Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-07-2015, 06:37 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-07-2015 05:21 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 02:03 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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.
I'm not saying what you should or shouldn't do. It's for you to decide.

(27-07-2015 05:21 PM)tear151 Wrote:  If you say it's bad for others to force themselves on you then do it yourself then that's hypocritical.
Yes, I agree,

(27-07-2015 05:21 PM)tear151 Wrote:  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.
No that's different.
It's more like you not paying your debts and telling the person that you don't want to pay so you are not going to, and then you turning around and complaining to people who don't pay their debts to you because they don't want to.
Whether you like to pay debts or not is irrelevant.

Do as I say, not as I do type thing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 07:02 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
Stevil,

Is it just the complaining part that does it for you?

Is it true that I can be a slave owner and as long as I don't complain when captured and enslaved myself, then I remain free of hypocrisy? In other words, we can force our likes and dislikes all we want, and so long as we don't complain, then we remain free of hypocrisy?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 07:04 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-07-2015 04:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 03:31 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You claimed that gay marriage isn't immoral.

No, I didn’t claim that.

So when you said
(27-07-2015 07:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Anything I believe is immoral can be tied to harm one way or the other
and also said
(27-07-2015 07:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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 you are telling me that you don't consider gay marriage to be wrong or harmful and yet you are also tellimg me that you haven't proclaimed gay marriage as not being immoral.

How does your logic work here?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
27-07-2015, 07:19 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-07-2015 07:04 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 04:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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 you are telling me that you don't consider gay marriage to be wrong or harmful and yet you are also tellimg me that you haven't proclaimed gay marriage as not being immoral.

How does your logic work here?

Perhaps you missed the immediate part, which is an important qualifier. The wrongness of certain things might not be immediately apparent, though it may still be wrong, for reasons that are not immediately apparent. Honoring the Sabbath, might not be immediately apparent, to those who don't recognize the importance of rest, etc....

If you took any of this to indicate what my position is on the Sabbath or Gay Marriage, you'd be mistaken.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 07:34 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-07-2015 04:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.
I really don't understand what you mean when you say the "wrongness inflicted on Cinderella"
In your opinion what does "wongness" mean?
And how have you percieved that a wrongness has occured? Is it because an action went against your "childish" belief that the universe should be fair?
So in your mind are you judging this woman against your own beliefs of what you think she ought to do? You assume she has an obligation to act fairly so you then consider she broke this obligation and you label her as an immoral person.
So was there no innate intuitive "moral sense" alarm going off. It was merely your own ability to think through the situation, compare it to your already held beliefs (ideals) and then come up with this judgement. No god necessary, no evolved moral sense necessary, merely a belief in an idealistically fair universe and a belief that people ought to behave fairly.
And this belief causes you to stick your nose into the affairs of others, to judge them without knowing the full story. Well, in fairness this is a simplistic fairytale without much back story and intended to entertain you, so now that you are sympathetic for Cinder's plight, just imagine the joy you must have felt when the fairy appeared (against all odds) and Cinder's got to go to the ball after all. Oh and on top of that, the reinforced idea that karma wins through as Cinders deserved (more so that her sisters) to have the handsome prince fall in love with her due to her beauty (due to her being at the receiving end of an unfair step mother). Hmmm, I wonder what long lasting impression this will have. Will it have impacted the mind of an impressionable kid and made them feel that the world ought to be fair and that if you are mean and nasty then your future is bleak whereas those that you are nasty to will win out in the end. I guess this is where many people get conditioned to the childish idea of "justice".

But then we don't really see justice in the world, so perhaps we look for justice in imagining that the Christian fairytale is real and that if we are good then we will end up in heaven and those that are bad will end up in hell. Oh, how perfect is that, just like living in a fairytale.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 08:15 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-07-2015 07:02 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Is it true that I can be a slave owner and as long as I don't complain when captured and enslaved myself, then I remain free of hypocrisy? In other words, we can force our likes and dislikes all we want, and so long as we don't complain, then we remain free of hypocrisy?
Yeah, that's about it.
If you consider a scenario that the world should be a free for all, and someone then has power over you and forces you to be their slave, you can't really complain about it can you?
I mean, you can say that you don't like being a slave. But you can't really whinge about the unfairness of it if you were happy to make a slave of them should the power seat instead be yours.

So lets, for the sake of argument assume you are gay but also want to live in a moral society. You understand that morality is a personal belief thing, so you understand that your leader will simply enforce their own morals (or likes and dislikes) onto you.
According to your morals there is nothing wrong with gay love. According to person X's morals gay love is immoral and should be severely punished.
But perhaps you think caging chickens is "immoral" (or in your case, you strongly dislike it) so if you were in power you would outlaw farmers caging their chickens, perhaps throw those farmers into prison. Person X is a chicken farmer and for whatever reason, he can't make his business succeed unless he uses cages. So your law will put him out of business. which severely jeopordises his lifestyle, may mean his kids miss out on certain activities (tuition, school trips, swimming lessons, sport...). Person X if in power will prevent you from finding love, prevent you from living with your partner, force you into hiding.
This is a system based on morality or based on likes, whomever is in power gets to dictate whatever rules they want (might makes right). You never know what your going to get, and when you get it, you can't debate it. All you can do is ask the leader if it really is immoral or if it really is something that they dislike. They say "Yes, I don't like it" and they implement the law.
Seems arbitrary and random, seems at the mercy of one person who has nothing really to moderate them. They have no clearly defined purpose for government to justify their laws against. You could of course not vote for them again when the next election comes around, but your reason is only because you don't like their morality, it isn't because they were negligent in regards to fulfilling their governing purpose.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 09:00 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-07-2015 08:15 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 07:02 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Is it true that I can be a slave owner and as long as I don't complain when captured and enslaved myself, then I remain free of hypocrisy? In other words, we can force our likes and dislikes all we want, and so long as we don't complain, then we remain free of hypocrisy?
Yeah, that's about it.
If you consider a scenario that the world should be a free for all, and someone then has power over you and forces you to be their slave, you can't really complain about it can you?
I mean, you can say that you don't like being a slave. But you can't really whinge about the unfairness of it if you were happy to make a slave of them should the power seat instead be yours.

So lets, for the sake of argument assume you are gay but also want to live in a moral society. You understand that morality is a personal belief thing, so you understand that your leader will simply enforce their own morals (or likes and dislikes) onto you.
According to your morals there is nothing wrong with gay love. According to person X's morals gay love is immoral and should be severely punished.
But perhaps you think caging chickens is "immoral" (or in your case, you strongly dislike it) so if you were in power you would outlaw farmers caging their chickens, perhaps throw those farmers into prison. Person X is a chicken farmer and for whatever reason, he can't make his business succeed unless he uses cages. So your law will put him out of business. which severely jeopordises his lifestyle, may mean his kids miss out on certain activities (tuition, school trips, swimming lessons, sport...). Person X if in power will prevent you from finding love, prevent you from living with your partner, force you into hiding.
This is a system based on morality or based on likes, whomever is in power gets to dictate whatever rules they want (might makes right). You never know what your going to get, and when you get it, you can't debate it. All you can do is ask the leader if it really is immoral or if it really is something that they dislike. They say "Yes, I don't like it" and they implement the law.
Seems arbitrary and random, seems at the mercy of one person who has nothing really to moderate them. They have no clearly defined purpose for government to justify their laws against. You could of course not vote for them again when the next election comes around, but your reason is only because you don't like their morality, it isn't because they were negligent in regards to fulfilling their governing purpose.

I guess that ultimately I don't believe you when you say that you would only support laws that could be proven to be necessary for the safety and stability of your society and would never support laws that enforced likes. Would your society have any rules about people having sex in public? How about bestiality, and bestiality in public? You could take your kids out for ice cream and see a guy fucking a cow across the street, and in the yard next door there are 2 guys fucking both human and animal cadavers, and you wouldn't want to make rules against that? You wouldn't want rules against animal torture? Dog fighting? Would your society have a welfare system? If so how would it be decided who gets how much? Would your society have laws against hunting animals to the point of extinction? Would your society have environmental and pollution laws? What you're suggesting seems to me like some form of extreme libertarianism bordering on anarchism, and seems so far outside the realm of possibility that it's almost useless for discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 09:08 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism



There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 09:34 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-07-2015 09:00 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  I guess that ultimately I don't believe you when you say that you would only support laws that could be proven to be necessary for the safety and stability of your society and would never support laws that enforced likes.
OK
(27-07-2015 09:00 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Would your society have any rules about people having sex in public? How about bestiality, and bestiality in public?
It depends on if this would cause danger or instability to society. So it would have to be discovered (debated) against that goal.
The hygene aspect would have to be considered. But in terms of the shock factor, I don't think it is a big deal.
I don't see why there is a law against topless women or nudity in general.
(27-07-2015 09:00 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  You could take your kids out for ice cream and see a guy fucking a cow across the street
That would be pretty funny though.
(27-07-2015 09:00 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  and in the yard next door there are 2 guys fucking both human and animal cadavers, and you wouldn't want to make rules against that?
That would be pretty funny too. If dead folk present psychological damage to kids then that ought to be considered.

(27-07-2015 09:00 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  You wouldn't want rules against animal torture? Dog fighting?
I would want laws against this, but given my proposed system, I couldn't justify those laws, I couldn't get what I want. That's the consession and also the strength of what I am propossing too. It's not about what I want, Its not all about me. and it doesn't arrogantly suggest that my own wants and likes are better than anyone elses.

It really depends on how important it is to people. If people resort to violent revolts as a result of this then a law is needed. If people don't react then obviously it isn't so important to people. Perhaps an alternative of education, campaigns etc rather than an enforced law.
(27-07-2015 09:00 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Would your society have a welfare system? If so how would it be decided who gets how much?
This is a valid point.
I think a society that doesn't take care of the poor would end up in violent revolt. So I think we need to cater for the poor.
(27-07-2015 09:00 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Would your society have laws against hunting animals to the point of extinction?
If the economy required the exploitation of the animal then probably.
(27-07-2015 09:00 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Would your society have environmental and pollution laws?
If destroying the environment made society unsafe and unstable then yes. Polluting the environment doesn't seem to be sustainable to me.

(27-07-2015 09:00 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  What you're suggesting seems to me like some form of extreme libertarianism bordering on anarchism, and seems so far outside the realm of possibility that it's almost useless for discussion.
I'm not for anarcy, although I don't really know what anarchy is. Some laws are necessary to support a stable and safe society. But I am certainly for the autonomy of the people. I don't think that govt are our Mummy and Daddy and need to tell us what we can and can't do.
Under my system it would be extremely difficult to justify laws against homosexuality, blasphemy, stem cell research, abortion, polygomy, women drivers etc.
The government would have some clearly defined boundaries to their power.
How would you decide what laws to implement?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
27-07-2015, 10:17 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(27-07-2015 01:43 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

And beliefs or stances aren't only the commonly held positions. There are also terminologies that have a point and meaning to them that isn't fit to the commonly held position. Just like how many people unfamiliar with the atheist labels meanings.

The point is still being that moral nihilism is that there is no actual essence of morality out there, BUT people can still make stuff up in a way. The stance is that on a societal scale, morally is essentially made up because of our evolutionary shared values like harm/tradition and such. There is no real inert scheming morality out there, nothing more than biology & continuing social cultures influencing it. Though if you have an agreed upon base, you can judge that across how well that base is being held up.

We can make up our own choices and moral positions in this realm still. It's not just simply a nihilistic position, but more of an existential or absurdist view to acknowledge there is no absolute meaning/value, but we can define our own... and it's that I acknowledge on a social scale humans make a shared meaning and sociology/psychology would show we have a few strong base similarities in this regard.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: