiers believe it wrong to purchase alcohol on Sundays, but follow the law to avoid punishment. Other laws, like "don't murder," "don't steal," etc., I admittedly follow also because it fits with my desires. Still doesn't imply ought's of any nature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 10:09 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 09:52 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 09:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't think you'r being entirely forthcoming here, as to why are you making a rule in the first place? No rational basis whatsoever? There are variety of things in which you're likely quite averse to, various foods you'd be disgusted at the though of eating, but you don't particularly create rules on the basis of this, which are binding on your children.

Do you think your biologically programmed, to make these arbitrary rules as well? That you have no particular choice not to?

As I've stated, I think our desires (preferences) come from a combination of our nature and nurture. I don't think we're really free to choose what we like/dislike. It's much more like discovering what you like/dislike than choosing. I believe that it is ultimately shaped from the interaction of our biology with it's environment. Every one has a different biology (genes) and a different environment, and hence everyone has different desires and preferences.

A child with a biological predisposition towards psychopathy, who is raised in an environment where that gene is fully expressed, might grow up to be a serial killer, but that doesn't tell us anything about right and wrong, or ought's.

So you desire for the "rule" has no rational grounding, but a product of nature, nurture factors which you can't override or negate?

You're sort of programmed by these factors to produce and impose such rules?

Notice we're not just speaking of purely chemicals sensations, that you underlies a particular aversion. But beliefs, promotions, rules we might impose that are based on them. It seems you see the "rule" you impose, arising from the chemical sensation as well?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 10:12 AM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2015 10:19 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 10:02 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 09:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But you stating a rule. A rule implies an ought, just like laws do.

People follow laws for 1 of 2 reasons.
1. to avoid punishment
2. because the law fits with desires/values the person has anyways

Same with rules. In my home state of Indiana for example, you can't purchase alcohol on Sundays. I would guess very few Hoosiers believe it wrong to purchase alcohol on Sundays, but follow the law to avoid punishment. Other laws, like "don't murder," "don't steal," etc., I admittedly follow also because it fits with my desires. Still doesn't imply ought's of any nature.

But for this question, it's not about following the rule. We're speaking about you being the one imposing the rule, creating the rule in the first place. In a situation in which there is no legal prohibition.

I guess you're suggesting that your desires and values are ones you impose on your children, and require them to embody as well, and in fact will enforce them to, if need be. And that the values you impose, are not one's you chose, but conditioned to cherish, and impose on them, whether by nurture or nature, or a combination of the two.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 10:16 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 10:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So you desire for the "rule" has no rational grounding, but a product of nature, nurture factors which you can't override or negate?

Yep.

(15-07-2015 10:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You're sort of programmed by these factors to produce and impose such rules?

Yep.

(15-07-2015 10:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Notice we're not just speaking of purely chemicals sensations, that you underlies a particular aversion. But beliefs, promotions, rules we might impose that are based on them. It seems you see the "rule" you impose, arising from the chemical sensation as well?

I don't believe that I ought to impose any rules, but rather I just "do what I want."



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 10:19 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 10:12 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But for this question, it's not about following the rule. We're speaking about you being the one imposing the rule, creating the rule in the first place. In a situation in which there is no legal prohibition.

I guess you're suggesting that your desires and values are ones you impose on your children, and require them to embody as well, and in fact will enforce them to, if need be.

Yep.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 12:19 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 08:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 07:30 AM)tear151 Wrote:  I want to ask a specific question to the subjectivists

"If I lived in the American south during the 1700's, and wanted to make a living from growing cotton, would it be ok for me to enslave Africans to harvest the cotton for me given that within that society enslaving black people is accepted and slavery in this instance benefits my society and my pocket?"

Would you be okay if the person being enslaved in the 1700s was your own daughter or brother?

This interesting part of slavery in the 1700s it was never really justified for sake of economic gain, but relied equally on seeing the African as less than oneself, not an equal, very much unlike oneself. Which are lies, false beliefs, which slavery was dependent on.

I wouldn't like to be in debt either, but If someone owes me money I will still demand it.

What matters is it isn't my brother or sister, one can be against the slavery of people they care about but not strangers, this isn't hypocritical.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: