Even if that were the case, what relevance would it be?

if there is no truth value in any relative moral judgment, why make them? — Rank Amateur

Why make them? That doesn't even make sense. I don't start off with a blank slate and then 'decide' whether I think mutilating babies is OK. Do you? I already feel mutilating babies is monstrous. There's no choice in the matter. It's like asking why judge whether you like being hit in the face or not.

that was my point, moral or not is just preference, there is no truth. Vanilla or chocolate, Red Sox or Yankees. One is not the true answer.

Because you deny relevance to me looking at the why of morality as irrelevant in an effort to determine what it is, and yet there is nothing in the posts but disagreement. Why is your approach better than mine, why is it irrelevant?

you have missed the point

...we must keep morality intact today, because without it we would lose the glue that holds communities together. — Brett

I think we need to go back to the basics with anyone who makes a comment like that in this discussion:

Do you understand the distinction between normative ethics and meta-ethics? Do you understand which category your above comment falls under? And do you understand what the topic of this discussion is supposed to be about?

that was my point, moral or not is just preference, there is no truth. Vanilla or chocolate, Red Sox or Yankees. One is not the true answer. — Rank Amateur

Sure. And when there's no truth to Yay Red Sox or Yay vanilla, it's not a mystery to you why people care about it--sometimes very passionately--is it?

you have missed the point — Rank Amateur

Go on...

I’m responding to the op. I don’t have to look at things your way.

Say what?

Whether one agrees with a claim is irrelevant to whether someone is saying what something is.

If Mr. Jones says that water is H2O, but I don't believe him/don't agree with him, has Mr. Jones not said what water is?

Obviously. Your problem seems to be me not agreeing.

Obviously. Your problem seems to be me not agreeing. — Brett

I had no problem with it. I'm simply pointing out that you not agreeing with a claim isn't the same thing as someone not saying what something is.

I'm very much a 'meaning is use' person when it comes to language, so the problem you're outlining doesn't even arise. 'Good' when used of a moral type of action, simply doesn't mean the same thing as 'good' when used of a lawnmower, or 'good' when used of an answer to a maths sum. We use words to make something happen in the world and that varies with circumstance.

To give an example, I might say "murder is wrong" to someone about to kill a non-combatant in my platoon. By that I would really mean something like "I'm betting you think murder is wrong too and I'm reminding you that killing a non-combatant is technically murder".

Alternatively I might say "raising interest from loans to poverty strike nations is evil" by I which I mean "I'm in the camp of people who think this is evil and I want people to know it"

Like most language, it depends on the circumstances. — Isaac

@Rank Amateur, I'm with him on that. It makes way more sense to me to interpret moral statements as stemming from moral feelings, and moral feelings are evidently subjective and evidently vary. Moral relativism is a way of making sense of moral language which doesn't end up translating it to "Yay!" and "Boo!" which are not truth-apt. I would translate it to something which is truth-apt, and which stems from moral feeling, like "I disapprove of murder". That's not necessarily what they mean, or at least, they don't necessarily realise that that's effectively what they're doing, but alternatives are nonsensical or false, and I don't see models which lead to nonsense or falsehood as being particularly helpful.

And there are no contradictions between different claims under moral relativism because of the relativism part. The law of noncontradiction has not been violated. And your self-made contradictions are your problem, not mine.

I think you’re saying I’m not saying anything and that I think disagreeing is saying something.

I was disagreeing with my posts being called irrelevant.

I think you’re saying I’m not saying anything and that I think disagreeing is saying something. — Brett

???

I was simply pointing out that it's not true that "no one is saying what morality is."

What's true is that you don't agree with what we're saying morality is.

I’m responding to the op. I don’t have to look [at] things [in] your way. — Brett

You will do. Just you wait until I'm dictator.

It seems to me that the arguments from moral absolutists here all seem to come down to the fact that they want there to be some system whereby they can tell other people to change their behaviour and have some weapon in their arsenal (namely objective fact) which their opponents lack.

I'm a pragmatist, so I'm actually less concerned than some here about 'the way things actually are'. I think moral relativism is 'the way things actually are' on account of a complete lack of evidence to the contrary, but that's not something I'm bothered to argue over.

The pragmatic point, however, is important to me. The idea of objective moral 'truth' requires that one construct an argument, based on evidence and logic, in order to try to get other people to behave the way you think is right. You're saying that the arsonist can carry on as he is unless you can 'prove objectively' that he is causing more harm than good. And he'll disagree with you, and bring his own reason and evidence to bear, just like we're doing here on the meta-ethical question. And just like we're doing here, the whole judgment will get bogged down in disagreements over the validity of the evidence, the validity of the logical steps, the epistemic status of any answers we get...

I'm just not seeing why people think objectivism is of any greater pragmatic use.

Good points again, and I pointed that same thing out earlier. If we're all objectivists, that doesn't help us to agree. As you point out, we're all objectivists on meta-ethics, after all, and we're certainly not in agreement about that.

Aside from fields where there are formal proof procedures that are pretty well-entrenched, to persuade anyone of anything requires mastering techniques that have nothing to do with whether anything is really subjective or objective.

Firstly, you've just repeated Moore's open question argument without showing how you resolve it. You've argued "we must keep morality intact today, because without it we would lose the glue that holds communities together.", but now you need an argument to show why we must keep communities together.

Secondly, and I think most importantly here, what makes you think our survival was dependent on one single morality. It certainly wouldn't appear to have been reliant on one single personality type, or physical type. In fact, there's a very good argument in favour of the evolutionary advantage of neurodiversity within communities. So what makes you think one set of moral rules would be right for everyone, even from a purely biological point of view? — Isaac

Good points.

It just turns all such judgements to preference. Murder or not murder is the same as vanilla or chocolate. — Rank Amateur

Sweet Jesus. You are very much back at square one, as if twenty pages of correcting errors in understanding has achieved nothing.

And so far no one has been able to say what morality is, despite all the contorted formulations I’ve read. — Brett

Then you are probably blind. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Even if that were the case, what relevance would it be? — Terrapin Station

Brett has trouble with logical relevance. I group him with creativesoul and Metaphysician Undercover in that regard.

If one wants to persuade people of something, stop worrying about what's objectively true about the thing in question and start reading books like:

* Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion by Robert B. Cialdini
* Exactly What to Say: The Magic Words for Influence and Impact by Phil M Jones
* Conversational Intelligence: How Great Leaders Build Trust and Get Extraordinary Results by Judith E. Glaser
* Why People Don't Believe You: Building Credibility from the Inside Out by Rob Jolles
* The Art of Persuasion: Winning Without Intimidation by Bob Burg
* Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People by G. Richard Shell

There's no choice in the matter. It's like asking why judge whether you like being hit in the face or not. — Isaac

I think I would rather be hit in the face than put up with this nonsense.

You are very much back at square one, as if twenty pages of correcting errors in understanding has achieved nothing. — S

Yes, it's almost as if using logic and evidence to get someone to see the truth of some matter doesn't work... Oh well.

Yes, it's almost as if using logic and evidence to get someone to see the truth of some matter doesn't work... Oh well. — Isaac

Damn. If only everyone was more like me...

If one wants to persuade people of something, stop worrying about what's objectively true about the thing in question and start reading books like: — Terrapin Station

Or buy a gun.

I'm just not seeing why people think objectivism is of any greater pragmatic use. — Isaac

It isn't, and thinking otherwise is a common misperception. One of many that we've seen in this discussion. I try to stamp them out, but sometimes it can be in vain, again, as we've seen.

Perhaps I should come back with a gun. :chin:

Sweet Jesus. You are very much back at square one, as if twenty pages of correcting errors in understanding has achieved nothing. — S

Yea, I still see a logic flaw, you don't. Does it matter? Is one of us right and the other one wrong? Is there a truth about the nature of morality that we both may be unaware of? Nothing any of you has said effectively answers this point.

I understand there are circumstances and norms, and situations that effect moral judgments. But they are branches from a trunk. There is enormous unity regardless of culture or situation on many things most humans would consider morally wrong. Now you can chalk up that near universal consistency to evolution, God, or something else, but it exists and it is not coincidence.

What is the difference then between near universal agreement and nearly objective?

What is the difference then between near universal agreement and nearly objective? — Rank Amateur

'Universal' doesn't necessarliy mean 'objective'.

Yea, I still see a logic flaw, you don't. — Rank Amateur

No, you are quite literally back at square one. You do realise that the following was quoted in the opening post:

"Morality isn't anything other than how people feel, whether they approve or disapprove, etc. of interpersonal behaviour that they consider more significant than etiquette."

And it was also clarified about a million years ago that it is similarly considered more significant than preferences about foodstuffs, yet the same idiotic false equivalence is being repeated.

Look at what I said in my very first reply back on page one:

"There are two problems with this straightaway. Firstly, opinion is no more nothing than evolved thought is nothing. Secondly, your use of "mere" is an example of loaded language and a poor representation of the position that you're supposed to be criticising. A mere opinion makes me think of the opinion that salt and vinegar flavour crisps are better than cheese and onion flavour crisps. This is clearly not what was intended. Your characterisation is uncharitable".