Anyway, enough jokes and throwing shade. — S

(That itself was a joke. There's never enough jokes and throwing shade. Even this is itself a joke. But the biggest joke of all is philosophy. Or am I just joking? I can't even tell anymore, and neither can you. Just cave in to the absurdity and everything will work out just fine. Either that or it will be our biggest downfall. It's one of the two, anyway).

Have you checked out the discussion on ancient texts? — S

Yes, I briefly paid a visit. "If I define everything to mean exactly what I say it does, does {insert thing here} mean exactly what I say it does?" seems to be about the jist of it, I just left him to it.

If we apply the criteria of moral objectivism, it results in error theory. How pragmatic is error theory? Not as pragmatic as moral relativism in my assessment. — S

I agree. If we are to make any progress at all on those moral matters where there is widespread agreement (but significant disagreement), those of us who agree are not going to make much inroads by first positing that our agreement is somehow objectively right, having it shown that no single moral statements conforms to that standard and so being sent away muttering.

I'd much rather turn up and say "we prefer things to be this way, and there's more of us than there are of you (and we've got guns)". At least it's honest.

We've had the last thread on abortion, and now we've got morality sorted. What next — S

I believe the question regarding the colour of Tuesday was mentioned...

Yes, I briefly paid a visit. "If I define everything to mean exactly what I say it does, does {insert thing here} mean exactly what I say it does?" seems to be about the jist of it, I just left him to it. — Isaac

No, no, no. It's serious philosophy. (Don't ruin the illusion with your blasted logical analysis!).

I agree. If we are to make any progress at all on those moral matters where there is widespread agreement (but significant disagreement), those of us who agree are not going to make much inroads by first positing that our agreement is somehow objectively right, having it shown that no single moral statements conforms to that standard and so being sent away muttering.

I'd much rather turn up and say "we prefer things to be this way, and there's more of us than there are of you (and we've got guns)". At least it's honest. — Isaac

We very much see eye-to-eye.

I belive the question regarding the colour of Tuesday was mentioned... — Isaac

:rofl:

"With luck, the last thread on the colour of Tuesday".

It's blue, obviously.

It's blue, obviously. — S

Damn, you spoiled it. We could have gone for pages on that question before we reveal the answer that everyone obviously knows.

(although it's yellow, of course. I presumed you were joking about it being blue)

Damn, you spoiled it. We could have gone for pages on that question before we reveal the answer that everyone obviously knows. — Isaac

It's alright. Don't worry. There's still the question of where it's located.

It's in Bordeaux, France, obviously.

Ah shit, I've just ruined it again, haven't I?

Ah shit, I've just ruined it again, haven't I? — S

Not at all, Bordeaux is huge (plus the fact that that's its in Burgundy... as well you know)... Damn... No, wait, it was a double bluff, its not in Burgundy at all. Phew, philosophy is hard isn't it.

Not at all, Bordeaux is huge (plus the fact that that's its in Burgundy... as well you know)... Damn... No, wait, it was a double bluff, its not in Burgundy at all. Phew, philosophy is hard isn't it. — Isaac

I love the idea of a blue Tuesday being located in Burgundy of all places. :lol:

Or is it yellow? And in Croydon? Who knows? Thank goodness we have philosophy to work these things out.

You'll never guess what's in Greenland.

You'll never guess what's in Greenland. — Isaac

Maddie McCann?

Wow, you guys were busy overnight.

Baden, stop making bad jokes, or I'll close the discussion. We're trying to do serious philosophy here.

What if I was the only non-racist in a racist society? — S

Then your morals would be out of step with your community. That would put you 'in the wrong'. Unless you think there's some kind of natural law that defines racism to be wrong?

Wow, you guys were busy overnight. — Terrapin Station

It wasn't overnight. Some of us have the common decency to be English.

I have no problem stating it that way as long as we recognize that "collective (social) preference" is not a simple thing. It involves a complex interaction of societal, governmental, religious, and cultural institutions. — T Clark

:up: Definitely. :smile:

I thought that pointing out the logical error seemed appropriate. Must I construct a logical argument for you as well? What would I need you for in that case? The way I see it, it's on you to put forward an argument for whatever it is that you're claiming, and I will then analyse it and inform you of any problems I detect, and then we can either work on them or you can just close it down as you sometimes do when it gets a bit too much for you. — S

this is the issue i am struggling with - happy to be schooled on my errors -

If morality is completely subjective to the individual, than it is equally subjective for all other individuals as well.

for any action - X

person A - makes a subjective moral judgement that X is moral
person B - makes a subjective moral judgement that X is immoral

They are both subjectively right in their individual judgments.
So both must admit the others subjective judgement is correct or

give up the position that all moral judgments are subjective.

Then your morals would be out of step with your community. That would put you 'in the wrong'. Unless you think there's some kind of natural law that defines racism to be wrong? — Pattern-chaser

Wow. Really? You think that it's either cultural relativism or natural law? The funny thing is, I accept cultural relativism, but I don't accept that it is the whole story when it comes to morality. Yes, I'm wrong relative to them. But they're wrong relative to me, and my morality is better. And yes, better in accordance with my own standard on what's better and worse, obviously. Not in accordance with an imaginary absolute moral standard which makes no sense, and for which there is zero evidence.

They are both subjectively right in their individual judgments.
So both must admit the others subjective judgement is correct — Rank Amateur

If I may. They only must admit that the other's subjective judgement is correct for them (the other person) it is still incorrect for the person thinking about it and so still requires action to remediate (or not, depending on the degree).

The realisation that one cannot make objective ones preferences, does not prevent one from acting to further them. Afterall, you're invoking a kind of 'fairness' here, that it would be somehow 'unfair' if we were to impose our moral preference on another knowing that they feel just as justifiably right as we do.

But what is 'fairness' but another subjective moral preference?

Then your morals would be out of step with your community. That would put you 'in the wrong'. — Pattern-chaser

People who think that "out of step with their community" amounts to "wrong" in any manner are the last people I want to be spending time around.

this is the issue i am struggling with - happy to be schooled on my errors -

If morality is completely subjective to the individual, than it is equally subjective for all other individuals as well.

for any action - X

person A - makes a subjective moral judgement that X is moral
person B - makes a subjective moral judgement that X is immoral

They are both subjectively right in their individual judgments.
So both must admit the others subjective judgement is correct or

give up the position that all moral judgments are subjective. — Rank Amateur

The part in bold is the problem. Who has committed to an absolute sense of correctness in this context? Is the relativist a relativist, or an absolutist?

If the relativist is a relativist, which he obviously is, then there is no internal contradiction, and your criticism is therefore ineffective. Both are correct in a way which does not violate the law of noncontradiction, nor logically imply a normative acceptance of the others moral judgement.

If I may. They only must admit that the other's subjective judgement is correct for them (the other person) it is still incorrect for the person thinking about it and so still requires action to remediate (or not, depending on the degree).

The realisation that one cannot make objective ones preferences, does not prevent one from acting to further them. Afterall, you're invoking a kind of 'fairness' here, that it would be somehow 'unfair' if we were to impose our moral preference on another knowing that they feel just as justifiably right as we do.

But what is 'fairness' but another subjective moral preference? — Isaac

Exactly. Which is what I was getting at above re his framework being that we have to defer to what's objectively the case. (And since what's objectively the case to a subjectivist is that there is no objective preference, then we have to defer to that and have no preference, too.)

Right. Its a form of question begging, I think. The hidden premise is {we must defer to what is objective when we make demands on the actions of others}. So then the argument goes "objectively there are no rules, therefore you cannot ask anyone to abide by a rule" . But take away the hidden premise and the argument fails.

Then your morals would be out of step with your community. That would put you 'in the wrong'.
— Pattern-chaser

People who think that "out of step with their community" amounts to "wrong" in any manner are the last people I want to be spending time around. — Terrapin Station

This is a good point. It can be a worrying way of thinking, as my example involving racism conveys. Good luck trying to tackle institutional racism by talking about the racists being right, and me being wrong.

If I may. They only must admit that the other's subjective judgement is correct for them (the other person — Isaac

agree

it is still incorrect for the person thinking about it and so still requires action to remediate (or not, depending on the degree). — Isaac

fine - but must now give up the the believe that all moral judgments are subjective. Because now you are comparing subjective judgement - how can it be possible to compare them subjectively - that is impossible - they must be compared in measure of objectivity.

The realisation that one cannot make objective ones preferences, does not prevent one from acting to further them — Isaac

no issue - but all such arguments must be prefaced with " from my perspective" any other argument is some measure of objectivity

Right. Its a form of question begging, I think. The hidden premise is {we must defer to what is objective when we make demands on the actions of others}. So then the argument goes "objectively there are no rules, therefore you cannotaask anyone to abide by a rule. But take away the hidden premise and the argument fails. — Isaac

that is exactly what I am saying - don't see how that begs the question

The part in bold is the problem. Who has committed to an absolute sense of correctness? Is the relativist a relativist, or an absolutist?

If the relativist is a relativist, which he obviously is, then there is no internal contradiction, and your criticism is therefore ineffective. Both are correct in way which does not violate the law of noncontradiction. — S

subjectively you are both right, if you do not allow some level of objectivity into the judgment you can not compare them, other than saying they are different

subjectively you are both right — Rank Amateur

Right relative to our respective subjective standards, yes.

if you do not allow some level of objectivity into the judgment you can not compare them, other than saying they are different — Rank Amateur

What you're saying is illogical. I don't need to go outside of myself for any reason, and I cannot do so anyway. My own judgement is all I have, and all I need. He is wrong in this way - the only way that matters as far as I'm concerned. He should change his judgement.

Even if there was an objective standard, it wouldn't matter to me. If we somehow discovered that boiling babies is objectively right, do you think that I'd change my judgement and behaviour accordingly? Hell no! Would you? :brow:

There's that scary link between notions of an objective moral standard and divide command theory. Is it good because god willed it? Genocide is good? Saying that genocide is good for some guy and his bad judgement is no where near as scary. It's very much not good for the rest of us. The rest of us do not accept his judgement in any normative sense. We accept that it is his judgement. It is not our judgement. Our judgement is that it is wrong.

It's not the moral relativists you should be worried about, in spite of the negative propaganda.

Is it a coincidence that Noah is a Christian? Is it a coincidence that you are also a theist, if I'm not mistaken? Perhaps there's a correlation. Religious and theological thinking can infect thinking on other matters. The best solution is to kill it at the roots.

fine - but must now give up the the believe that all moral judgments are subjective. Because now you are comparing subjective judgement - how can it be possible to compare them subjectively - that is impossible - they must be compared in measure of objectivity. — Rank Amateur

I don't understand what you're thinking here.

Say that my view is that it's not okay to rape others.

I run into someone who thinks that it's okay to rape others.

Per what you're saying above, I can't subjectively compare "not okay to rape others" and "okay to rape others," But I don't know why. It seems like it would be easy to compare them, especially since I already have a view about it, that view being "It's not okay to rape others." When I consider "It's okay to rape others" I reject that, because I don't agree with it.

now you are comparing subjective judgement - how can it be possible to compare them subjectively - that is impossible - they must be compared in measure of objectivity. — Rank Amateur

I'm not comparing subjective judgements. I'm comparing his actions to my subjective judgement, not comparing his subjective judgement to my subjective judgement. I don't care about his judgement, its his actions that bother me.

that is exactly what I am saying - don't see how that begs the question — Rank Amateur

It begs the question because it presumes the hidden premise. Take that away and the argument does not stand without further support.

I don't understand what you're thinking here.

Say that my view is that it's not okay to rape others.

I run into someone who thinks that it's okay to rape others.

Per what you're saying above, I can't subjectively compare "not okay to rape others" and "okay to rape others," But I don't know why. It seems like it would be easy to compare them, especially since I already have a view about it, that view being "It's not okay to rape others." When I consider "It's okay to rape others" I reject that, because I don't agree with it. — Terrapin Station

It's not logical. It must be psychological. His drive for objectivity is psychological, and it is of such force that it overrides logic for him. This makes even more sense when you consider his background: his desire that there be a god.

I'm not comparing subjective judgements. — Isaac

Well, but we can do that. I don't get why someone would think that we can't.