So what factors determine whether or not a belief is immoral? — Michael
So how have you determined that the belief "racism is acceptable" is immoral and not just false? — Michael
The same factors which determine whether we should or shouldn't believe something. For example, we shouldn't believe that racism is acceptable for a number of reasons: because people of other races shouldn't be devalued on that basis, and because of the detrimental consequences it would likely bring about, and because it would be indicative of vice, and because we wouldn't want to be considered in that way. — Sapientia
The [factors which determine whether or not a belief is immoral are the] same factors which determine whether we should or shouldn't believe something.
...
We shouldn't believe that racism is acceptable ... because people of other races shouldn't be devalued on [the basis of their race]
Surely "people of other races shouldn't be devalued on [the basis of their race]" just means "racism isn't acceptable". — Michael
Therefore, we shouldn't believe that racism is acceptable because racism isn't acceptable. — Michael
And given that this is the same factor which determines whether or not a belief is immoral, the belief that racism is acceptable is immoral is because racism isn't acceptable. Therefore, the belief is immoral because it's false. — Michael
No, they don't mean the same thing, although the latter follows from the former. — Sapientia
The belief is immoral because it's false in addition to other reasons I've mentioned, which you've hardly addressed. You've addressed a single reason, and failed to conflate or reduce it to mere falsity.
... because of the detrimental consequences it would likely bring about
... because it would be indicative of vice.
... because we wouldn't want to be considered in that way.
... because it would be indicative of vice and because we wouldn't want to be considered in that way
Okay. So, does that mean that you believe that matter-of-fact beliefs can't be morally right or wrong? So, for example, if one believes that, as a matter of fact, rape is okay, or even good, then that isn't morally wrong? If so, that requires an explanation. — Sapientia
That's not what I think is a matter-of-fact belief.
I'll make it clear for you. In my view (using race as the example because that was the original one):
Belief that a certain race has a certain 'superior aspect' or 'advantage' = matter-of-fact (even if it is not, in fact, fact) and cannot be morally right or wrong.
Belief that a certain race is not worth as much as another = attitude and is wrong to say and probably to believe also.
I'm sorry if it wasn't clear enough in the beginning. — Ovaloid
I'm a subjectivist/emotivist on ethics. In other words, I believe that ethical judgments are essentially "yaying" or "booing" interpersonal behavior--interpersonal behavior that one considers more socially significant than matters of etiquette or manners. (Also note that "interpersonal" can be behavior towards oneself.)
It's not just arbitrarily yaying or booing behavior. It's yaying or booing based on "deep"/gut feelings or "intuitions" and instincts, many of which are evolutionarily biased.
"Subjective" as I use it, by the way, merely denotes that it's a mental phenomenon, or a brain phenomenon. It doesn't imply anything about whether people are likely to disagree or agree with each other. Every single person could agree, but ethics are still subjectively determined, because those judgments about behavior are brain phenomena. That's all I'm saying by that term (although an upshot is that someone can't be factually incorrect in their judgment, even if they're the only one who makes that particular judgment and 7 billion other people make a different judgment; people can't be factually correct either, rather people are reporting and acting in accordance with how they feel about interpersonal behavior and its upshots).
Re my view above, I'm not saying "that's how I choose to approach ethics," I'm saying that I believe that that's what ethics is for everyone, even if they believe that they're doing something else instead, even if they believe in a God who issues ethical decrees or whatever. What folks are really doing is yaying or booing interpersonal behavior.
It's not morally wrong to think that Asians are good at math. It's a stereotype that will be confirmed by some Asians you meet and disconfirmed by others. To the extent that you demonstrate to Asians in your environment that you see them through a lens of stereotype, you broadcast: "I don't see you, I just see a cartoon version of you."Belief that a certain race has a certain 'superior aspect' or 'advantage' = matter-of-fact (even if it is not, in fact, fact) and cannot be morally right or wrong. — Ovaloid
What I believe is a category error is whether it's correct to morally judge beliefs or expression.The issue in this discussion is whether or not it is correct to categorise or judge beliefs, or the expression thereof, as right or wrong - whether that even makes sense, or is a category error. — Sapientia
I think people tend to see "cartoon versions" of everyone/everything. We tend to see simplified caricatures, and part of that is a factor of simple categorization, simple abstraction. Taking in every detail, every nuance, is too much for our brains to handle. We simplify, we merge things together as types, we focus on fewer features and that focus amounts to exaggeration, etc.To the extent that you demonstrate to Asians in your environment that you see them through a lens of stereotype, you broadcast: "I don't see you, I just see a cartoon version of you." — Mongrel
If we're talking about consequences that are "brought about," we're no longer talking about mere beliefs or speech. We're talking about actions. Definitely I morally judge some actions.and because of the detrimental consequences it would likely bring about, — Sapientia
I think people tend to see "cartoon versions" of everyone/everything. We tend to see simplified caricatures, and part of that is a factor of simple categorization, simple abstraction. Taking in every detail, every nuance, is too much for our brains to handle. We simplify, we merge things together as types, we focus on fewer features and that focus amounts to exaggeration, etc. — Terrapin Station
It's rather not possible to have either a true or false moral view.So it's immoral for an adult with full mental capacity to have a false moral belief? — Michael
I don't agree with your metaphysics there (which we should know from the wax discussion). The living, breathing, being is identical to the form in my view.seeing the living, breathing, being that animates the form versus seeing mainly the form. — Mongrel
It's not morally wrong to think that Asians are good at math. It's a stereotype that will be confirmed by some Asians you meet and disconfirmed by others. To the extent that you demonstrate to Asians in your environment that you see them through a lens of stereotype, you broadcast: "I don't see you, I just see a cartoon version of you."
My experience with Asian-Asians is that even if they're put off by that, they won't say anything. American-Asians are pretty much guaranteed to put it out there that you're being racist. I think most of them do that because they think its funny. — Mongrel
I don't refrain from morally judging beliefs or statements BECAUSE they're beliefs or statements. I refrain from morally judging them because I don't feel that mere beliefs or expressions have anything to do with morality/ethics. Others feel differently obviously.1. I don't think that it makes any sense whatsoever to refrain from judging any belief or statement solely on the basis that it is a belief or a statement. — Sapientia
You're free to do so, obviously (metaphysically, and legally per expression in most places, too). Re it being "right" to do so, if you mean "correct," or something like "It is true that one should morally judge beliefs," that is what would be a category error, as I pointed out in another post above.The content matters, and it can be appropriate and right to judge it, and we're free to do so.
Obviously, yeah.2. Judgment and belief are linked.
Actually, I explicitly pointed out that I do not morally judge others for judging beliefs. I judge them in other ways--I make judgments about character, for example, about whether that person is comfortable with difference and so on.That you morally judge others for judging beliefs
I couldn't disagree more with the metaphysics of that. Meaning is subjective first off. "X (term) is an F issue" is a semantic statement (it's a statement about the meaning of x). Well, that simply depends on how someone thinks about x. There aren't right or wrong ways to think about it.Offence is, by it's very nature, a moral issue.
If you think about it that way. I do not.It implies, or consists of, moral objection.
However you characterize it, I think it's the offended who has a problem that needs to be worked on, for the reasons I explained, not the offended. You characterizing it one way or another wouldn't affect my feelings on that.Your point about placing the blame on the person being offended - in some cases, the victim - is shallow and one-sided
Certainly some people feel that way. I do not.Often, it is the person being offensive, or judged to be offensive, who is at least partially to blame.
Sure, people do not have "full control" over their emotions. But one can work on oneself so that one is no longer offended. That's worth doing in my opinion. If you prefer to be offendable, and you are offendable, then don't work on yourself in that way.It's silly and inconsiderate to say that there's no need to get upset about it, when you should know full well that we don't have full control over our emotions.
Right. So at least temporarily, you're incapable of getting the facts right on this issue. I'd not suppose that there's anything I can do about that. I can accept that you're likely to continue to have an incorrect belief in this regard.4. I don't for a second believe that you're never offended by any beliefs or any speech/expression.
Right. I'm aware that you believe that. You're wrong. And surely, based on your comments so far, you'll continue to be wrong about this indefinitely.5. It is indeed a correct belief that, as a matter of fact, we've all been offended at one time or another,
Sure. It would be inconsistent given your other comments for you to not believe that. So yay for consistency at least, I suppose.5. Regarding the tests I referred to: I think that you'd definitely, at some point, fail the second one about practising what you preach.
What I believe is a category error is whether it's correct to morally judge beliefs or expression. — Terrapin Station
Some people do morally judge beliefs or expression. — Terrapin Station
There are no facts [about] whether one should judge beliefs or expression. — Terrapin Station
So there is no correct or incorrect stance on this. — Terrapin Station
Although I agree that actions can correctly be categorised as moral or immoral — Sapientia
It doesn't make any sense to say it doesn't make any sense. "It's correct to morally judge beliefs or expression" IS a statement (what the heck else would it be?) But it's not correct or incorrect to morally judge beliefs. That's because there are no facts to that effect. Hence, it's a category error. You're assuming that it's a factual matter when it is not. It's simply a matter of whether you're yaying judging beliefs and expression.That doesn't make sense, since whether it's correct to morally judge beliefs or expression is not a statement, but the issue under discussion. You can say that it's a category error to morally judge beliefs or expression, but I think that you'd be the one making the error. — Sapientia
It would only refute "It is correct to morally judge beliefs and/or expression." Maybe you're simply saying that you're using "correct" in a looser sense, so that all you're doing by using "correct" is "yaying"? In that case, then right, that there are no facts regarding whether one should morally judge beliefs and/or expression wouldn't refute your yaying, but in my opinion that would be a confusing way to use the term "correct," and I'd bet a lot of other people would wind up thinking that you're claiming that it's a fact, too.I don't think that that makes the debate redundant or refutes my position. — Sapientia
So how could something be correct or incorrect in your view aside from matching or failing to match facts? P is correct just in case _____? (And then fill in the blank.)That only follows if facts about whether one should judge beliefs or expression are the only valid means of determining correctness or incorrectness, which is arguable, and which I dispute. — Sapientia
By this do you mean you endorse some form of objective morality, where actions,beliefs,etc can be "correctly categorised" in a manner independent of the person doing the categorising? — hunterkf5732
Then what does "people of other races shouldn't be devalued on the basis of their race" mean if not "it is unacceptable to devalue people of other races on the basis of their race"? — Michael
OK, so let's look at the others:
1)
... because of the detrimental consequences it would likely bring about
A false moral belief is immoral if it is likely to bring about detrimental consequences?
2)
... because it would be indicative of vice.
A false moral belief is immoral if it would be indicative of vice?
3)
... because we wouldn't want to be considered in that way.
A false moral belief is immoral if we wouldn't want to be considered in that way? — Michael
This one doesn't make much sense, so I assume it's supposed to be part of 2) — Michael
It's prescriptive, a bit like an instruction, whereas the latter is descriptive. — Sapientia
When you said "let's look at the others", to be honest, I expected a bit more than just a repetition of what I said with a question mark attached.
It does, and it wasn't part of 2). It was a reference to the Golden rule which I thought you'd pick up on.
I don't agree with your metaphysics there (which we should know from the wax discussion). The living, breathing, being is identical to the form in my view. — Terrapin Station
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.