hundreds if not thousands of people — Terrapin Station
Out of what...8 billion? — Janus
carried to its logical conclusion means that no moral stance is inherently any more valid than any other, — Janus
On the other hand the overwhelming cross-cultural prevalence of certain moral stances can reasonably be used to justify the claim that some moral stances are indeed more valid than others — Janus
greater efficacy for harmonious human community. — Janus
When we acquire survey data we don't have to do anywhere near 8 billion people. But it's far more survey data than the norm, because it's a survey we've all done. — Terrapin Station
In any case moral relativism (at least int the way you frame it) carried to its logical conclusion means that no moral stance is inherently any more valid than any other, which entails that they are all equal from that perspective. — Janus
If you want to do some of the heavy lifting, feel free to make an argument against my position that:
Slavery is morally wrong in all circumstances, in every time, and no matter the individual that is evaluating it.
I would be interested in hearing your argument. If you feel no compulsion to change my mind, I am fine with that as well. — Rank Amateur
If moral relativism were true, then from the point of view of the disinterested observer all moral positions on any issue would be equally valid. — Janus
No, your burden of proof is not mine. It is a fallacy to try to shift the burden of proof. Either concede or present your argument. Stop wasting time and be honest. — S
You're the one rephrasing my argument to make it sound as if there's some question about whether or not I condone FGM. Do you even know what moral relativism is? — Isaac
What do you think I've been presenting (with regards to vaccines)? Reasoning as to why one might not want to immunise a child. What bit of my responses on the subject do not come under the category of 'reasoning'? It just comes down to the fact that you don't agree with my reasoning, not that I haven't presented an — Isaac
Have you read anything about how "clinical trials' are conducted? I suggest Ben Goldacre's Bad Pharma, or just just read his blog, or the Statistical Society's, or AllTrials, or just about any reputable interest group. Ben's blog has got 37 articles about the misbehaviour of the pharmaceutical industry, and given his other work against homeopathy and and the anti-vax movement, he's hardly trying to bring civilisation down. — Isaac
How many though? For a parent, they want to know if the actual drug they are agreeing to inject into their child is going to be worth the risk. Their child, not the average child. So let's say I'm the parent of a five-year old. What epidemiological study should I be looking at to show the long-term benefits for a breastfed child, with a diet high in fresh vegetables, a low stress environment with only small isolated groups of children and good personal hygiene (all of which the WHO list as having significant effect on immune response). Show me a study following that specific group (or even one close to it) and I might be convinced, otherwise it's just about choosing risk categories. As I said, my chances of dying in a plane crash are zero, I don't fly, so why should I learn the safety procedure just because studies show it saves lives? — Isaac
I have no problem with using evidence and reason. The trouble is, you seem to. I have been presenting evidence and reason as to why a parent might reject vaccination. I've not argued they might reject vaccines without any reasons, I've given reasons and you ignored them all because they don't give you the answer you decided on before the argument even began. A basic understanding of human psychology is all that's required. — Isaac
You're equivocating. You argue for the seeming uncontroversial "we should use reason and evidence to determine our actions", but what you're actually saying is that reason and evidence, once applied, provide us with a single correct answer, and that's a much more controversial claim which remains unsupported. — Isaac
In any case moral relativism (at least in the way you frame it) carried to its logical conclusion means that no moral stance is inherently any more valid than any other, which entails that they are all equal from that perspective. — Janus
On the other hand the overwhelming cross-cultural prevalence of certain moral stances can reasonably be used to justify the claim that some moral stances are indeed more valid than others on account of their greater efficacy for harmonious human community. — Janus
But yeah, from a perspective that's completely irrelevant to morality, and completely irrelevant to any person's view, all moral stances are equal. — Terrapin Station
And secondly if a moral stance promotes harmonious human community (which is the whole reason behind morals) then it is a more valid, that is a more appropriate and effective response than a moral stance that promotes disharmony. — Janus
Bad argument. It basically says that from an assumption outside of moral relativism, there's a problem with moral relativism. — S
That some moral frameworks lead to consequences you view as beneficial is not that those moral frameworks are logically sound. That's a fallacious appeal to the consequences. — S
i have no idea at all what you are talking about. — Rank Amateur
Oh no, not you too. No, the disinterested observer would observe that on any given moral issue, there is a right or wrong in a relative sense, and also that with regard to moral standards, there is a better or worse in a relative sense. Your inference is not rational. — S
Not at all; it says that the essence of moral relativism as Terrapin frames it (and I'm not saying that is the only possible framing) is that all moral arguments are equal apart from individual preferences; and it doesn't say that is a "problem" for moral relativism, but on the contrary that that is its nature, for better or for worse. — Janus
Wrong again. The very purpose of mores is to engender social harmony. Whether or not there is social harmony has nothing to do with what how I view things. — Janus
It's very simple really; a society in which murder was considered virtuous could never be a harmonious one and would not even survive for long. — Janus
I say I have no interest in making such an argument to you. I have no need to change your view.
You ask again
I still say no
You say come on argue your point.
I say no, but if you want to argue I am wrong go ahead.
You call me names, and demand my unconditional surrender
It is always a special time dealing with you. — Rank Amateur
It is simply not true that under moral relativism, all moral arguments are equal, nor that that is "its nature". And under moral relativism, there is no "apart from" individual preferences, if that's what morality is necessarily relative to. You can't break that connection from within moral relativism, and you can't do so from outside if it without begging the question. — S
Either: it's the same answer. Not immoral in itself, only immoral in the sense of moral relativism.
Moral relativism has a parallel in existential nihilism, so it might help to think about it in that way. There's no meaning in the world itself, the meaning stems from us. — S
So you're just being annoying by differing from me semantically? You have yet to learn that I'm always right, and that there should be a single unified meaning, namely my own meaning. One day I'll become a dictator and enforce my own unified meaning, like in 1984 — S
Meta-ethics is firstly about what's the case, then what's the best way of speaking about it. (That's actually what most if not all topics in philosophy are about, or what they should be about). So I conclude moral anti-realism, but then conclude moral relativism over error theory or emotivism. The differences between the positions I mentioned have much to do with how we should interpret moral language, but also about what is actually the case. — S
This wrong for two reasons. Firstly there is no reason why moral relativism cannot be considered dispassionately, from outside it and 'apart from" individual preferences; that is it has no justifiable claim to be sacrosanct. — Janus
Secondly all moral arguments are, apart from their being individually preferred, all equal, simply because there can be, under the assumption of moral relativism, no normative criteria by which one can be assessed to be better than another. — Janus
The fact that individuals prefer one argument to another is irrelevant because that cannot be used to establish that one is in fact better than another... — Janus
Really? And on what basis would the disinterested observer "observe" (don't you mean 'judge'?) that "there is a right and wrong in a relative sense" or a 'better or worse in a relative sense"? Relative to what? — Janus
I could care less if you do or do not make an argument. Suit yourself. — Rank Amateur
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.