We're still waiting. And if we stick around, we'll still just be waiting and waiting and waiting...

It has become clear that your psychological mechanisms have now taken over. Anything to escape having to actually deal with the problem rationally, right? Go ahead, blame your incompetence on me. It is my fault that you're too incompetent to deal with the problem I raised. It is my fault that you don't want to admit your shortcomings to such an extent that your own unconscious psychological mechanisms have kicked in to protect your fragile ego.

You always seem to have trouble with this, because either a) you don't present a supporting argument for your dogmatic moral absolutism, or b) you misrepresent moral relativism, or c) you misrepresent the law of noncontradiction, or d) a combination of the aforementioned. — S

Damn, I'm good.

Identify the problem... — creativesoul

I have done so already. You want me to highlight it for you? Okay, but don't take the piss. My patience is limited.

Allow me to explain the problem. What do you think conflicting statements are? I think that you think of the following, for example:

"Abortion is morally permissible" and "Abortion is morally impermissible".

They can't both be true, by the law of noncontradiction. You assert that with statements of this sort, one is true and the other is false, and your argument for this is... you don't have one.

That is very much a problem. — S

That's big problem number one.

Your answer: dogmatism. The problem? Dogmatism leads to all kinds of unfounded nonsense. — S

That's big problem number two.

Any arguable problem with what I present as a possible resolution involving interpretation is vastly overshadowed by your problem which results from an interpretation in accordance with moral objectivism, which is the far bigger problem of dogmatism, which is contrary to philosophy. I urge you to take a look at what this forum is named. Are you sure you're in the right place?

I am not trying to interpret the statements in accordance with moral objectivism, even under the assumption that that's what most people mean. I am trying to resolve a philosophical problem. Interpreting the statements in accordance with moral objectivism is the cause of the problem, in my assessment. If you think that you can resolve the problem which results from that interpretation, then go ahead. Present a reasonable argument. What do you think we've been waiting for? But you don't present a reasonable argument. Ever. Not once in 58 pages. So you're about a million light-years behind me. You are stuck on a problem that I've resolved.

Your answer: dogmatism. The problem? Dogmatism leads to all kinds of unfounded nonsense.

Allow me to explain the problem. What do you think conflicting statements are? I think that you think of the following, for example:

"Abortion is morally permissible" and "Abortion is morally impermissible".

They can't both be true, by the law of noncontradiction. You assert that with statements of this sort, one is true and the other is false, and your argument for this is... you don't have one.

That is very much a problem.

My position begins with a recognition of the problem. It then resolves it through moral relativism, as follows:

In an ethical difference over abortion, interpret, "Abortion is morally permissible", as "In my judgement, abortion is morally permissible", and interpret, "Abortion is morally impermissible", as "In my judgement, abortion is morally impermissible".

Given that in the each statement above, "In my judgement", refers to a different thing, namely, in one case, the judgement of one person, and in the other case, the judgement of the other person, there is no contradiction. Both statements, assuming sincerity, are true. Meta-ethical problem resolved.

You always seem to have trouble with this, because either a) you don't present a supporting argument for your dogmatic moral absolutism, or b) you misrepresent moral relativism, or c) you misrepresent the law of noncontradiction, or d) a combination of the aforementioned.

We must have been over this a million times, but you've proven incapable of getting it. I think that I'm very good at explaining things like this, even if I do say so myself. I don't think that it's my explaining that's the problem. I mean, just compare the above post with mine. It should be clear to others which of the two of us is the better writer, clearer thinker, less of a crackpot...

I would never come out with something like "Pure reason is thinking about thought/belief". I would be far to embarrassed to say something like that in all seriousness. Seriously, stop trying so hard to be original. You're never going to be a famous philosopher. You are no where near being in the same league as the likes of Hume and Kant. None of us are, but least of all you. They aren't "utter failures", you are. That is very much an example of psychological projection. Please. Stop. For your own good. It's embarrassing. Just google "pure reason", and learn.

Ouch. Oh boy, that is one hell of a wasted decade. :grimace:

Both of the positions you describe are equally simplistic, and my position seems like the obvious synthesis:

a) Morality is relative to the individual.

b) Morality is relative to the community.

c) Morality is relative to the context, including both individual and community.

Of course, morality is - on a fundamental level - relative individually, because a community is just a group of individuals who happen to have certain things in common. That a morality is relative to a community is just to say that it is relative to this individual, and that individual, and this other individual, and that other individual...

It doesn't matter to me that your personal vision is shared by others or is influenced to some extent by the community in the context of what I'm getting at. Inter-subjectivity? Sure. Influenced by external factors, such as the community, to some extent? Sure. Please don't circle back to things I haven't denied and have already addressed. Yes, we are a bunch of subjects who have moral judgements in common. Yes, we live in communites, not in complete isolation. I don't think that anyone here is denying that, they're disputing the logical relevance of it to what we're getting at, as opposed to what you might want to talk about instead. We seem at cross-purposes, where you seem to want to talk about something besides the issue. The issue, as I see it, is not merely whether or not your personal vision is shared or popular or good for the herd. You know that I think that morality is much more than that, and I don't think that you've presented any successful argument for exclusively adopting your narrower way of looking at it. I'm talking about what morality fundamentally is, what it is that you and I and the herd are fundamentally doing when we do ethics. That is not about what you judge should be the purpose of morality or anything of that nature. How many times? You are creating your own problems by disregarding the strict context that participants such as myself and Terrapin are setting. This discussion is, after all, supposed to be about our positions: mine and Terrapin's, and largely Isaac's too, I think. The opening post quoted a passage of text from one of Terrapin's posts, and I agreed with it and have been arguing in support of my own similar position, although a great deal of my time has been spent correcting misunderstandings and identifying fallacies.

It matters a great deal that your personal vision isn't necessarily my personal vision. Two individual moral agents don't have to see eye-to-eye. That is precisely what normative ethics is for! We would hardly find much use for it otherwise. We are individual moral agents, each with our own unique sense of right and wrong, and what we should or shouldn't do, and what's important or what's more important, and so on. And this is true in spite of having things in common, and sharing certain judgements, and living in a community, and whatever other irrelevancies you've raised.

Remind me, what's your argument against this, again? If I recall correctly, I think it was something along the lines of: "You're a sociopath! You're not Bear Grylls! I value the community! My opinion is more popular than yours! But... but... the herd wouldn't flourish if...". It is pretty laughable stuff. And it does not indicate a critical approach akin to that of Nietzsche, which questions the very values which many of us so often take for granted, especially since the dominance of Christian morality.

But whatever, go ahead and throw your toys out of the pram.

And...? You're not really saying anything ethically relevant until you add, "And this is good!", and that would be a subjective moral judgement from an individual subject. It is an expression which ties everything you just said to you and your moral judgement in a manner consistent with subjective moral relativism. In other words, it is good for you.

It seems futile to try to argue against that. What else could it be? Dogmatists, like Tim (nice, but...) and creativesoul, would of course merely assert something along the lines that it's simply, absolutely, objectively good, irrespective of all of that, but that's no argument and can rightly be dismissed. The less they say, the better, because there's rarely if ever any philosophical substance to it. And the latter seems frankly deluded that his crackpottery is the ultimate solution to all of philosophy.

@Janus, by the way, you haven't answered the following:

And herd-morality isn't whatever is beneficial to the flourishing of the herd, it is whatever the herd judges to be right or wrong. I was hoping earlier that historically factual examples of herd-morality would actually get you to think and to see the error in this type of thinking. What if, for example, you were a slave in a society where master-morality was predominant? The herd would go along with that, because slaves are good to have. They would see slaves as a lower class that aren't valuable except for their utility. If they disobey, it is justifiable to punish them harshly. How does that morality sit with your individual sense of right and wrong? Is the herd right or are you right? — S

What's your answer?

You're kidding yourself if you think you can survive without the community. What will you do for food and shelter, not to mention companionship? Nothing is stopping you from going to live as a hermit. This "strong-minded indivdiual" is just posturing! — Janus

Straw man alert! I said nothing whatsoever about surviving without the community. Try again. I said "strong-minded individual", not "isolated hermit" or "Bear Grylls wannabe"!

Herd morality that doesn't benefit the herd will not last for long. — Janus

Again, herd-morality has nothing necessarily to do with what's beneficial or detrimental to the flourishing of the herd. It is just whatever the herd judges to be right or wrong.

And it's not true that a morality which doesn't benefit the herd won't last long. It has lasted since the very beginnings of humanity right up to the present day. Non-cooperative strategies have been around for about as long as cooperative strategies, and if the former had a zero success rate, then it would have disappeared a long, long time ago, but it very obviously hasn't. It's what capitalism is built on, for heavens sake! Competition. What you must mean instead is that it won't dominate, but that suggests an ignorance of history and of global affairs. There are countless examples of master-morality dominating a society, and holding on to the reins of power for significant periods of time. Do I even need to give examples?

I'm afraid your points about being overthrown, community goals being a work in progress, murder, rape, and so on, and about approval, and destroying a community, and what Nietzsche did or didn't condone, all completely miss my point.

My point is simple enough. It's about what matters to me, as an individual, in an ethical context. It's about what or who I am subservient to, and that is not the herd, not for my sense of right or wrong. They can only try to influence my morality, and either fail or succeed in doing so. They cannot dictate morality to me, because I am an autonomous moral agent and a strong-minded individual. I am neither sheep nor slave, but master of my own morality. You can deny and argue until the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is that I know myself better than you do. You're stuck on the outside, trying to peer in from a distance.

It's obviously your personal vision. It's a vision, and it's coming from you personally. I don't even think that this discussion is about that sort of thing, I think you veer off-topic when you talk about what you think the purpose of morality should be.

And also, given that the "sociopath" dismissal has long since been exposed and refuted without any attempt at rebuttal, I don't know why you are repeating it: a) you're not qualified to make that diagnosis, and b) it's basically just an ad hom.

Yes, I accept that that's your own personal romantic vision of an ideal end towards which morality should be directed. But that's all it is, and you can't force agreement.

Community schcommunity. My flourishing is more important to me than the flourishing of the herd. I am a strong-minded individual, not a sheep. Herd-morality is wrong relative to my morality whenever it conflicts with what's good for me. It has nothing to do with what's detrimental to the flourishing of the herd. And herd-morality isn't whatever is beneficial to the flourishing of the herd, it is whatever the herd judges to be right or wrong. I was hoping earlier that historically factual examples of herd-morality would actually get you to think and to see the error in this type of thinking. What if, for example, you were a slave in a society where master-morality was predominant? The herd would go along with that, because slaves are good to have. They would see slaves as a lower class that aren't valuable except for their utility. If they disobey, it is justifiable to punish them harshly. How does that morality sit with your individual sense of right and wrong? Is the herd right or are you right?

And I never said that individuals can be totally separate from communities in which they participate. That's the kind of straw man that I've actively been disassociating with my position. For starters, obviously if "they participate", then...

You say that morality is relative to the community. I say, no, it isn't. A morality is relative to the community, and that morality is called herd-morality. But individual morality is also a morality, that is, morality which is relative to the individual. Morality is the broader concept, encompassing both, not whatever you want it to be.

Morality as herd-morality is easily lead to problems.

The great irony in what you say there is that it is itself nothing other than an expression of your own individual judgement on what morality should be. (You say "is", but you really mean "should be". There's nothing stopping me or anyone else from interpreting morality differently. So you're tacitly sending out the message that this is what morality should be for us. I happen to disagree).

No, it's not basically a tie. That's just how you want to spin it. There isn't a winning side and a losing side in a tie, so it can't be a tie, "basically" or otherwise. There were set rules before the event, the event went ahead, both sides were happy enough to get right into campaigning, the vote took place, the results were announced, revealing a winning side and a losing side, not a tie. That the leave side secured over a million more votes made them the winning side. You know that as well as I do. Sorry, Benkei, but you don't get to make up your own rules and declare your own results. That's make believe.

Yes, I browsed over your link. It was simplistic, I'll grant you that much. For instance, it starts with an obvious and irrelevant fact which you get with just about every single political vote on just about anything: absence of a full turnout. When has there ever been a full turnout on any vote ever? What a joke! How about the fact that this was the highest turn out in a political vote in the UK in a very long time? That's of far greater significance. It is clearly one of those pieces which has a specific goal in mind, namely to trivialise the results, and then sets about trying to manipulate the reader into agreement.

But I'm the doctor, remember?

If I paint a gherkin brown, and pretend that it authentically tastes like a Mars Bar, then is it okay if I murder Wallows in his sleep?

I knew you were up to something. :shade:

Sorry, Tim (nice, but...) , I can think of better things to do than to try to squeeze substance out of a post which contains none.

When, if ever, do either of you intend to attempt to support any of that? After 100 pages? 200? 500? Do you understand that there's a big difference between stating your position and supporting it? Do you understand that the former doesn't achieve anything? It's redundant. We already know your position.

Just saying that it makes sense, or that there's a good independent of relativity, doesn't actually do anything philosophically. Nor does blowing your own trumpet by proclaiming your view to be virtuous.

If 1,269,501 people turned up at your house, would you think that significant? Yes, you most certainly would. That's over a million people. That's how many more voters voted to leave.

It's bad sportsmanship to complain about a contest after it is over and you've lost. We could do this with countless cases. I bet, for example, you don't give supporters of UKIP any credence when they complain about the fact that UKIP didn't end up with 83 seats after the 2015 general election as they would have under proportional representation, as opposed to the 1 seat they secured under first-past-the-past, so stop with the double standard. You're finding problems to fit your political motive.

I really don't like these sort of attacks. It's bad enough that we will be financially worse off in the case of Brexit. That's reason enough to be against it. There's no need to attack the referendum itself or the results.

There's nothing wrong with having a referendum on membership of the European Union after 40 years, setting rules, voting, counting votes, and declaring a winner based on the agreed upon rules. That's just democracy in action.

That was a true statement.

You could always offer a valid argument in support of your position. I've yet to have seen one from you. It's all gratuitous assertion, handwaving, and ad hom from you thus far.

"'X' is moral according to person A's morality, and/or worldview"

What is the above statement about?

I say person A's belief. My answer is obvious. X equals some behaviour. "Is moral" represents person A's thought/belief about the behaviour. — creativesoul

No.

Again, you can't just assert without argument that a disputed claim is true. And trying to shift your burden on to me or change the subject is fallacious. Do you understand that? I won't tolerate that. That's not doing philosophy properly.

So, before moving on to anything else, you have a burden to support:

1. "If there are no conflicting statements under subjective moral relativism, then it fails miserably as a means for taking proper account of the way things actually are".

2. "That's what tends to occur when one throws truth out the window".

Or to explicitly concede that you're unwilling or unable to do so. And you should also address, and not rudely disregard, my criticism.

Where have you addressed my point which disputes your claim about throwing truth out the window? You haven't.

Once we've settled this matter, I will consider moving on to what you want to address, but not before.

Hey here's an idea, instead of defunding public services, let's tax the rich to better fund these services instead and help the people who are fleeing the countries the US fucked over decades ago, instead of demonizing them, and rounding them up in concentration camps. wow so crazy. — Maw

It's just a giant distraction technique, isn't it? And so many of the mindless masses lap it up. It's classic divide and rule.

You’re proclivity of conjoining disparate conceptions is off-putting. — Mww

And the award for understatement of the century goes to...

I laughed... ...quite heartily.

If there are no conflicting statements under subjective moral relativism, then it fails miserably as a means for taking proper account of the way things actually are.



That's what tends to occur when one throws truth out the window. — creativesoul

Nope, that's still not even a valid argument. It's not as though you've had 57 pages to produce one or anything...

And once again, you succeed in demonstrating your lack of understanding of subjectivist moral relativism, which doesn't throw truth out of the window. On the contrary, it is a meta-ethical theory committed to moral truths, just like your meta-ethical theory is committed to moral truths, but there's a dispute over interpretation.

Once again, this is an example of the opposition naively assuming that they have dictatorship over the meaning of moral truth, and that anything that doesn't fit their own interpretation doesn't count. And he's predictably doing exactly the same thing with right and wrong. Anything that doesn't fit his interpretation doesn't count. Even though that's a clear example of begging the question, which is a logical fallacy. How far must your head be up your own backside to make that schoolboy error?

Learn the basic fallacies you're committing, and then come back when you're competent enough to stop committing them.

This is a philosophy forum, where the aim is to present reasonable arguments in support of a proper account of things, not merely to assert or assume that you're in possession of such an account, and that any one who disagrees with your account must be mistaken and "fail miserably". This is no place for empty rhetoric. It's either philosophical substance or don't waste your breath.

Like everyone else in the world I've given this some thought. For the most part, what we consider right and wrong is considered wrong for a reason. Many moral questions are surrounding the topic of sex, incest is considered immoral due to it corrupting the gene pool and homosexual relations are often deemed undesirable due to its inability to produce offspring, much like most Christian views on pornography, essentially any discharge not for the purpose of reproduction is considered wrong or a sin. Many other moral questions go fairly without saying such as not murdering your fellow man and not stealing. The way I see it, morality is a concept that exists to protect humanity from itself. Without morality and a sense of right and wrong, the human race would collapse in a matter of days. — nsmith

But none of that addresses the topic. The topic is about morality itself, making this discussion a meta-ethical discussion. What you said is consistent with both of the main positions in the debate. The topic is not about whether there is right or wrong, or what you judge to be right or wrong, or whether there is a sense of right or wrong. Your qualifications like "I consider" and "the way I see it" render your statements useless as an argument against subjective moral relativism, if that was your intention. Was your intention to have a stake in the debate, or to say nothing controversial at all?

"'X' is good according to person A" is not about the goodness of X.

Agree? — creativesoul

No, obviously I don't agree. That's basically asserting without argument that moral relativism is not about right or wrong, and then asking a moral relativist if he agrees, which is extremely daft. You would have to be a fool to expect a different answer.

You need to support that without begging the question, which is a task that people like you seem to find impossible. You've had 57 pages to provide a sound argument, yet you've been unable to do so.

Wait, how did we end up on this tangent? Why must every discussion be steered in this direction? What's the relevance to morality?

Shouldn't a discussion about perception, thought, belief, language, reason, and so on, be confined to a separate discussion?

How does this point not just become one person calling another person a moron? — Valentinus

Because psychology is about far more than intelligence. One can be far from a moron, yet driven to behave in a certain way due to some psychological mechanism. I think it's important to put your finger on this when it becomes relevant.

It it good to explicate contradictions. Contradictions are the meat and potatoes of what one admits or won't. But only people very close to you can pronounce judgement in the manner suggested. — Valentinus

Contradictions are a matter of logic. Being conflicted is more a matter of psychology. And no, I don't agree that only people very close to you can judge these things.

And they could be jiving too. — Valentinus

What? Apparently that's North American slang. I'm unfamiliar with it. It can mean to taunt or sneer, to talk nonsense, or be in accord, agree. I'm not sure what you meant.

Was he (@creativesoul) not anthropomorphizing and, it might be said, reifying the cat's sensory perception as (prelinguistic) thought/belief? — Janus

Yes, I think so. I wouldn't call that thought or belief, and I also don't agree with the part about perceiving a computer as a computer, because I wouldn't call that perception. I would just call perceiving the computer perception, and the other part sounds like identification.

There is much I don't agree with when it comes to him. I didn't agree with his earlier interpretation of pure reason, and I don't agree with his comments about Kant and Hume, and I despise his confused and awkward and extremely repetitive manner of speech and his peculiar pet theories. And I don't agree with any of his arguments against subjective moral relativism.

Rationality belongs to a biological entity with the capacity to reason by means of conceptions, in accordance with logical laws of his own invention, AND, willfully act in discord with them.

Find me a cat with those attributes, and we can talk. — Mww

What in the...? He was talking about sensory perception. Where did you get rationality from?

But, women do better in schools, are nicer people, aren't backstabbers, don't go to prison nearly as much as males. — Wallows

That's a mixture of fact and poorly considered opinion. Opinion which is not just ignorant, but condemnable. I don't know what your true purpose with these sort of comments is, whether you're trolling or sincere, but I don't like it.

So, aren't they better than us males in some regards? — Wallows

Again, "in some regards" is very different to more specific claims and generalisations. You're moving the goalposts again, perhaps deliberately.

My instincts are telling me that I should stop engaging you.

But, it's true! — Wallows

It's just another hasty generalisation, influenced by a harmful stereotype which you're choosing to spread.

But it's rarer for women than men. Doesn't that prove something? — Wallows

Something? It doesn't prove what you seem to want it to. You're not being a scientist, and this is a matter for science. If you're genuinely interested, then look into the science.

So then why didn't you say that to begin with? Why say that you've never heard of it, and then climb down to it being really rare?

Who cares? Stop trying to make the world fit your prejudice. Mothers can betray their duty just like fathers.