Anyway, enough jokes and throwing shade. — S
Have you checked out the discussion on ancient texts? — S
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
We've had the last thread on abortion, and now we've got morality sorted. What next — 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. — Isaac
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
I belive the question regarding the colour of Tuesday was mentioned... — Isaac
Damn, you spoiled it. We could have gone for pages on that question before we reveal the answer that everyone obviously knows. — Isaac
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
What if I was the only non-racist in a racist society? — S
Wow, you guys were busy overnight. — Terrapin Station
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
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
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
They are both subjectively right in their individual judgments.
So both must admit the others subjective judgement is correct — Rank Amateur
Then your morals would be out of step with your community. That would put you 'in the wrong'. — Pattern-chaser
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
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
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
If I may. They only must admit that the other's subjective judgement is correct for them (the other person — Isaac
it is still incorrect for the person thinking about it and so still requires action to remediate (or not, depending on the degree). — Isaac
The realisation that one cannot make objective ones preferences, does not prevent one from acting to further them — Isaac
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
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 — Rank Amateur
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
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
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
that is exactly what I am saying - don't see how that begs the question — 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. — Terrapin Station
I'm not comparing subjective judgements. — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.