It's not an argument ad populum; — Janus
I don't think it's a good way of explaining it at all. Culinary and moral preferences are not at all of equal consequence to human life. Aesthetic tastes are somewhere in between. — Janus
So, you believe that all preferences are possible in an emotionally healthy individual; you don't allow that there might be moral health or sickness just as there can be physical health or sickness? — Janus
In the posts I've read, they talked in terms of harm or well-being, which is defined on an individual's relation to everyone else. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Re "healthy," if you're attaching any sort of value judgment to that at all, it's again subjective. — Terrapin Station
'Healthy' in the social context of subjective interaction, just means 'able to function harmoniously within the context of general subjective moral feeling'. Basically, we all value pretty much the same things. Almost no one thinks murder, rape or torture is a good thing; and someone who thinks those things are good will not be able to function harmoniously in interpersonal relations, if they are honest about their views, which means that their views are subjectively unhealthy. — Janus
you're engaging in something subjective for which there is no correct answer" I suppose. — Terrapin Station
There is no "objectivity" in the context of moral philosophy and you're confusing yourself by thinking there is. — Janus
For most things, it is mostly reflex, but not all things. Someone above mentioned boiling babies. Any one care to argue that's just an exercise in relativity. But sometimes thinking is work, and requires a creative aspect. One thing relativists overlook often is the viewpoint of the victim, when there is a victim. That doesn't get factored in. There's my outrage and your complete lack of it. But how does the victim vote?The answer, of course, can't be merely what anyone thinks/feels, because that wouldn't be evidence of anything objective. The answer would have to point to something independent of persons' opinions, the independent thing that their opinions can get right or match, versus get wrong or fail to match. — Terrapin Station
For most things, it is mostly reflex, but not all things. Someone above mentioned boiling babies. Any one care to argue that's just an exercise in relativity? — tim wood
There's my outrage and your complete lack of it. — tim wood
Implicit here are the absolute standards that...
— tim wood
...are a figment of your imagination as far as I can reasonably tell. You're not a philosopher, you're a dogmatist. — S
Someone else's example. But, "extremely immoral"? Why not just immoral? Or maybe for you it's not immoral, but rather only just "extremely immoral," which could be a way of saying it could be moral.Are you trying to goad moral relativists into defending your own strawmen? Is there a moral relativist here who would say that? That makes it sound trivial. They would much more likely say that it is extremely immoral. — S
The point of morality is the presence of a normative judgement — TheWillowOfDarkness
Relativism for the sake of convenience no virtue. — tim wood
Do you argue that if I or anyone else tried we could not come up with something you would agree is wrong by any standard? No limits? No boundaries? — tim wood
This is nonsense. Why would a predictive model become useless just because it is not certain? We are not 'certain' it will be sunny tomorrow, just because the weather forecast said it will be. How does that make weather forecasts "useless". The point I'm arguing against is that you seem to be saying that if the weather forecast says it's going to be sunny tomorrow, anyone carrying an umbrella just in case is morally bankrupt, they should believe wholeheartedly in what the modal tells them and act accordingly. It like talking to a religious fanatic. — Isaac
Have you really so little idea about how social groups function? There's not a small group of men sat in shed working out what their culture is going to be and then laughing maniacally about how cruel they've managed to make it. Cultures evolve over millenia as a result of thousands of individual choices and the complex interplay of social contracts, there's no one group to blame for it being the way it is. FGM is a result of a long history of bad decisions made under difficult circumstances. It needs to be dismantled with care, respect for the victims (including those who feel pressured into arranging it) and understanding that it is part of an interconnected Web of history of which we too are a part. This "enlightened westerner" telling the backward natives what they're doing wrong" shit is from the 50s, I had hoped we'd moved on from that. — Isaac
This (and that above it) is patronising bullshit. You started this off with the 'scientific facts' and even then, there's reasonable cause to doubt, but look how quickly it's descended into judgement masquerading as fact. They lack the data about the effects of sexual liberty in society? Are you seriously suggesting that what information we have about the effects of sexual liberty in society amounts to objective fact, like gravity, or the earth being round? — Isaac
We don't like their cultural practices, they think they're for the best. That's all there is to it. I'm more than happy to use whatever rhetorical device works to actually get FGM to stop, including presenting cultural preferences as if they were objective fact. If it works, I'm on board with it. But this is a philosophy forum. We're discussing moral truths, not trying to convince anyone to abandon FGM. — Isaac
Really. Had much luck with that? You still haven't answered my first question. What scientific evidence do you intend to present that heaven does not exist? — Isaac
The key word there being 'ultimately' in the case of atheist virtue ethics, that means at the very least several generations away, if not, the end of time. For theist virtue ethicists, 'ultimately' includes the afterlife, so the fact that both systems 'ultimately' are about consequences, is trivial, and meaningless to this discussion. — Isaac
No, you're not. You're adding a third C) that we in modern Western society actually have that data and anyone who doesn't believe we do, in whatever field we claim to have it, is morally 'wrong'. You missed that. Without this last claim I entirely agree with you. There is a fact of the matter about whether vaccination is in the best long term interests of societal health. There is a fact of the matter about whether FGM is in the best interests of the victims within their current culture. There is a fact of the matter about whether attacking each other with ice picks is the best way to maintain a peaceful society. I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing your fanatical belief that 21st century wester society is in possession of all of those facts with such certainty that anyone who disagrees is just objectively wrong. — Isaac
What you don't seem to be getting is that 'reasonable confidence' does not translate to 'objectively right', and that the "soundness" of much scientific enquiry in the less physical sciences (like medicine, sociology, psychology) is justifiably moot. — Isaac
but that doesn't mean it lacks harmful effects — TheWillowOfDarkness
Someone else's example. But, "extremely immoral"? Why not just immoral? Or maybe for you it's not immoral, but rather only just "extremely immoral," which could be a way of saying it could be moral. — tim wood
My only point is that there are absolutes in every moral question. Most aren't worth the trouble of articulating. Some are, and in some cases it can be hard to get to the bone of the matter, for the fat. And sometimes it approaches an art. — tim wood
The harms in question are facts of that subject, whether the subject cares or not. — TheWillowOfDarkness
And so we can conclude that morality is a matter of collective (social) preference, can't we? — Pattern-chaser
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.