Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-07-2015, 11:32 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-07-2015 11:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 11:08 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Moral Nihilism by term does not negate anything but intrinsic morality. That's all it negates. They are distinct different positions but to say it is a negation is an ignoring of the principals and concepts directly in support.

They may not blend in a coherent way of some contexts of the positions but the quasi-realism stance is more fluid in the topic.

Moral nihilism doesn't allow for moral facts, doesn't allow for there to objective moral truths, or rights and wrong.

"Moral nihilists consider morality to be constructed, a complex set of rules and recommendations that may give a psychological, social, or economical advantage to its adherents, but is otherwise without universal or even relative truth in any sense."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

I think you might have attached yourself to the intrinsic part, without recognizing all that is implied by that.

And I'm curious to hear what position you hold? Do you consider yourself a moral nihilist, with a "quasi-realism" stance? If so it seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

I think you frequenatly attach far more to labels than that gives to the meaning in the world. Actual stances and beliefs are far stronger in terms of mattering than the label.

I'd consider of course it's a Moral Nihilist stance that there is nothing of morality but a constructed stance. That doesn't mean you merely take every thing a possible stance of the position takes. There is a framework, it's part of a framework here. It's not certainly impossible to understand and still grasp what morality is and it's value on a descriptive stance across the globe.

Whether it's a quasi-realism or anti-realism more tinge of the philosophical stance some people debate, it's not so certain, But there are varied degrees of any position and degrees of a label. The label doesn't mean one joint thing. That's a mentality that breeds more issue and complication in understanding.

"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
27-07-2015, 11:55 AM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-07-2015 11:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's not certainly impossible to understand and still grasp what morality is and it's value on a descriptive stance across the globe.

Of course it doesn’t mean that it's impossible to grasp or understand what other people mean by morality or moral prescriptions, of the various things being implied by them, even while holding a variety of these assumptions as being false. This is no different than an atheists understanding a theists views without subscribing to them himself. A moral nihilist can recognize the various things being implied by another persons moral statements, like oughts and obligations, while holding these implications as false. Stevil tends to be the only individual here whose moral nihilism descends to a perpetual confusion on the topic. He can't particular get his head around why other moral nihilist, can believe in moral senses, or a moral core.

Quote:I think you frequenatly attach far more to labels than that gives to the meaning in the world. Actual stances and beliefs are far stronger in terms of mattering than the label.

And I think you frequently appeal to some undisclosed middle, even when it's contradictory to do so. If you’re not comfortable with a particular label, then don’t attach it to yourself, and if you think you hold some position that doesn’t fit into any of the available labels, then you’d have to do a better job at articulating that position.

You can’t take those predefined terms, and then butcher their meanings and implications, just so you can equivocate. If you’re not too sure what your own moral stance is, or how to articulate it, or what umbrella it falls under, or whether it falls under an umbrella or not, you can’t expect people to take your confusion as offering something substantive to consider.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 12:55 PM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2015 01:03 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-07-2015 11:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 11:32 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's not certainly impossible to understand and still grasp what morality is and it's value on a descriptive stance across the globe.

Of course it doesn’t mean that it's impossible to grasp or understand what other people mean by morality or moral prescriptions, of the various things being implied by them, even while holding a variety of these assumptions as being false. This is no different than an atheists understanding a theists views without subscribing to them himself. A moral nihilist can recognize the various things being implied by another persons moral statements, like oughts and obligations, while holding these implications as false. Stevil tends to be the only individual here whose moral nihilism descends to a perpetual confusion on the topic. He can't particular get his head around why other moral nihilist, can believe in moral senses, or a moral core.

Quote:I think you frequenatly attach far more to labels than that gives to the meaning in the world. Actual stances and beliefs are far stronger in terms of mattering than the label.

And I think you frequently appeal to some undisclosed middle, even when it's contradictory to do so. If you’re not comfortable with a particular label, then don’t attach it to yourself, and if you think you hold some position that doesn’t fit into any of the available labels, then you’d have to do a better job at articulating that position.

You can’t take those predefined terms, and then butcher their meanings and implications, just so you can equivocate. If you’re not too sure what your own moral stance is, or how to articulate it, or what umbrella it falls under, or whether it falls under an umbrella or not, you can’t expect people to take your confusion as offering something substantive to consider.

I didn't say.. "what other people mean" so again. I often don't get where you are coming from with your direct responses. You too frequently read things that aren't there... I know you're not directly quoting me there but still, I don't know why you defend you haven't added interpretations like that before, you still do it seemingly too much.

I'm talking about what I grasp about morality and see it's impact on the world. Being Moral Nihilist doesn't need to conclude to or mean more than the stance of not believing in inherent/inert/absolute morality. It is a human construct, but in the human social construct form it exists. In the social contract realm and when talking about morality it's not limited to the discussion of oughts. It's still in a social manner, a concept for us that people use to validate ideas in group community thoughts and shun outsiders of their community. There is meaning to it in these manners as well.

The problem is you want to seem to argue all labels have to conclude to all their possible further implications. That's a very small focused position. This seems to go with you, atheism leads to nihilism claim that you want to assume to be true.

"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
27-07-2015, 01:43 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-07-2015 12:55 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The problem is you want to seem to argue all labels have to conclude to all their possible further implications. That's a very small focused position.

Concepts like moral nihilism, and moral realism, have certain commonly understand meanings, that moral nihilism is a negation of moral realism, is a counter view. To strip them of these implications is to speak of something else altogether. You’re attempting to redefine the terms to mean something other than what they mean.

Quote:This seems to go with you, atheism leads to nihilism claim that you want to assume to be true.

No, I’ve revised this view, since the term atheism has acquired very broad implications today, and theism has been maligned a great deal that most folks don’t know the history of the concept of the various perspectives entailed by it, that its become narrowed.

So I would no longer say atheism leads to nihilism, but that materialistic monism does, at least if one is consistent.

Quote:I didn't say.. "what other people mean" so again. I.

No, you said: “It's not certainly impossible to understand and still grasp what morality is and it's value on a descriptive stance across the globe.” I could have prefaced what I wrote, by saying what “morality is” a variety of different things to different people, involving different implications. There might be a great deal of overlap, but there’s also a great deal of distinctions as well. We can’t treat the moral position, of consequentialist, deontologist, and virtue ethicist as one and the same. Or folks who believe that morality is a matter of character, and those who believe it’s a matter of consequences as one and the same. But I though this would have been redundant.

Quote:Being Moral Nihilist doesn't need to conclude to or mean more than the stance of not believing in inherent/inert/absolute morality.

Also not believing in objective morality. Objective and absolute are not the same thing. So i’m not sure how you think that a position that doesn’t believe in objective morality, can still believe in objective morality.

Quote:It is a human construct, but in the human social construct form it exists. In the social contract realm and when talking about morality it's not limited to the discussion of oughts. It's still in a social manner, a concept for us that people use to validate ideas in group community thoughts and shun outsiders of their community. There is meaning to it in these manners as well.

There’s meaning to it a variety of different context, such as in the studies I previously linked to. In Moral foundation theory, when speaking of a moral core, a moral sense. All the implications, all the conclusions of these studies can be accepted by a nihilist, though Stevil will kick and scream before he ever does.

There’s a different question involved here. What do people mean when the say something is moral? And the question as it relates to nihilism, that there is no such thing as moral facts, that there are no relative or universal moral truths.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 02:00 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-07-2015 07:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You believe this occurs
And this is the problem with your trying to understand anything I. You always try to twist my position into one of belief.

As long as you continue this tactic you will never be able to understand my position.

(27-07-2015 07:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Perhaps again this is an unfortunate and misleading label for something that has nothing to do with morals.

You’re not a very good arbiter at what does and does not have to do with morals. You claim that if it has any lingering attachment to survival, or harm that it cannot be moral, is hogwash.
Morals are things that people take in the context of unselfish over selfish. However when we see things regarding danger and harm we are primarily focused on the self. We don't associate with someone who is likely to steal our own toys.

(27-07-2015 07:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:I have pointed out that the experiment/report you referenced was faulty because it didn't distinguish harmfull things from moral indescressions….

Anything I believe is immoral can be tied to harm one way or the other
Well there you go, let's just talk about the real harm of actions rather than the morality of actions then.

(27-07-2015 07:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Well, I would still like to know why this innate intutive moral perception (this moral sense) doesn't trigger at a gay wedding or when someone is working on the sabbath.

If our innate moral perceptions are basic, like an attraction to kindness, and fairness, a repulsion to cruelty, and unfairness, what would gay wedding and sabbath have to do with it? There nothing immediately wrong about any of these things, and even beyond this
So say you but the Catholic church disagrees with you. How can we resolve this arguement?

Anyways, since we are talking about harm rather than morality lets label it "ability to recognise danger" rather than "moral perceptions"
And call it "ability to reason consequences" rather than "moral sense"

And regarding to your concept of "moral core" lets instead call in "desire to survive" this way we can get away from the hogwash of moral terminology which come with much unwarranted baggage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 02:03 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-07-2015 09:27 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Hey Stevil,

Just want to make sure I understand your position, so please make any needed corrections. It seems to me that you believe that if a human interferes with another human for a reason other than survival, then the interferer is a hypocrite,
No thats no it.
If you complain about others forcing their likes and dislikes onto you but given the opportunity for you to be in power that you would force your likes and dislikes on them, then that would make you a hypocrite.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 03:11 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-07-2015 02:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  And this is the problem with your trying to understand anything I. You always try to twist my position into one of belief.

As long as you continue this tactic you will never be able to understand my position.

We’ve already went over this as well, that belief is not as your earlier defined it to mean in post 807: “Belief is a close minded position. It is one where you recognize multiple plausible explanations but choose to wave your hand at all but one.”

The meaning in which I use the term, is one provided by wikipedia:

Belief: “Belief is a mental representation, treated in various academic disciplines, especially philosophy and psychology, of a sentient being's attitude toward the likelihood or truth of something.”

So when you say:
“They are likely a product of social conditioning.”

“Morals are things that people take in the context of unselfish over selfish”

“…..the Catholic church disagrees with you.”

etc.. you are stating beliefs.

Quote:So say you but the Catholic church disagrees with you. How can we resolve this arguement?

Uhm, I don’t think the Catholic Church would disagree with me, when I claimed that it’s unlikely that a infant would be able to recognize the wrong in gay marriage, or observing the sabbath day.

Quote:Anyways, since we are talking about harm rather than morality lets label it "ability to recognise danger" rather than "moral perceptions"
And call it "ability to reason consequences" rather than "moral sense”

What sort of danger is a child, or even an adult recognizing when watching Cinderella, and being attracted to her kindness, her sense of empathy and fairness, and repulsed by the cruelty and unfairness represented by her stepmother? There’s no actual danger to myself being perceived here. I may even recognize the character is entirely fictional in this regard, thereby posing no real danger at all.

Quote:And regarding to your concept of "moral core" lets instead call in "desire to survive" this way we can get away from the hogwash of moral terminology which come with much unwarranted baggage.

When a privileged white man jeopardizes his and his families survival, to rescue black slaves, to fight against abolition, because he believes all men are created equal, how is that a “desire to survive”? It may even be said that a desire for survival, may have suggested that he avoid this fight all together.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 03:31 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-07-2015 03:11 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:So say you but the Catholic church disagrees with you. How can we resolve this arguement?

Uhm, I don’t think the Catholic Church would disagree with me, when I claimed that it’s unlikely that a infant would be able to recognize the wrong in gay marriage, or observing the sabbath day.
You claimed that gay marriage isn't immoral.
(27-07-2015 03:11 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Anyways, since we are talking about harm rather than morality lets label it "ability to recognise danger" rather than "moral perceptions"
And call it "ability to reason consequences" rather than "moral sense”

What sort of danger is a child, or even an adult recognizing when watching Cinderella, and being attracted to her kindness, her sense of empathy and fairness, and repulsed by the cruelty and unfairness represented by her stepmother? There’s no actual danger to myself being perceived here. I may even recognize the character is entirely fictional in this regard, thereby posing no real danger at all.
You are putting yourself in Cinder's shoes. Cinder's has a danger, her step mother is making her work and making her miss out on the ball.
A reasonable adult would consider that work is a good thing, that a clean house is good and that it is a good thing that the mother teaches her kid to keep the house clean.
A child however will see work as a bad thing and will deem the step mother bad for getting Cinders to work rather than play. this is kids stuff really, the story is focussed on the mind of a kid.

