Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-12-2016, 10:45 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
At work.

Dear Mr Finney.

Are words 'Subjective' or 'Objective'?

Yes, I know I'm being a bit of a twat by NOT including any sort of context in the above given quedtion... but 'Context' in word usage seems to be something of a problem for Mr Finney.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
11-12-2016, 11:30 AM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(11-12-2016 10:02 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(11-12-2016 06:22 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Empathy is a subjective value and it can be preferred over lack of empathy.

(23-11-2016 10:53 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  You can form a rational basis for right and wrong from denoting harm that is caused by certain actions. This would be external to individual opinion.

So I can assert that god drowning everyone on the planet, is indeed "evil".

Do you see how the above quotes are incompatible?

If empathy is a subjective value, then it can't be a rational basis for determining right and wrong, it could only be used to determine what you prefer. Someone could value apathy over empathy.

There is absolutely zero evidence that empathy ought to be valued over apathy.

However, I completely agree with your first quote, there is no question that someone can value empathy, as I very much do, it's your second quote where the problem is. Both statements in that quote are false.

I think your assertion of zero evidence goes too far. You can certainly make a rational argument over empathy being a superior preference over apathy in terms of survival and even what society individuals prefer.

In context of religious debates, a god commits genocide, I can say that that is "not preferred" or the colloquial term "wrong".

It's rather easy to compare pro-genocide vs. anti-genocide and how it relates to survival.

In this case, I think it's pointlessly pedantic.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2016, 12:20 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(11-12-2016 10:42 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I'm having flash-backs to a year and a half ago when you first posted this. Is this the third or fourth time you've posted it? I've lost count. But I disagreed with it then as now.

You didn't respond to my criticism of it so I'll ask, with respect, is it worth me going through it in detail or will I just be wasting my time?

Just point me to your original criticism, I'd gladly respond.

(11-12-2016 10:42 AM)DLJ Wrote:  'TheInquisition' is not saying that empathy or harm are the rational basis for determining right and wrong he's saying that we can (subjectively) select empathy or harm as the scale i.e. it's the label we can put on the y-axis by which we can objectively measure degrees of right-ness or wrongness (once those are defined)

If that's all he's saying, then he's saying perhaps the most obvious thing ever said. It's incredibly obvious that genocide causes harm to people. This has nothing to do with morality. Morality is concerned with whether or not one OUGHT to commit genocide. There is absolutely no evidence that empathy should be valued, and there is absolutely no evidence that one ought to avoid committing genocide.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2016, 12:45 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
At work.

(11-12-2016 12:20 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(11-12-2016 10:42 AM)DLJ Wrote:  'TheInquisition' is not saying that empathy or harm are the rational basis for determining right and wrong he's saying that we can (subjectively) select empathy or harm as the scale i.e. it's the label we can put on the y-axis by which we can objectively measure degrees of right-ness or wrongness (once those are defined)

If that's all he's saying, then he's saying perhaps the most obvious thing ever said. It's incredibly obvious that genocide causes harm to people. This has nothing to do with morality. Morality is concerned with whether or not one OUGHT to commit genocide. There is absolutely no evidence that empathy should be valued, and there is absolutely no evidence that one ought to avoid committing genocide.

Dafaq?

There's no 'Ought' about genocide?

(O_o)

Sorry, no time to expand on the above disbelief in regards to the above comment. Other than to add....

Facepalm

EDIT: I would add that the very meaning of the word 'Empathy' gives it its 'Value'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2016, 12:53 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(11-12-2016 11:30 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I think your assertion of zero evidence goes too far. You can certainly make a rational argument over empathy being a superior preference over apathy in terms of survival and even what society individuals prefer.

Right, but morality isn't about survival or what "society individuals prefer", morality is about the behaviors one OUGHT to adhere to. Again, one can value dominance over empathy without contradiction.

(11-12-2016 11:30 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  In context of religious debates, a god commits genocide, I can say that that is "not preferred" or the colloquial term "wrong".

Not preferred by who?

"Not preferred" and "wrong" don't mean the same thing. I do "not prefer" to eat black liquorish, but it would be silly of me to presume that eating black liquorish is "wrong".

If you're only referring to your own preference, why not refer to it as your preference?

(11-12-2016 11:30 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  It's rather easy to compare pro-genocide vs. anti-genocide and how it relates to survival.

Sure but survival has nothing to do with morality. A person can value death over survival, and there is no evidence that one ought to value life over death.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
11-12-2016, 01:12 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(11-12-2016 12:53 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Sure but survival has nothing to do with morality. A person can value death over survival, and there is no evidence that one ought to value life over death.

Do you think everyone should kill anyone they want, anytime they want?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2016, 01:26 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(11-12-2016 01:12 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(11-12-2016 12:53 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Sure but survival has nothing to do with morality. A person can value death over survival, and there is no evidence that one ought to value life over death.

Do you think everyone should kill anyone they want, anytime they want?

The reality is that anyone can attempt to kill anyone at anytime they want. This is a fact, not my opinion.

I do support killing of serial killers, members of ISIS, serial rapists, child molesters, etc, but that's only my personal preference. Some people prefer that the death penalty never be used, and that's ok, we all have our own preferences.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
11-12-2016, 02:12 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(11-12-2016 12:20 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(11-12-2016 10:42 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I'm having flash-backs to a year and a half ago when you first posted this. Is this the third or fourth time you've posted it? I've lost count. But I disagreed with it then as now.

You didn't respond to my criticism of it so I'll ask, with respect, is it worth me going through it in detail or will I just be wasting my time?

Just point me to your original criticism, I'd gladly respond.

Here was my first response to the video.

Somewhere else I took issue with the statement that 'subjective does not equal real' (but I can't find that post). Social constructs are still part of reality even if they are anthropocentric.

And there's still the thing about merely preferences which we have discussed before.

Preferences, yes, but preferences that require justification (either to oneself (instinctively or rationally) or to a wider group) as at least two of us pointed out earlier in this thread.

Meanwhile, I'm having a go at drawing it. I'll start a new thread once I have a first draft.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
11-12-2016, 02:39 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(26-06-2015 08:50 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Yup. I think the bait and switch was at 0:49 with the definition. The narrator went from "not simply" is (implying both is and ought) to then went on to describe ethics and morality as only ought.

Can you please elaborate on this?

Lets look at an example....

We'll assume a man named John beat up a homeless man.

"John beat up a homeless man." I have no problem with this statement. This isn't a moral claim, only a fact.

"John should beat up a homeless man." This is a moral statement, and implies that beating up homeless is good. This statement is nonsensical and not true.

"John should not beat up a homeless man." This is also a moral statement, and implies that beating up homeless people is bad. This statement is nonsensical and not true.

"I prefer that John does not beat up a homeless man." This is not a moral claim, and only addresses my preference. I have no problem with this.

There really isn't a moral claim unless the word "ought/should" is in there. Without a prescription, you're only describing facts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2016, 02:49 PM
RE: Where is the Basis for our Judgments?
(11-12-2016 02:12 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Somewhere else I took issue with the statement that 'subjective does not equal real' (but I can't find that post). Social constructs are still part of reality even if they are anthropocentric.

I agree with you here. Preferences are real and so are social constructs. I just don't think the video said otherwise.

Preferences are real, but that doesn't mean that there is a system of morality that one ought to adhere to, do you think otherwise?

(11-12-2016 02:12 PM)DLJ Wrote:  And there's still the thing about merely preferences which we have discussed before.

Then take out the word "merely" if you must.

(11-12-2016 02:12 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Preferences, yes, but preferences that require justification (either to oneself (instinctively or rationally) or to a wider group) as at least two of us pointed out earlier in this thread.

I can't think of a single preference that requires justification. What if there is no justification? Does a person have to justify eating meat to have a preference for eating meat?

Justification is another subjective thing altogether. Opinions on justification vary widely, and there seems to no method to determine whether or not something is justified.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: