It's not logical. It must be psychological. His drive for objectivity is psychological, and it is of such force that it overrides logic. — S
What you're saying is illogical. I don't need to go outside of myself for any reason, and I cannot do so anyway. My own judgement is all I have, and all I need. He is wrong in this way - the only way that matters as far as I'm concerned. He should change his judgement. — S
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. I'm comparing his actions to my subjective judgement, not comparing his subjective judgement to my subjective judgement. I don't care about his judgement, its his actions that bother me. — Isaac
go ahead and make the argument please - tell me why my subjective judgment that rape is not immoral. — Rank Amateur
What is your argument than to person b who has a different subjective judgement that he is incorrect, other than - "in my opinion" any other argument you chose must be adding a degree of objectivity. — Rank Amateur
If all judgments are subjective - than all judgments are subjectively correct - I see no way around this — Rank Amateur
you have missed the point - neither person A or B have done the action - person A and B are making subjective judgments on the same action X - than someone else did — Rank Amateur
Opinion, if you call it that (I prefer the term "moral judgement" as it conveys the importance better), is all I have. It is founded on moral feelings. I would try to get him to empathise with my feelings on the matter. This can and does work in some cases. It is very evident when a child realises that they've behaved badly by, for example, snatching a toy out of another child's hand. At first, they judge that what they did was morally acceptable, but then you get them to empathise with the victim. — S
Are you not saying that we can't make a subjective judgment comparing two different stances? — Terrapin Station
no issue at all with that - that is my point - as long as the basis of every argument you make is your own subjective judgement. Any plea to anything else adds some degree of objectivity. — Rank Amateur
Some degree of objectivity doesn't make any real difference. That I feel a certain way about something is itself factual, not opinion. That's a degree of objectivity. That still doesn't mean that morality is objective. There is no objective standard, as feelings differ. We don't accept that different beliefs about the moon to indicate an objective standard. Morality isn't like that. It's different. — S
maybe this is a better way of me making my point.
My subjective moral judgment is that Hitler did nothing that is morally wrong.
Assume your subjective moral judgement is Hitler did lots of stuff that was morally wrong
Make an argument - absent of any objective moral standard to change my mind — Rank Amateur
Are you like a child who has just snatched a toy out of the hand of another child? No, I don't believe that you are, so no argument from me is necessary. I've already explained what I would try to do. You don't need to see me act it out with you. You are more intelligent than that. — S
But if you are committed to subjectivity - there is no way to compare subjective judgments. Each attempt is just one more subjective judgment. — Rank Amateur
that is a non answer to a direct question - — Rank Amateur
You didn't ask me a question, you gave me a challenge which I refused on the basis that it isn't necessary. Don't pretend to be unintelligent. — S
getting closer - my view is there is no such thing as either absolutely subjective or absolutely objective morality - it is a continuum and we place ourselves somewhere on that continuum. — Rank Amateur
maybe this is a better way of me making my point.
My subjective moral judgment is that Hitler did nothing that is morally wrong.
Assume your subjective moral judgement is Hitler did lots of stuff that was morally wrong
Make an argument - absent of any objective moral standard to change my mind — Rank Amateur
and now we enter semantics - and ad hominem - seems the discussion is nearing an end — Rank Amateur
Basically, one needs to ferret out other stances that the person has, and then try to appeal to them via those stances. In other words, it's a matter of "trying to talk them into something" using things that they already accept/that they're already comfortable with, to try to lead them to a different conclusion. Or, this is similar to the traditional sense of what an ad hominem argument is--it's a matter of appealing to views the person already has, appealing to their biases, to push them to a different view. (But in this case, the ad hominem approach isn't a fallacy, because we're not even dealing with things that are true or false, correct or incorrect.)
At that, it might not be possible to persuade the person to a different position. "Hitler didn't do anything morally wrong" might be foundational for them, for example, so that it doesn't rest on any other views they have. Or their stances might be so situation-specific that there's not a sufficient way to generalize that would lead them to different stances. — Terrapin Station
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
fine with all that - your right I don't change my mind. And it leaves us with two different subjective options about the morality of Hitler and no objective way to resolve our differences.
that does not seem a good endpoint to such a moral judgment to me. — Rank Amateur
I merely note that any community would consider the views of one of its members who disagreed with every other member as "wrong", wouldn't they? — Pattern-chaser
we are good - as soon as you acknowledged, as you did that there needs to be some degree of objective view in comparing moral judgments - i am fine - I have no need to find where exactly that line is. — Rank Amateur
But sure, it's not unusual that a lot of people are pro-conformist enough that they think that. — Terrapin Station
That's fine, so long as you don't twist what I say and walk away with a misunderstanding which you perhaps don't even realise is a misunderstanding. That some degree of objectivity is required to make sense of morality is completely irrelevant. Moral subjectivists are not solipsists. It would be foolish to treat them as though they were, by interrogating them about the objectivity involved which no reasonable person would deny. — S
Well, but isn't it clear to you that no matter what we do, whatever we believe about meta-ethics, we're left with people with diametrically opposed moral stances? That's hardly a new situation, and it's hardly the result of there being a bunch of meta-ethical subjectivists or relativists.
If we're all objectivists we don't magically arrive at a scenario wherein we all have the same moral stances. We just believe that the folks with other stances are incorrect, that they're unreasonable, etc. That doesn't help change anyone's mind.
My meta-ethical views are not not supposed to be a solution to everyone having the same moral stances. It's just aiming to get right what's really going on ontologically when it comes to morality. — Terrapin Station
I will leave here subjectively believing what I darn well please and there is nothing subjectively you can say to change my mind :) — 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.