(27-07-2015 03:11 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:And regarding to your concept of "moral core" lets instead call in "desire to survive" this way we can get away from the hogwash of moral terminology which come with much unwarranted baggage.

When a privileged white man jeopardizes his and his families survival, to rescue black slaves, to fight against abolition, because he believes all men are created equal, how is that a “desire to survive”? It may even be said that a desire for survival, may have suggested that he avoid this fight all together.
Yes, given learned beliefs, a person can become idealistic and do things contrary to their survival instincts. A christian can play with snakes believing that his faith makes him immune to poison, another christian can avoid medical treatment believing that it is god's will whether he lives or dies. Many religious people look forward to being a martyr, hoping they will be rewarded in heaven.
Many people have crazy beliefs.
There really is no important knowledge to be gained from observing the peculiar bahaviours as a result of people's beliefs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 04:34 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-07-2015 03:31 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You claimed that gay marriage isn't immoral.

No, I didn’t claim that. Any discussion about gay marriage was related to your suggestion of an experiment that would reveal if infants/ young children would be able to intuitively recognize it as wrong or not. And I claimed that they likely wouldn’t. I never said or implied where I personally stood on the question of gay marriage.

Quote:You are putting yourself in Cinder's shoes. Cinder's has a danger, her step mother is making her work and making her miss out on the ball.
A reasonable adult would consider that work is a good thing, that a clean house is good and that it is a good thing that the mother teaches her kid to keep the house clean.
A child however will see work as a bad thing and will deem the step mother bad for getting Cinders to work rather than play. this is kids stuff really, the story is focussed on the mind of a kid.

Nah, this doesn’t seem to what reasonable adults, or even children perceive when watching the film. The child me, and the adult me perceives the cruelty in the step mother not by assigning Cinderella choirs, but that basis of these assignments were not about the choirs at all, but assigned to her out of contempt, stemmed from the step-mother’s cruelty. The unfairness and cruelty is particularly apparent, by the stepmother avoiding assigning similar choirs to the other two daughters. The basic perception here, follows along the same perceptions gleamed by children in the puppet experiments as well.

Of course this perceptions has a great deal do with empathy, of being be able to put oneself in the characters shoes. But it doesn’t really have to do with any real danger to oneself. In fact one could believe Cinderella could have lived a long life, survived a great deal of time, in her predicament, while still recognizing the unfairness, the cruelty inflicted upon her by her contemptuous step-mother.

Either way you do seem to recognize that no connection need to be made between the treatment of the step-mother even remotely extending to oneself, a child could recognize it’s all fictional, and still draw the same inferences. That the wrongness inflicted on Cinderella, is not a worry of the contagion spreading towards oneself, but is solely about Cinderella. The child is not contemplating possible risk to his own survival, or possible harm that might be around the corner for him.

Quote:Yes, given learned beliefs, a person can become idealistic and do things contrary to their survival instincts.

I know, good thing we had folks with those learned idealistic beliefs, or else there might never have been an abolitionist movement, the Black Civil Rights Movement, the Indian Independence Movement, etc……

Without these learned beliefs, we’d all likely be like you, governed by rational self interest? Is that how the story goes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 05:21 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-07-2015 02:03 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 09:27 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Hey Stevil,

Just want to make sure I understand your position, so please make any needed corrections. It seems to me that you believe that if a human interferes with another human for a reason other than survival, then the interferer is a hypocrite,
No thats no it.
If you complain about others forcing their likes and dislikes onto you but given the opportunity for you to be in power that you would force your likes and dislikes on them, then that would make you a hypocrite.

Well why shouldn't you force your likes and dislikes on others, everyone wants to enforce themselves on others.

If you say it's bad for others to force themselves on you then do it yourself then that's hypocritical.

But saying "I don't want others to force their likes and dislikes on me, but have a desire to do it myself" is no more hypocritical than not liking paying your debts but wanting others to pay theirs to you.

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