Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-07-2015, 09:50 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(21-07-2015 09:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 08:50 PM)Chas Wrote:  What is the difference between an action that is dangerous to other people and one that is immoral?

None, as far as I can tell.
But you wouldn't call the lion immoral for eating people, would you?
A hungry lion, perhaps a dangerous lion, but surely not an immoral lion?

But only an idiot talks in the same breath about morality and beasts.

Quote:Why apply the term "immoral" to the actions of a human but not to the actions of a non human animal?

Because "morality" is a human judgement on human behavior. It has nothing to do with non-human behavior.

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
22-07-2015, 01:31 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(21-07-2015 09:50 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:Why apply the term "immoral" to the actions of a human but not to the actions of a non human animal?

Because "morality" is a human judgement on human behavior. It has nothing to do with non-human behavior.
Nah, humans aren't special.
If there were aliens from another planet equally as smart (or dumb) as humans surely we would assume they can be moral too.

So surely the definition of morality isn't dependent on the moral actor being a human.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 01:47 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(22-07-2015 01:31 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 09:50 PM)Chas Wrote:  Because "morality" is a human judgement on human behavior. It has nothing to do with non-human behavior.
Nah, humans aren't special.
If there were aliens from another planet equally as smart (or dumb) as humans surely we would assume they can be moral too.

So surely the definition of morality isn't dependent on the moral actor being a human.

Pretty sure, given our lack of evidence of intelligent (or dumb) aliens, he was referring to that set of beings of which we are aware.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 01:52 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(22-07-2015 01:31 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 09:50 PM)Chas Wrote:  Because "morality" is a human judgement on human behavior. It has nothing to do with non-human behavior.
Nah, humans aren't special.
If there were aliens from another planet equally as smart (or dumb) as humans surely we would assume they can be moral too.

So surely the definition of morality isn't dependent on the moral actor being a human.

It kind of depends on them having values. Like such things like harm/fairness/authority/purity and those types of concepts that we have been encouraged to ponder by our evolution. There might be other ones we even note in there or different ones a different alien species could have based on their evolutionary paths.

"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
22-07-2015, 01:57 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
I have forgotten the point of this conversation.

Circles are being gone around in.

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
22-07-2015, 04:58 AM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2015 05:08 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
duplicate post
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 05:06 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(21-07-2015 09:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I would have used the words "foreseen danger" or "risk" but your questioning asked for an emotion so I used the word "fear" in lieu of a better term.
We often make choices by evaluating the cost/reward, a part of this is assessing the risks. Interacting with someone who is known to interfere with other people's toys comes at a risk of them interfering with your toys.
If you value your toys you might choose to avoid interacting with this person.

Surely, we make all sorts of rational consideration, evaluating risk, conducting cost/benefit analysis. All this requires an extended foresight, awareness of the risk being posed, an ability to connect that risk to oneself, etc.....

How early do you think infants are able to do this? At 12 months? 3 Months? You think at this early they're able to engage in such complex processing, drawing these varieties of conclusions? Are pigs, chickens, and fish capable of drawing the same rational connection?

Another interesting version of the experiment involves the puppet who takes the ball, being used in a scenario where he is trying to open a case with a ball in it, a third puppet shuts the case on the puppet, preventing him from obtaining the items. In a way punishing him for his earlier offense. Infants prefer this obstructionist puppet, over the other puppet. Let me guess you think the infant is able to recognize that this puppet wouldn't behave in such a way towards them, unless they deserved it, or something?

If natural selection, selected for attractions that preferred kindness and were repulsed by meanness, it would resolve the dependency on rational considerations, require less computation power, and help to avoid the Prisoner's Dilemma in a variety of situations. But you don't think such attractions exist at a biological level? Though all the similar research suggests it does, traced all the way to three month olds. But you seem to want to disagree with the numerous peer reviewed research on the subject, without offering any competing research of your own? It doesn't seem that there is any evidence at all in support of your alternative conclusions, not a single scientist, anthropologist who would agree with your suggestion.

Here's a video of the previously cited research as well:





Quote:So I suggested an adjustment to the experiment to replace the act of "interfering with the ball" (a perceived immoral act which can also be seen as a threat to the child) with another act of "blaspheme of god"

Why would a baby draw a distinction between an act of blaspheme, and a non-act of blaspheme? Why would natural selection select for attractions towards non-blashphemous acts, over blasphemous acts? There's doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that infant or children would make such distinctions. I would predict perhaps the same prediction that you would as well, that the infant will likely infer no distinction between blasphemous and non-blashphemous act. Between Jehovah of Vishnu, or Zeus, or Frank.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 05:52 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(22-07-2015 01:31 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 09:50 PM)Chas Wrote:  Because "morality" is a human judgement on human behavior. It has nothing to do with non-human behavior.
Nah, humans aren't special.
If there were aliens from another planet equally as smart (or dumb) as humans surely we would assume they can be moral too.

So surely the definition of morality isn't dependent on the moral actor being a human.

Morality depends on there being a moral actor.

Aliens aren't known to exist, so let's restrict the discussion to the real world.

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
22-07-2015, 07:00 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(22-07-2015 05:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 09:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I would have used the words "foreseen danger" or "risk" but your questioning asked for an emotion so I used the word "fear" in lieu of a better term.
We often make choices by evaluating the cost/reward, a part of this is assessing the risks. Interacting with someone who is known to interfere with other people's toys comes at a risk of them interfering with your toys.
If you value your toys you might choose to avoid interacting with this person.

Surely, we make all sorts of rational consideration, evaluating risk, conducting cost/benefit analysis. All this requires an extended foresight, awareness of the risk being posed, an ability to connect that risk to oneself, etc.....

How early do you think infants are able to do this? At 12 months? 3 Months? You think at this early they're able to engage in such complex processing, drawing these varieties of conclusions? Are pigs, chickens, and fish capable of drawing the same rational connection?

Another interesting version of the experiment involves the puppet who takes the ball, being used in a scenario where he is trying to open a case with a ball in it, a third puppet shuts the case on the puppet, preventing him from obtaining the items. In a way punishing him for his earlier offense. Infants prefer this obstructionist puppet, over the other puppet. Let me guess you think the infant is able to recognize that this puppet wouldn't behave in such a way towards them, unless they deserved it, or something?

If natural selection, selected for attractions that preferred kindness and were repulsed by meanness, it would resolve the dependency on rational considerations, require less computation power, and help to avoid the Prisoner's Dilemma in a variety of situations. But you don't think such attractions exist at a biological level? Though all the similar research suggests it does, traced all the way to three month olds. But you seem to want to disagree with the numerous peer reviewed research on the subject, without offering any competing research of your own? It doesn't seem that there is any evidence at all in support of your alternative conclusions, not a single scientist, anthropologist who would agree with your suggestion.

Here's a video of the previously cited research as well:





Quote:So I suggested an adjustment to the experiment to replace the act of "interfering with the ball" (a perceived immoral act which can also be seen as a threat to the child) with another act of "blaspheme of god"

Why would a baby draw a distinction between an act of blaspheme, and a non-act of blaspheme? Why would natural selection select for attractions towards non-blashphemous acts, over blasphemous acts? There's doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that infant or children would make such distinctions. I would predict perhaps the same prediction that you would as well, that the infant will likely infer no distinction between blasphemous and non-blashphemous act. Between Jehovah of Vishnu, or Zeus, or Frank.

The video doesn't seem to help your case at all. Unless you're claiming that infants ought to be little selfish racists lol.

I saw nothing in the video that is contradictory to nihilism, only confirmatory. From the video, it seems we have as much predisposition towards being naughty, as we do towards being nice, and even if we didn't, it's still irrelevant to nihilism being true.

Nihilism, for me, is accepting the reality that everything is completely and utterly pointless. There is no meaning or purpose to life, and there is nothing in the universe (except selfish humans, and possibly aliens) that gives even one shit about anything that goes down that doesn't affect one's self. With the knowledge that this entire planet, with it all artifacts of human existence, will one day be totally obliterated by the sun, how/why would one try to find ultimate meaning? The sun is not going to feel bad for destroying this planet, and why should it?

Humanism also makes no sense to me. Does the humanist ever consider that humans are by far the biggest threat to making this planet uninhabitable? Does the humanist consider the rapid extinction rate left in the wake of human flourishing? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction)

Now don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying it's wrong to cause thousands of species to go extinct, I'm only saying that it's neither wrong to not place the well-being of all humans at the top of your priorities.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2015, 07:17 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(22-07-2015 07:00 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  The video doesn't seem to help your case at all. Unless you're claiming that infants ought to be little selfish racists lol.

I saw nothing in the video that is contradictory to nihilism, only confirmatory. From the video, it seems we have as much predisposition towards being naughty, as we do towards being nice, and even if we didn't, it's still irrelevant to nihilism being true.

You're right nothing in the video contradicts nihilism, it contradicts a variety of beliefs Stevil holds, regarding social conditioning as the source of why good guys are preferred over villains, when the evidence suggests these preferences are innate.

I also think there's a misunderstanding on what my "case" is. I'm not arguing for actual oughts, nor am I am arguing for objective morality, even though I believe in these things. I'm only arguing for the illusion of oughts, for the illusion of objectivity, just like a person might argue that the self, free-will, and consciousness are an illusion. One can accept all these conclusions and still be a moral nihilist, and I think these conclusions are unavoidable for any reflective moral nihilist, informed of the facts, and research on the subject.

I think moral nihilism is unavoidable for materialist, and while there are a variety of good cases for it, the nihilist on this forum present a very weak argument for it. So it's not surprising the responses have been dismissive for the most part, because the arguments are not substantive. They can be, but they are not. And they need to be, if you hope to convince other atheists of the validity of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: