Challenge to proponents of objective morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-05-2018, 03:43 PM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2018 03:47 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(18-05-2018 01:44 PM)Nero Wrote:  Can you cite the silver or platinum rule anywhere?

Can you use teh googlez? Or do you not haz teh codez?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2018, 04:54 PM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(18-05-2018 07:06 AM)Nero Wrote:  Reciprocity is easy to understand: Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Both good and bad actions are reciprocal.

OK, I understand you better now.

I want to eliminate actual reciprocity from moral choices. If you do something good because you're actually expecting to get something in return, that's not a moral choice that's a purchase.

But if by "reciprocity" you mean the Golden Rule, the "if I were in your shoes" way of thinking, that makes more sense.

(18-05-2018 07:06 AM)Nero Wrote:  Morality is only a concept of a relationship, like team or corporation. Empathy and reciprocity is how they function. Without empathy and reciprocity, they would not function.

Well, you keep asserting this, but I'm looking for reasons to believe it.

Some people argue that morality is about being a good person: I am moral because it is good for me to be moral, not because I feel the pain of others.

History seems to indicate that empathy is one of the weakest emotions there is. It disappears quickly under the pressure of all kinds of things. To rely on it, in my opinion, is a mistake.

Now if you want to say that morality should come from empathy, that's different. That's a statement about an ideal world. But in our world I don't think it will work.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2018, 04:57 PM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(18-05-2018 11:53 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You hold logic and evidence in too high esteem, I am suspicious of them as well. Just not as suspicious.

Yes, that makes sense.

I'll go back to a narrower view: when making philosophical claims, like "morality = X," it is good to have reasons to explain your claim. That's the only way we can discuss the matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Belaqua's post
18-05-2018, 05:01 PM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(18-05-2018 01:51 PM)Nero Wrote:  
(17-05-2018 04:54 PM)Belaqua Wrote:  This comes across a bit like mind-reading. It seems as if you are claiming to know my feelings better than I do. If I say I have no empathy for certain people, yet feel moral responsibility for them anyway, are you saying that in fact I do have empathy, but I'm unaware of it?

I'm simply repeating the scenario you were imaging. You said you might not feel empathy, but you would feel moral responsibility.

Earlier, after my statement is Morality is reciprocity and empathy, you then said morality is separate from reciprocity within the context of my own statement without clarifying your opinion of my statement.

You seemed to be disputing my claim that I feel no empathy. Like I say "I made my moral choice although I feel no empathy," and you said, "Yes you do feel empathy, you just don't know it."

If that's not your argument, I misunderstood.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2018, 07:19 PM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(18-05-2018 12:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I like these ladies, especially Gilligan and Noddings. I think they get it.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-ethics/

I had a women's history class in college. I remember reading some of the people in the article. It was very obscure. I think reciprocity is a simpler solution, regardless of the situation.

Equality is a progressive moral value. It is based on reciprocity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2018, 11:40 PM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2018 11:44 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(18-05-2018 04:54 PM)Belaqua Wrote:  I want to eliminate actual reciprocity from moral choices. If you do something good because you're actually expecting to get something in return, that's not a moral choice that's a purchase.

Only in darkness are we revealed. Goodness is not goodness that seeks advantage. Good is good in the final hour, in the deepest pit, without hope, without witness, without reward. Virtue is only virtue in extremis. This is what *he* believes, and this is the reason above all I love him, my husband. My madman in a box. My Doctor.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2018, 11:53 PM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2018 12:39 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(18-05-2018 04:57 PM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(18-05-2018 11:53 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You hold logic and evidence in too high esteem, I am suspicious of them as well. Just not as suspicious.

Yes, that makes sense.

I'll go back to a narrower view: when making philosophical claims, like "morality = X," it is good to have reasons to explain your claim. That's the only way we can discuss the matter.

That's not the only way, brother, come over here and let Uncle Girly give you a couple doses of purple people eater 4-way window pane and we'll see if your reason can survive that. Mine couldn't (it came back different and stronger in the end by virtue of the beatdown because now it knows its proper place and shit) and it was highly and keenly trained by two top US universities and the USN. Think your reason's got the juju? I doubt your reason has the juju. Let's see your juju. ... But, are you experienced? Have you ever been experienced? Well I have. Tongue




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2018, 12:56 AM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2018 01:00 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(18-05-2018 01:44 PM)Nero Wrote:  Being alone doesn't have anything to do with empathy. Empathy is an ability.





Why don't you go and refine and develop your empathy alone then in some sorta isolated cave somewhere? You talk silly.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: