Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-07-2015, 12:39 PM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2015 12:43 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 12:19 PM)tear151 Wrote:  I wouldn't like to be in debt either, but If someone owes me money I will still demand it.

You might not like those you care about to be in debt either, though you wouldn't think it was unfair that the person their indebted to, to demand repayment.

Quote: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.

Why are you against it when it comes to people you care about, but not others? What isn't hypocritical here? "I'm not okay with someone taking me as slave, but I'm perfectly okay with taking someone else as a slave", that's not hypocritical? "I don't find it acceptable for others to take my brothers and sisters as slaves, but I find it perfectly acceptable for me to take other people's brother and sisters as slaves." That not hypocritical?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 12:46 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 12:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Why are you against it when it comes to people you care about, but not others? What isn't hypocritical here? "I'm not okay with someone taking me as slave, but I'm perfectly okay with taking someone else as a slave", that's not hypocritical? "I don't find it acceptable for others to take my brothers and sisters as slaves, but I find it perfectly acceptable for me to take other people's brother and sisters as slaves." That not hypocritical?

What about, "I don't want to be killed and eaten, but I'm perfectly okay with killing and eating this cow"? Is that hypocritical?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 12:48 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(14-07-2015 02:26 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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..."

That's two claims - that morality exists is one, that a moral sense exists is two.

They are not the same thing.

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
15-07-2015, 12:49 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 12:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 12:19 PM)tear151 Wrote:  I wouldn't like to be in debt either, but If someone owes me money I will still demand it.

You might not like those you care about to be in debt either, though you wouldn't think it was unfair that the person their indebted to, to demand repayment.

Quote: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.

Why are you against it when it comes to people you care about, but not others? What isn't hypocritical here? "I'm not okay with someone taking me as slave, but I'm perfectly okay with taking someone else as a slave", that's not hypocritical? "I don't find it acceptable for others to take my brothers and sisters as slaves, but I find it perfectly acceptable for me to take other people's brother and sisters as slaves." That not hypocritical?

The being okay with it comes from self interest, not morals, thats why it's not hypocrtical, it is perfectly consistent with being out for yourself.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 12:57 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 10:19 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Yep.

I think the problem I see for individuals such as yourself, is all the features of moral prescriptions are present, all the implications are in place, that you just attempt to encapsulate it in a different language, in this case as expressions "likes and dislikes", without particularly realizing how the new terminology is not entirely accurate, and leaves out the implications of moral language.

If you tell your child you don't like torturing animals just for fun, you're not really saying the same thing as if you were to state that you don't like rap music. In the case of animal torture, your conveying a rule, an ought, and obligation, to your child, some prescriptive, regardless if you believe your obligated in the same way, as you require him to be. Where as when state you don’t like rap music, you’re merely stating something descriptive about yourself.

You seem unable to articulate why you impart this rule on your child, but I think we might be on the same page here. The reason is that we desire our children to be of a certain character, embody certain virtues and values. Virtues and values most of us would associate with the meaning of a good person. We see something unwholesome about a character that finds enjoyment in torturing animals just for fun, which is not particularly there in a relationship to a child that doesn’t.

Theses 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, as you seem to suggest. There is a sense in which the sort of character we want our children to embody, is one we feel nudged to embody as well, even if we don’t particularly embody those values all that well. A philandering father, likely doesn’t wish his children to imitate him.

Morality is an easy thing to escape when we consider it in a consequentialist perspective, where it’s easy to conflate with political concerns, but not so easy to escape when we close the walls a bit, into that interpersonal space, like that of a family, where the problems of morality being reduced to matters of likes and dislikes become more apparent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 01:08 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 12:49 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 12:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You might not like those you care about to be in debt either, though you wouldn't think it was unfair that the person their indebted to, to demand repayment.


Why are you against it when it comes to people you care about, but not others? What isn't hypocritical here? "I'm not okay with someone taking me as slave, but I'm perfectly okay with taking someone else as a slave", that's not hypocritical? "I don't find it acceptable for others to take my brothers and sisters as slaves, but I find it perfectly acceptable for me to take other people's brother and sisters as slaves." That not hypocritical?

The being okay with it comes from self interest, not morals, thats why it's not hypocrtical, it is perfectly consistent with being out for yourself.

But isn't the reason your against it when it comes to people you care about, because you "care" about them? That you're not okay with people taking those you care about as slaves, but are okay with people taking those you don't care about as slaves?

In fact the folks you care about don't even have to be limited to immediate family, it could just as well be your friends, and folks in your community. You'd likely see something in them being taken as slaves, that you would perhaps be so strongly opposed to, that you'd fight, and perhaps even risk you own life for their freedom.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 01:52 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 12:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 02:26 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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..."

That's two claims - that morality exists is one, that a moral sense exists is two.

They are not the same thing.
I don't know how you can have a moral sense if morals don't exist. If it isn't sensing morals then what is it sensing?

Although I do expect it is logically possible to have morals without a moral sense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 01:58 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 01:52 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(15-07-2015 12:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  That's two claims - that morality exists is one, that a moral sense exists is two.

They are not the same thing.
I don't know how you can have a moral sense if morals don't exist. If it isn't sensing morals then what is it sensing?

Although I do expect it is logically possible to have morals without a moral sense.

Because Moral sense has nothing to do with Absolute/objective morality existing in some grand scheme.

it's two separate concepts that have already philosophically existed about the term morality.

"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
15-07-2015, 02:05 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 06:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.
I'm of the position that unsupported claims are not to be entertained. Not to be seen as a plausible option.

Gods for example are an entirely unsupported claim, same as fairies and goblins. Perhaps they do exist. However a coherent falsifiable definition hasn't been formulated and hence the idea is currently in the dream world rather than something to be assessed for validity.

I see the concept of morality as the same thing.
If there are no rules governing what is right and wrong, if there is no moral obligation and no punishment then it appears entirely imaginary "dream world". And the same thing regarding the concept of "moral sense". Now it could be that I am taking things too literally here, but I am certainly unwilling to entertain a poorly defined concept that comes with no supporting evidence.
For something to be considered evidence for it, we need the evidence to distinguish it from the null hypothesis (in this case, rules necessary for survival of the individual and stability of the society within which the individual participates.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 02:27 PM (This post was last modified: 15-07-2015 02:34 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(15-07-2015 02:05 PM)Stevil Wrote:  For something to be considered evidence for it, we need the evidence to distinguish it from the null hypothesis (in this case, rules necessary for survival of the individual and stability of the society within which the individual participates.

What renders a rule, "a rule necessary for survival"?

Does the rule have to be explicitly prescribed for the sake of survival? Or is any rule even if it indirectly benefits the survival and stability of society classify as a rule of survival in your view?

Matt wants his children to be kindhearted, embody the values he holds, and therefore would prohibit them from torturing animals for fun, even if it were perfectly legal to do so. Matt structures the rules regarding his children to foster the sort of character he wants his children to embody. This is likely to produce children who add to the stability and survival of society, though that's not really Matt's reasons for the rules in the first place. In your view do these rules classic as non-moral rules, but survival rules? Since the rules at least indirectly affect that in a positive way.

How about the sort of common refrain about the immorality of slavery by the abolitionist? Since the prohibition of slavery benefited the survival and stability of society, does it mean the "wrongness" was not an expression of a moral transgression, but rather one harmful to survival, therefore negating any moral overtones?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: