I'm not. I'm flexible in that regard as previously discussed and apparently forgotten. Relative to me, relative to you, relative to us, relative to society, government, religion, Kantianism, whatever. It's all relative. And it is all properly made sense of through moral feelings, otherwise it's merely illusory nonsense.

And obviously, inter-subjectivity is just a bunch of individual subjectivities grouped together with subjective elements in common. Nothing much to do with objectivity. Yes, obviously a whole bunch of us feel the same way about murder. What of it? And please don't bring up a harmonious society, as that misses the point.

All truths are only such insofar as they are based on inter-subjective agreement; and that goes for both scientific truths and moral truths. So, the universally agreed upon idea that murder, rape, torture and so on is wrong is a truth in the context of the inter-subjective agreement that it is such. individual preference doesn't come into it when it comes to such moral truths, any more than it does with science. The simple-minded demand for empirical evidence in the domain of moral thought is the category error.

I haven't accused you of anything; I said "IF you are that kind of moral relativist". But really, it's so obviously trivially true that moral truths are relative to inter-subjective agreement, it makes me wonder what you have confusedly thought you have been arguing about so vehemently for all these pages. :gasp:

All truths are only such insofar as they are based on inter-subjective agreement; and that goes for both scientific truths and moral truths. So, the universally agreed upon idea that murder, rape, torture and so on is wrong is a truth in the context of the inter-subjective agreement that it is such. individual preference doesn't come into it when it comes to such moral truths, any more than it does with science. The simple-minded demand for empirical evidence in the domain of moral thought is the category error. — Janus

Interesting to find someone who actually subscribes to a consensus theory of truth . . . interesting because it's rare. Rare because it's pretty clearly wacky, unless it's simply borne out of a passion for sociological phenomena at the expense of describing other phenomena.

You said of something that it was "in the arguments of moral relativists". Who were you referring to? Two moral relativists here have rejected what you said.

And I'm most obviously arguing against anyone who is a moral objectivist or a moral absolutist, but it's not that simple. I also disagree with Terrapin over his noncognitivism, T Clark over cultural relativism, yourself and T Clark over individualism...

I'll argue with anyone who disagrees with me over anything.

Inter-subjectivity seems like a red herring.

You really should stop mischaracterising those you're debating. No one here is saying that nothing is wrong in the unqualified way that you just said it. I shouldn't have to point out that moral relativists and emotivists are not moral nihilists. We accept that there is right and wrong. — S

How many times do I have to write it. You are completely missing my point. I agree with you - we agree with each other - we're all almost a big happy family picnicking in those happy uplands where the breezes are always warm and sweet, the flowers bloom, it never rains, and never is heard a discouraging word, except on your view that murder, the wrong of it, is just a matter of opinion. And then there is Terrapin. Is he so ignorant of even Youtube history? Bad people in recent history, within the memories of many people, did bad things. Except that Terrapin does not think so. He thinks if there's anything bad, it's only because they think so. Do you agree with Terrapin?

Perhaps I have made a fundamental preliminary error, although looking back I see I did try to qualify it: in order for anything to be bad, there has to be acknowledgement that there can be bad things. I suspect you-all reject that. Do you reject that?

My argument is that if you agree that there exist bad things, then you can investigate criteria. Admittedly you get a lot of opinion. Kant reduced it to an exercise in reason. As such it is certain, and certainly certain.

2+2=4? Mere opinion according to Terrapin. 2+2=222 is just as good, to him. Is it to you? You can have your relativity, You simply reject reason and the notion of implication and consequence. You can do it. Dont expect to find that the world works that way.

Maybe it's just the particular rules we adopt. I like reason and appreciate and enjoy my own feeble efforts at it. What do you have, it tastes good?

I am not arguing that you must be consenting to your own murder if you condone murder. You can indeed make an exception in your case. Imagine, though, the murderer says, I too can make an exception, in your case. Where are you then?

He thinks if there's anything bad, it's only because they think so. Do you agree with Terrapin? — tim wood

So is this trolling, or are you really dim enough to not even realize that I consider anything morally bad? One thing I might consider morally bad is continually trolling straw men.

2+2=4? Mere opinion according to Terrapin. — tim wood

There's no sense of the word "opinion" that I use, or that's in common use, that I would say fits that. You could suggest a definition, though, I guess.

What could truth be if not "truth for us"? The things that are true in human life are the things that all of us (the sensible ones at least) can agree upon. All truths are, in principle at least, relative in that sense and are thus fallible.

What else do you think truth could be? Are you wanting to propose that there are some absolute truths 'out there'? Perhaps there are, but what could they possibly be to us?

There's no sense of the word "opinion" that I use, or that's in common use, that I would say fits that. You could suggest a definition, though, I guess. — Terrapin Station

Ah--maybe I have to take that back. Here's one supposedly common definition of "opinion:" "the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing"

Given that definition, it would be very strange to say that one doesn't think that 2+2=4 is an opinion that people have.

What have I said that you have rejected?

The things that are true in human life are the things that all of us (the sensible ones at least) can agree upon. — Janus

Do you not realize that people use "truth" in a way that doesn't at all hinge on (the possibility of) communal agreement?

So what? Perhaps they haven't thought about it enough. Are you now appealing to consensus?

In any case it would be helpful if you gave an example of such usage.

Would you not be able to make sense of "It was true a moment ago that I thought of eating ice cream"?

The fact that it was true a moment ago involved no one else in any manner, and it couldn't have--since I didn't tell anyone what I thought at the time. Yet it still was true at that time.

On your view, you should not be able to make sense of that usage of "true."

I strongly disagree here. It makes no sense to me not to be flexible enough to switch between a group context and an individual context. Wrong for them isn't necessarily wrong for me, and that clearly matters a lot, or wouldn't it matter if I was the only non-racist subject in a large group of subjects? Racism would be right, and my individual moral judgement irrelevant?

A similar example is, "It is either true or false that one hour ago, you were thinking of airplanes. I want you to not tell anyone the answer, but think it to yourself, then write it down on this piece of paper that you do not show to anyone, and seal it in this envelope."

There is a truth value there, but one that we've designed so that no one else at all can corroborate, unless we unseal the envelope at some future time.

On a consensus view of truth, the above can't make sense. Yet it's a common sense in which truth value is used. So a consensus theory of truth winds up ignoring common usage of the term it's supposed to be defining.

You believe it was true, but you could be mistaken. Obviously consensus can have no purchase in regard to some matters than can only be known to the individual. But again, this is a red herring in the context of discussing moral truth, and it is typical of you to introduce such weak analogies when you cannot come up with any cogent response.

I strongly disagree here. It makes no sense to me not to be flexible enough to switch between a group context and an individual context. Wrong for them isn't necessarily wrong for me, and that clearly matters a lot, or wouldn't it matter if I was the only non-racist subject in a large group of subjects? — S

It would be wrong for you to think that some moral claim is not wrong if everyone agrees that it is wrong. If you did you would be a sociopath and not fit for human society. In any case, if you are "switching to a group context" that means you are taking into account what the group thinks, so it cannot be a matter of mere personal preference, as tastes for certain kinds of foods are. You just don't want to admit that your moral dispositions are enculturated, and are nothing special.

I am very much not missing the point. I am objecting to your deliberately misleading wording, and I will continue to do so. This has been a problem from the very start. Remember, "mere" preference? Remember, "destructive"? Well, guess what? "Nothing is wrong!" is on that same list. The last one should always be clearly qualified in a discussion such as this, where no one is a moral nihilist.

This is nonsense. Of course people take the words of others to be true if they trust them. Obviously consensus, in terms of actually checking, can only operate where more than one person has access to what is being checked.

You're also ignoring the fact that your belief that you were thinking of some particular thing an hour ago is itself a relative truth insofar as it relies on your memory.

Remember, "mere" preference? — S

I'm not sure if Tim has used that term but I certainly have. What is your problem with it? It's use (by me at least) just denotes the fact that some kinds of moral relativists want to say to say that moral dispositions are nothing but personal preferences. And of course I haven't anywhere said that they are not also personal preferences; it is trivially true that they are.

How would that work out in my example, then? I want you to actually try to show us where your logic leads. I am a sociopath for judging racism to be wrong, and my judgement is nothing special? Is that what you're suggesting? If you say that they're wrong, then that can only suggest individual moral relativism or moral objectivism, both of which you reject. Seems lose-lose for you. I have you trapped.

And obviously my judgement didn't come from my racist society. So again, you're trapped.

And omfg, please stop with the mere food preference bullshit. You're better than that, or so I thought.

I have you trapped. — S

Everyone doesn't think that racism is right, anyone who thinks about it will soon see that it is not. Surely you can do better than that.

This is a rather pathetic attempt to shift the argument away from the overarching moral principles that everyone does agree upon, so it is just another red herring. You simply don't want to admit that your view is inadequate and inconsistent with human experience. Your ego is getting in the way of your understanding and will ruin your philosophical development if you are not more careful.

You can't change the thought experiment. Don't you know how these things work? In the thought experiment, everyone else in my society is a racist. That isn't so unbelievable given our history.

You aren't properly responding, because you don't have a leg to stand on, and you've begun to resort to name-calling and evasion, which is tantamount to throwing in the towel.

Janus's position has a lot going for it, so long as we completely ignore our history of slavery, genocide, extreme torture, racism, and severe oppression - all of which were commonly accepted and intersubjectively true amongst large groups at one time. If you were one of the individuals who judged against the herd, then you were just a sociopath, and nothing special. You can be written off as irrelevant. Morality is herd-morality! Or so bleats the sheep.

People all generally agree that other human beings should be treated with care and respect. If there were a society whose members were all racist, it could only be on account of a shared belief that others who are not members of that society are less than human, and are hence not due the care and respect that humans would be.

So such a thing would be on account of poor reasoning (maybe bolstered by irrational fears) and nothing more; and it is consequently irrelevant to the argument. You're doing a Terrapin and trying to shift the argument because you can't win it in the relevant context.

This is rubbish. There is no evidence that everyone ever agreed with the things you cited; and you are persisting with trying to shift the goalposts; which I am starting to see is typical with you. It's not good philosophy.

To disagree with what I just said of history only suggests your own ignorance of history. I know quite a bit about history. I am about as obsessed with history as I am with philosophy.

And if you aren't disagreeing with what I said, but instead with something I didn't say, then you're missing the point. I recommend reviewing what I actually said. The thought experiment resembles our history to a certain degree, I didn't intend to suggest that it replicates it exactly. It doesn't need to. It isn't totally incomprehensible. It is a possible world scenario. But if you are petty enough to object to the "everyone else" part, then just swap it for "most others in my society". In the thought experiment, I am white, and so is everyone else in my village. I've never even seen anyone of a different skin colour in person. My culture is very much racist. My parents are racist. But I am not.

You'll probably just try to cheat by altering the thought experiment, which results in failure. Or you'll refuse to even engage it, which results in failure.

Try using your brain with a bit of a sense for nuance for a change! Do you think the slaves agreed with slavery, those whose whole race was wiped out agreed with genocide, the oppressed agreed with oppression or those tortured agreed with torture?

Not to mention the rest of society; for example there is no evidence that anyone who was not an aristocrat agreed with slavery, and it is not even plausible that even all the aristocrats believed that slavery was a good thing.

In Australia, for example, the aboriginals were treated abominably, including often being summarily murdered, by the early settlers, and if you think that, at the time, everyone who was not an aboriginal would have agreed with that treatment, then you'd be wrong; there is documentary evidence that it was a contentious issue at the time.

And the issue that was contended was not whether or not it is right to murder humans, but rather whether or not aboriginals qualified as humans. So your attempt to shift the argument away from the overarching moral truths is misguided at best and disingenuous at worst.

Try cutting out the petty insults and irrelevant personal attacks! The history was relevant to the extent that my thought experiment isn't totally incomprehensible. It is relatable on some level. It is a possible world scenario. It resembles periods of our history, though it obviously doesn't replicate them exactly, which is neither necessary nor was ever my intention. You've predictably failed by either refusing to engage it or by adding elements to the thought experiment that aren't in the set up of it.

You're ridiculously blinkered to the "everyone else" bit. I have tried to resolve this problem. Please review what I've said. I often edit my posts too late, so things can be missed. I would apologise for that, but you're acting like a jerk, so an apology from me to you over anything at all is out of the question right now.

If you want a historical example of what I'm getting at, with plenty of evidence in support of it, read Hiter's Willing Executionors: Ordinary Germans And The Holocaust, by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen.

Agreed. I’ve yet to experience ontological conditionals as anything but complicating, rather than clarifying. I mean...whatever I’m talking about must already be somehow, and must already relate to what I’m talking about....or I wouldn’t have anything to talk about. AAARRRGGGGG!!!!!! — Mww

What matters is existential dependency...

The distinction between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief is imperative. All philosophical positions are existentially dependent upon the latter. Some of them take proper account of that which is not.

Your thought experiment is garbage for two reasons: firstly it lamely attempts to shift the argument away from the universally agreed upon.

Secondly it is not based on anything which it would be plausible to think has ever happened.