Thanks for this. I found this paper on non-descriptive cognitivism, which I have yet to get all the way through (but will). I just need a dictionary handy while I do. :p
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/factual/papers/HorganNondescriptive.html
Does this describe your beliefs? I'd love to hear more. — Avery
It's confusions like this that caused me to stop using the word "moral" altogether in most speech (unless I'm describing what I don't believe in). — Avery
I don't know - I've been trying to do just that for many years...I think communication has improved a lot as a result! — Avery
It's confusions like this that have caused me to stop using the word "moral" altogether in most speech — Avery
Yes, I can sympathise with that, but I think if one were to avoid using words whose definition consisted of loose, fuzzy collections of properties one would quickly run out of words! — Isaac
So what does knowing what we can’t do, tell us about what we can? — Mww
I object to all nihilism on the pragmatic grounds that if such nihilism is true, then by its nature it cannot be known to be true, because to know it to be true we would need some means of objectively evaluating claims, so as to justifiably rule all such claims to be false. — Pfhorrest
In short, because moral nihilism amounts to just assuming that moral questions are unanswerable out of the gate, and merely not even trying to answer them. — Pfhorrest
We could either baselessly assume that there is nothing moral at all, and stop there, simply giving up any hope of ever finding out if we were wrong in that baseless assumption. Or else, instead, we could baselessly assume that there is something moral — as there certainly inevitably seems to be, since even if you deny their objectivity some things will still seem good or bad to you — and then proceed with the long hard work of figuring out what seems most likely to be moral, by attending closely and thoroughly to those seemings, those experiences. — Pfhorrest
If, instead, someone were to just say that they "believe" that moral facts don't exist, then it side-steps the issue. A means of objective evaluation is not necessary for it to be true that someone believes something. — Avery
And I'm also going to need some evidence that floopblorp is real. — Avery
...is a straw man. It purports that moral nihilists are making one unprovable claim, and moral realists are making another unprovable claim. But that's not true. Realists are making one claim, and nihilists are saying that claim is unsubstantiated. — Avery
— Avery
and sometimes when we make moral-type decisions areas of the brain responsible for things like dopamine response are not even involved. — Isaac
Citation needed. — Avery
Thanks for this. I found this paper on non-descriptive cognitivism, which I have yet to get all the way through (but will). I just need a dictionary handy while I do. :p
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/factual/papers/HorganNondescriptive.html
Does this describe your beliefs? I'd love to hear more. — Avery
Thank you for finding that. I think that is the one article on the topic that I ran across once and never had time to read more than a bit of. My own views are all home-brewed, but if this is the article I think it is I think it’s similar to mine. I’ll have to find time to read it in detail. — Pfhorrest
Maybe not...but...I do believe that objective moral truths don't exist. Doesn't that make me a moral nihilist? Maybe I'm just not the kind you were arguing against. — Avery
You wouldn't believe the number of times people hear something like "Morals don't exist." and come back with "Well then why not just kill people then??" — Avery
Well why not, if someone feels like it, and can get away with it, and no moral reasons count? — Pfhorrest
We take all these things into consideration, this 'accounting for other people's seemings', which Pfhorrest seems to think he's just come up with, is something we do all the time, sometimes even subconsciously — Isaac
When the 'accounting process' for physical reality was widely disputed, theories about physical reality were relativist too (Gods, creation myths, animism...), we only have such widespread agreement now because we also agree about the accounting method (science). We no longer just 'have a bit of think about' the opinions of everyone we happen to have spoken to about physical reality. We consult experts in the field using a (largely) agreed on method of trials, controls, statistical analysis and peer review. This — Isaac
This 'method' is based on the prior belief that there is an external cause for the similarity in our observations. Absent of such a belief about objective morals, I can't see us ever agreeing on a method for accounting for everyone's 'seemings' on the matter, nor checking that such a method has been followed. Absent of such an agreement, any conclusions drawn will be based on the individual's own subjective choice of accounting method and so will be entirely subjective - moral relativism. — 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.