Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-09-2015, 07:40 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(09-09-2015 04:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  What the hell are you talking about? The antithesis of objective is subjective.

You can subscribe to objective morality, as folks who subscribe to moral realism often do, and yet believe certain things like taking someone life for fun is wrong, while taking someone life in self-defense may be right.

You seem to be confusing objective with absolute and universal. Objective morality would require a source for the morality that is visible to and query-able by anyone.

Universal just means everyone believes it.

Absolute means there is no other way to see it.

Quote:Objective morality doesn't require a belief in absolutes, such as taking life in any circumstance is wrong.

I believe that the wrongness of torturing babies just for the fun of it, is not matter of opinion, that it's not subjective, that it's as wrong as 2+2=5 is wrong.

Fine, you believe it. Doesn't make it so.

Quote:And this is representative of the average joe's view. If you think this not the case, then you don't have a clue, and are completely out of touch.

That's universal, not objective.

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
10-09-2015, 07:44 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
You're bound to find someone for some case of an argument, but it doesn't make it not drastically outrageous.

It's because it's a reduction to absurdity... it's just foolish to be used. Whether or not people think torturing babies for fun is subjective doesn't reflect the degree to what they actually think is the case about objective/non-objective. And no, as morality has been thrown around a lot but your case that it being the antithesis is just a black/white expression but as pointed out, there is wiggle room. You yourself were against tying various moral positions as holding up in this manner before when it came to what relativist/nihilist/subjective can be to mean. Not objective doesn't mean it's therefore a personal moral choice of a subjective degree, it's not a sound claim.

"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
10-09-2015, 08:07 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(10-09-2015 07:44 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You're bound to find someone for some case of an argument, but it doesn't make it not drastically outrageous.

It's because it's a reduction to absurdity... it's just foolish to be used. Whether or not people think torturing babies for fun is subjective doesn't reflect the degree to what they actually think is the case about objective/non-objective. And no, as morality has been thrown around a lot but your case that it being the antithesis is just a black/white expression but as pointed out, there is wiggle room. You yourself were against tying various moral positions as holding up in this manner before when it came to what relativist/nihilist/subjective can be to mean. Not objective doesn't mean it's therefore a personal moral choice of a subjective degree, it's not a sound claim.


Okay I'm bound find someone who agrees that the wrongness of torturing babies just for the fun of it, is subjectively wrong. But you concede that most people wouldn't believe this.

And nonobjective is subjective.

Are you claiming that the wrongness of torturing babies just for the fun it, for you is neither objectively or subjectively wrong?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 08:10 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(10-09-2015 08:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-09-2015 07:44 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You're bound to find someone for some case of an argument, but it doesn't make it not drastically outrageous.

It's because it's a reduction to absurdity... it's just foolish to be used. Whether or not people think torturing babies for fun is subjective doesn't reflect the degree to what they actually think is the case about objective/non-objective. And no, as morality has been thrown around a lot but your case that it being the antithesis is just a black/white expression but as pointed out, there is wiggle room. You yourself were against tying various moral positions as holding up in this manner before when it came to what relativist/nihilist/subjective can be to mean. Not objective doesn't mean it's therefore a personal moral choice of a subjective degree, it's not a sound claim.


Okay I'm bound find someone who agrees that the wrongness of torturing babies just for the fun of it, is subjectively wrong. But you concede that most people wouldn't believe this.

And nonobjective is subjective.

Are you claiming that the wrongness of torturing babies just for the fun it, for you is neither objectively or subjectively wrong?

Yes I claim that. That's something that should be quite easily answerable by you at this point.

Most people believing it is irrelevant because it's just an absurd exaggerated statement that doesn't reflect the discussion. Or perhaps you just don't see the claims you are making.

"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
10-09-2015, 08:11 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(10-09-2015 07:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-09-2015 04:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  What the hell are you talking about? The antithesis of objective is subjective.

You can subscribe to objective morality, as folks who subscribe to moral realism often do, and yet believe certain things like taking someone life for fun is wrong, while taking someone life in self-defense may be right.

You seem to be confusing objective with absolute and universal. Objective morality would require a source for the morality that is visible to and query-able by anyone.

Universal just means everyone believes it.

Absolute means there is no other way to see it.

Quote:Objective morality doesn't require a belief in absolutes, such as taking life in any circumstance is wrong.

I believe that the wrongness of torturing babies just for the fun of it, is not matter of opinion, that it's not subjective, that it's as wrong as 2+2=5 is wrong.

Fine, you believe it. Doesn't make it so.

Quote:And this is representative of the average joe's view. If you think this not the case, then you don't have a clue, and are completely out of touch.

That's universal, not objective.

I'm not conflating the three at all. In fact I made it a point to distinguish absolute and objective moral views.

And my references to the average wasn't for the sake, of arguing for the validity of objective morality, but just for sake of arguing what the average joe believes. You can call it a "universal" if you like, to distinguish it from an argument for the validity of objective morality.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 08:12 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(10-09-2015 08:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-09-2015 07:44 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You're bound to find someone for some case of an argument, but it doesn't make it not drastically outrageous.

It's because it's a reduction to absurdity... it's just foolish to be used. Whether or not people think torturing babies for fun is subjective doesn't reflect the degree to what they actually think is the case about objective/non-objective. And no, as morality has been thrown around a lot but your case that it being the antithesis is just a black/white expression but as pointed out, there is wiggle room. You yourself were against tying various moral positions as holding up in this manner before when it came to what relativist/nihilist/subjective can be to mean. Not objective doesn't mean it's therefore a personal moral choice of a subjective degree, it's not a sound claim.


Okay I'm bound find someone who agrees that the wrongness of torturing babies just for the fun of it, is subjectively wrong. But you concede that most people wouldn't believe this.

And nonobjective is subjective.

Are you claiming that the wrongness of torturing babies just for the fun it, for you is neither objectively or subjectively wrong?

I don't think anyone here argues that it's not either objective or subjective. Consider

I think there is a good argument to made that anything that is nearly universal to humans, like the feeling that torturing babies is wrong or rape is wrong, has an evolutionary basis, e.g. empathy.

In which case, it is also arguable that this provides an objective basis for some aspects of morality.

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
10-09-2015, 08:33 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(10-09-2015 08:10 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes I claim that. That's something that should be quite easily answerable by you at this point.

Most people believing it is irrelevant because it's just an absurd exaggerated statement that doesn't reflect the discussion. Or perhaps you just don't see the claims you are making.

And you're just being silly. You think you can avoid the statement being objective, or subjective, by imagining there's some middle position between the two, that allows you from falling into one camp or the other. This is continued pattern for you, I guess we can call it a fear of being labelled.

But let's entertain your middle position for a minute.

It's noted that you don't believe it's a matter of opinion, that it's not a personal moral choice. So somewhat understandable as to why you don't believe it's subjective.

But on what basis are you rejecting moral realism? It's doesn't require a belief in moral absolutism, nor is it negated by the fact that circumstances can make some action right, where in other circumstances they would be wrong?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 08:35 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(10-09-2015 08:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  I don't think anyone here argues that it's not either objective or subjective. Consider

No one other than Clyde.

Quote:I think there is a good argument to made that anything that is nearly universal to humans, like the feeling that torturing babies is wrong or rape is wrong, has an evolutionary basis, e.g. empathy.

I don't disagree with you. That a variety of nearly universal beliefs, not just in regards to morality, including religious beliefs, likely have an evolutionary basis.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2015, 08:53 AM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2015 08:57 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(10-09-2015 08:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-09-2015 08:10 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Yes I claim that. That's something that should be quite easily answerable by you at this point.

Most people believing it is irrelevant because it's just an absurd exaggerated statement that doesn't reflect the discussion. Or perhaps you just don't see the claims you are making.

And you're just being silly. You think you can avoid the statement being objective, or subjective, by imagining there's some middle position between the two, that allows you from falling into one camp or the other. This is continued pattern for you, I guess we can call it a fear of being labelled.

But let's entertain your middle position for a minute.

It's noted that you don't believe it's a matter of opinion, that it's not a personal moral choice. So somewhat understandable as to why you don't believe it's subjective.

But on what basis are you rejecting moral realism? It's doesn't require a belief in moral absolutism, nor is it negated by the fact that circumstances can make some action right, where in other circumstances they would be wrong?

It's not a middle position. That was never stated. It's moral nihilism. There is nothing that is "wrong" or "right" so it's in no way either objective or subjective. It's not individually relevant when not existent... I don't know what you aren't seeing here. How many threads after threads do there have to be on these topics repeatedly going in circles?

"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
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
10-09-2015, 11:20 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(10-09-2015 08:53 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It's not a middle position. That was never stated. It's moral nihilism. There is nothing that is "wrong" or "right" so it's in no way either objective or subjective. It's not individually relevant when not existent... I don't know what you aren't seeing here. How many threads after threads do there have to be on these topics repeatedly going in circles?


I think you confusing two questions, one relating to the content of a prescriptive moral statement, such as "it's wrong to torture babies just for the fun it." Whether the "wrong" being associated with it, is something most folks see as objectively wrong, or as subjectively wrong.

Highlighting the fact that you're a moral nihilist doesn't answer that question. All that this would clarify is that you wouldn't consider it morally wrong or right, even though most people would consider it morally wrong.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: