Another attack on moral subjectivism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-07-2015, 02:35 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(31-07-2015 10:49 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  That's the whole point. The guy fucking a cow isn't hurting any other people, but I still think that most people are going to want rules against it.
Sure, but as I said, it's not a majority vote system. It doesn't matter what most people want.

(31-07-2015 10:49 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  There will always be certain things that certain societies won't accept
That's a generalisation. You can't lump everyone together and claim to know what society wants. There are almost always people with differing positions, so society is divided on the matter.


(31-07-2015 10:49 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(31-07-2015 04:36 AM)Stevil Wrote:  Because laws against something aren't made due to popular vote.
A Christian majority populous cannot vote against gay marriage citing it as immoral. They would need to prove that gay marriage is dangerous to the safety and stability of society.

Who would they need to prove it to? Certain elected officials? A king? Themselves?
They would debate it in parliament. When a law is made it would be released with a public justification. The public can read it themselves and see what lows their leaders are willing to stoop to.
Some rich people could take it to court, get a judge to decide if it is "constitutional" i.e. if it meets the requirement to be tied to safety and stability of society.

(31-07-2015 10:49 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  The problem with that is that we would need a society full of nihilists.
No, that's not true. Already we have the case where many people don't want laws for all things perceived as immoral. Most people don't want people locked up for infidelity and yet they tend to think this is immoral.

It's about changing people's mindset about the purpose of government and law. Churches realise they can't implement their morals into law so instead they preach their morals, they campaign. There are ways alternative to law.

(31-07-2015 10:49 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Again, you desire a democracy that only interferes for survival, I desire a democracy that only interferes for survival and to prevent genocide. I still fail to see a fundamental difference.
It's because you are pushing too hard.
My approach documents and declares a specific and clear an unambigious purpose for government and law. Your approach gives govt cart blanch with the ability to decide for themselves what is moral or what they like.

(31-07-2015 10:49 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  So how would you decide what to do? You could cater to the rioters and give them the law they are demanding (to make society safe), or you could arrest and prosecute the rioters ( to make society safe). Which one would you do?
Depends on which approach is sustainable. If one approach needs me to arm the police and monitor public and make dissidents disappear then that is the approach I won't take.

(31-07-2015 10:49 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Back to the hypocrisy bit though....

You mentioned that you would be in favor of invading another society if it was necessary for survival. Would you complain if another society invaded your society for its own survival? Would it make you a hypocrite if you did complain?
You are really stretching it.
I have no problems with competition for limited resource.
But if we are all part of the same society and deciding on rules for our society. I can't really insist that society gives me special priviledge. If I deem it that the government should have the power to impose their likes on others then really I couldn't complain if they force their likes on me.

Perhaps you want an aggressive society where the most powerful forces their way on all others. Are you the most powerful in USA?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2015, 05:58 PM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2015 06:10 PM by Matt Finney.)
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(31-07-2015 02:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You are really stretching it.

Stretching it eh?

Yeah, it does seem pretty absurd to apply the word hypocrisy to situations like that. Sometimes it's either kill or be killed. The killer is not a hypocrite, and neither is the dying even if he complains.

What else seems absurd is applying it to a person who likes having national parks and wants laws that protect them, but then complains after being kidnapped, tortured and raped. National parks aren't necessary, so by your definition, that person would be a hypocrite.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2015, 06:12 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(31-07-2015 05:58 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Stretching it eh?

Yeah, it does seem pretty absurd to apply the word hypocrisy to situations like that. Sometimes it's either kill or be killed. The killer is not a hypocrite and neither is the dying even if he complains.

What else seems absurd is applying it to a person who likes having national parks and wants laws that protect them, but then complains after being kidnapped, tortured and raped. National parks aren't necessary, so by your definition, that person would be a hypocrite.
It seems I have got you into combative mode by calling you a hypocrite.
You called yourself a hypocrite first. I was supporting this assessment.

My assessment and reason for it is completely different to these strange scenarios you have listed here. You are really stretching it and I understand why you are doing that. Anyway, I appologise if you feel attacked by me calling your position hypocritical, it wasn't meant as an insult.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2015, 06:45 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(31-07-2015 06:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It seems I have got you into combative mode by calling you a hypocrite.
You called yourself a hypocrite first. I was supporting this assessment.

My assessment and reason for it is completely different to these strange scenarios you have listed here. You are really stretching it and I understand why you are doing that. Anyway, I appologise if you feel attacked by me calling your position hypocritical, it wasn't meant as an insult.

My apologies, I don't mean to sound combative.

I guess I just want to drive home my point that asking for a government without preference is akin to asking for people that can't be corrupted. We know from experience that people are extremely corruptible. I think that preference is always going to creep back in, and I think it's as unescapable as our human biology. In other words, the best we'll ever be able to do is to see things the way a human sees them. Not only that, I wouldn't want to live in a society that has no laws based on preference. You'd have no laws protecting hunting species to extinction. No laws protecting forests, or any lands for that matter. You'd have no city parks. (and you have to deal with all of the cow-fuckers on the roadside Big Grin ).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2015, 06:08 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(28-07-2015 07:41 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 05:25 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  ...
I actually posted it back on #518. (page 52)

I thought I recognised it.

(27-07-2015 04:06 AM)tear151 Wrote:  I found this on the internet and I think it's useful in this discussion

What is moral nihilism?

Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral; nothing is inherently right or wrong. It is the stance that there is nothing indicating that we ought to do any particular thing over another in any non-instrumental/non-conditional sense of the word ought.

Can anyone give me an example of a non-instrumental / non-conditional ought, please?

Is this just another way of saying that there are no intrinsic oughts, only contextual oughts?

Cheers

What do you mean by contextual ought's? Do you mean ought's like "in modern day USA, slavery is morally wrong, and therefore ought not be done."? Or ought's like "if you want to become better at the piano, then you ought to do things that are conducive to becoming better, such as practicing and studying, etc."?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2015, 08:10 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-08-2015 06:08 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(28-07-2015 07:41 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I thought I recognised it.


Can anyone give me an example of a non-instrumental / non-conditional ought, please?

Is this just another way of saying that there are no intrinsic oughts, only contextual oughts?

Cheers

What do you mean by contextual ought's? Do you mean ought's like "in modern day USA, slavery is morally wrong, and therefore ought not be done."? Or ought's like "if you want to become better at the piano, then you ought to do things that are conducive to becoming better, such as practicing and studying, etc."?

The latter.

In the context of the following situation:
Earth; gravity; 21st century; humans; music; pianos; a society where skills/competencies vis-à-vis playing musical instruments to a standard that provides pleasure for other life-forms is valued, if you want etc. then etc.

In the context of:
Earth; gravity; 21st century; culture; ethics; behaviour; a society where the principles of equality, reciprocity, empathy and individual freedom/autonomy vis-à-vis ownership of other life-forms are valued, if you want etc. then etc.

I honestly cannot think of any example of an ought that would be non-conditional and non-contextual. So, I was asking whether anyone had an example of one.

Our new friend on the other "Morality" thread seems to be arguing for it but not successfully so far.

The above definition of nihilism also uses the term "non-instrumental" which I am interpreting as 'un-measurable' because that makes sense to me and because I don't have much understanding of Instrumentalism (despite having studied it intensely (spent 10 mins reading wikipedia))

Incidentally, your preference for the term 'preference' doesn't appeal to me... I think this is because it ain't got enough 'oomph!'. It seems too much of a whim rather than something that is related to goals/outcomes.

'Behaviours' can be driven by preferences (whims) but it seems too lightweight a term when discussing 'ethics'.

There might be (or have been) a society where it is/was, on a whim, mandated as an ought (shall or should) to eat only vanilla and never chocolate ice-cream, indeed Singapore's ruling against chewing gum is probably an example but it's not the 'preference' that is mandated, it's the policies of use/ownership/distribution that are mandated conditionally (if/then) in a specific context i.e. keeping the city clean (benefits re. tourism; resource optimisation re. maintenance costs).

Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-08-2015, 08:59 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
(01-08-2015 08:10 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Incidentally, your preference for the term 'preference' doesn't appeal to me... I think this is because it ain't got enough 'oomph!'. It seems too much of a whim rather than something that is related to goals/outcomes.

'Behaviours' can be driven by preferences (whims) but it seems too lightweight a term when discussing 'ethics'.
Consider

Well, we can't use the term "morals" because it implies oughts. "Preference" is the best word I can come up with. Preferences aren't the same as whims. Preferences can be very well thought out and contemplated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2016, 02:37 PM
RE: Another attack on moral subjectivism
please disregard, meant to put this response on another thread
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: