Although you copied my quote directly, you misquoted me in what you wrote. I said "It involves a complex interaction of societal, governmental, religious, and cultural institutions." Do you really think you created your morality out of nothing but your own self? Your parents had nothing to do with it? Do you really believe you created your mind and heart without being influenced by the society and culture around you. To me, that shows a profound lack of self-awareness.
I do think, although I didn't mention it, that a lot of our morality does come from "human nature" whatever that means, I guess it means some sort of genetic predisposition, to behave in a way that makes it easier for us to live together. As I've said many times, we are social animals. We are born to like each other. — T Clark
I'm not sure that anyone here has ever unequivocally agreed with me before. — T Clark
Would you say that the Beatles created the White Album by themselves? — Terrapin Station
Sure, but they didn't develop their musical tastes, knowledge, understanding, and vision by themselves. They heard all kinds of music all through their lives. They've acknowledged the influence other musicians have had. They used standard western chord structure and musical formulations. Their music was played on regular AM radio stations and they had to tailor their music to their listeners. — T Clark
rather than saying that what created it was a complex of societal, cultural, artistic, musical, etc. institutions that created it, — Terrapin Station
It (morality) is a collective justification determined by social pressures. — Noah Te Stroete
Why should people care about morality if they do not feel the pain of morally wrong behavior? — Noah Te Stroete
But maybe I misunderstand. — Noah Te Stroete
illustrating how morality works, — Noah Te Stroete
I don’t think he is saying that. That’s a straw man. — Noah Te Stroete
Point/counterpoint. Nothing more, nothing less. No right/wrong, good/bad intended. — Mww
The point is that we don't say that society, earlier musicians, etc. were just as much the creators of the White Album as the Beatles were. — Terrapin Station
But doesn’t that suppose by the regression of causality that the Beatles created themselves? — Noah Te Stroete
You mean to tell me that you don't understand what people are referring to when they say that "the Beatles created the White Album"? — Terrapin Station
The sense in which people (like me) say that individuals create morality is the same sense. We're not denying influences and such, but the influences aren't the same thing as the stuff we're saying that individuals create. — Terrapin Station
Yes, strictly speaking, in a very literal sense, everything is amoral, just like everything is meaningless. But switching back to the ordinary way of speaking, there are things which are moral and immoral, and there are things which are meaningful. A strict interpretation leads to nihilism, but that's not the end point. Nihilism is why you should interpret things pragmatically, like I do. This pragmatic interpretation is why "moral" and "meaningful" are not useless. — S
The issue is not about "moral utility", so your point misses the point. You're just saying that it's useful to brush your teeth every day if you value your dental health. Lots of people value their dental health, so generally, brushing your teeth is useful. Who cares? No one is going to disagree with that, and it doesn't effect the wider issue. — S
If you're a subjective moral relativist, you kind of sound like you're weirdly in denial or something. Morality is subjective and relative, but... !
Cleaning your teeth is objective and matters! It's useful if you value your dental health!
(There's no need for the "but"). — S
You see, this is the problem I have with your position. You talk accurately about epistemological when pushed (I've bolded the relevant sections), but then you reveal this authoritarian undercurrent with the likes of...
Some cultural practices are, in fact, morally superior to others in the context of those nearly universal human values which we all share — VagabondSpectre
We're just going round in circles on this one so I don't see the point continuing, you've brought up vacancies again (despite not even a glancing recognition of my arguments as to why people might legitimately doubt the statistics). You keep insisting that the models held by current academic, research, and government institutions in the developed countries are absolutely beyond question. That there are no legitimate grounds to doubt that they are the best models we have. — Isaac
In order for it to be morally 'right' given shared values about children's health, for a parent to vaccinate a child, they would have to... — Isaac
Nope, That not everything is relative.(1) You're treating "morality is relative" in the manner of "everything is relative." The two claims are not the same. — Terrapin Station
No doubt some morality is relative - although I think the issue of contradictory imperatives is a problem for any so-called relative morality. But all I claim is that it's not and cannot be all relativeAnd again, that's certainly the case, as there are people, like you, who believe that morality is not relative. — Terrapin Station
Written by someone confident in his understanding of the words "true" and "truth." I'd ask you to define them, but I know you cannot. The best you can do is indicate that there are cases when both words can be meaningful.can't be true, because they see truth as — Terrapin Station
I think I did define it. And tautologies, often thought trivial, are not, because they predicate.I'm not sure what that would be saying. For one, as you said above that part, "absolute" would need to be defined. That would help in figuring out what you're saying there.
You might just be asserting identity--A is A (from perspective x, at time T, etc.) — Terrapin Station
Everyone else not doing it. Same thing as persuades most people to do most things. Have you looked at society lately? See much rational decision making going on? The largest ecomony in the world just voted in a clown for a leader because of a wave of 'popular opinion'. Since when has rational argument made any difference? — Isaac
No, you're not, you're additionally telling us all which ones they are, and telling anyone who disagrees that they are 'objectively wrong'. — Isaac
Saying that someone is morally wrong requires a high standard of certainty, in my opinion. Maybe this is our sole point of contention. You're happy to throw around accusations of immorality on the basis of a belief that your modal is 'probably' better. I'm not. — Isaac
I don't understand this line of argument. You seem to be suggesting that I should believe something other than what seems to me to be the case, because what I currently believe is not very useful in persuading people to do what I want them to. That seems like a really weird argument. Maybe I've misunderstood so ill wait for some more clarity before going into it. — Isaac
Yes. That is basically the difference between the class of virtue ethics I'm talking about and utilitarian consequentialism. Virtue ethics does not require a fixed point in the future for its calculus, utilitarianism does. With virtue ethics you are comparing the way actions make you feel about yourself right now. With utilitarianism you are comparing the net utility of actions, but to do so you must use a fixed timescale, otherwise one would advise an action which made the whole population ecstatically happy, but wiped out all future generations (not far off our current attitude). The decision you make will depend on the timescale over which you wish to maintain maximum utility. — Isaac
The vaccination issue is exactly the reason why I so strongly disapprove of your approach. It seems to you like it fits right in with not committing FGM, or not killing each other with ice picks, but to me, it stands out a mile as being something which transfers a hell of a lot of trust to organisations which have absolutely shown themselves to be untrustworthy. — Isaac
What really bothers me is that you're advocating a system which basically gives moral weight to current scientific opinion with no consideration at all for how vulnerable some fields of science are to fashion, government influence, corporate influence, or plain human greed and bias. You're giving over decisions about what is fundamentally 'right' to a system which has proven itself to be morally questionable at times by the very standards you're using it to uphold. — Isaac
I don't think you "create" morality. I think you make moral decisions based on a complex set of social and personal psychological factors. — T Clark
Nope, That not everything is relative. — tim wood
No doubt some morality is relative - although I think the issue of contradictory imperatives is a problem for any so-called relative morality. But all I claim is that it's not and cannot be all relative — tim wood
Written by someone confident in his understanding of the words "true" and "truth." I'd ask you to define them, but I know you cannot. The best you can do is indicate that there are cases when both words can be meaningful. — tim wood
At any rate, we can just ignore that and pretend they're the same sense of the term. So what's any evidence of something extramental matching a moral judgment? — Terrapin Station
What I'm trying to say is that we should, with objectivity, try our best to approximate objective truths (akin to science, not "exactly science" (which is incoherent)), because they help us make more effective decisions. — VagabondSpectre
you did not make any good argument as to why FGM as a practice could actually net any individual benefit (beyond not suffering from extortion) or why we cannot be reasonably informed by evidence as to whether or not taking vaccines is beneficial to health, and therefore a superior decision. — VagabondSpectre
you are conflating my condemnation of FGM as the direct assigning of moral guilt upon individuals who are involved in its perpetuation (and unnecessarily opening up a side tangent about whether or not I'm morally/racially insensitive) — VagabondSpectre
I have seen so much evidence pertaining to the issues I've mentioned that my trust doesn't spring from faith, which might better frame the point I'm trying to make with these examples. — VagabondSpectre
It's almost certainly true that sacrificing virgins doesn't have any direct causal relationship with crop yields (maybe it causes farmers to work harder to ensure that their lives aren't wasted, but any placebo could achieve that). — VagabondSpectre
To answer your question about when rational argument has made a difference, just look around you. Notice the absence of hay, of candle-light, of the distinct smell of manure, human shit, and body-odor. Notice the many medical institutions that surround and serve you, without which you might be a lot worse off than you are now. Notice your legal rights which we do our best to protect; maybe there is a ginger jester in the hot seat, but notice how it's just a seat and not a gilded throne that claims to own you. Notice the moral progress that the west has made in such a relatively recent period since the enlightenment era; how society is no longer fundamentally driven by superstitious religious beliefs, and how much better off we are for it all. — VagabondSpectre
Do you see the contradiction in the bolded text? Maybe I'm reading into a colloquial use of the word "perfectly", but it seems like you're undermining the idea that rational arguments can have greater and lesser strength. — VagabondSpectre
Although you copied my quote directly, you misquoted me in what you wrote. I said "It involves a complex interaction of societal, governmental, religious, and cultural institutions." Do you really think you created your morality out of nothing but your own self? Your parents had nothing to do with it? Do you really believe you created your mind and heart without being influenced by the society and culture around you. To me, that shows a profound lack of self-awareness. — T Clark
I do think, although I didn't mention it, that a lot of our morality does come from "human nature" whatever that means, I guess it means some sort of genetic predisposition, to behave in a way that makes it easier for us to live together. As I've said many times, we are social animals. We are born to like each other. — T Clark
But they aren't different. — TheWillowOfDarkness
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.