Dogmatism in the pursuit of truth is no vice! — tim wood
Well it is amoral. Let's be clear. Your evaluation is just that. There's no moral value inherent in anything, and your evaluation doesn't magically make it so. There is nothing reasonable in simply saying that something or other is a moral value in any other sense than that it is so relative to a standard, which is in turn relative to feelings. If I don't feel the same way about this standard, then it simply doesn't apply to any moral judgements or evaluations that I make. All you're really telling me is how you feel about something. Good for you? — S
Personal dental health is not of moral value. It's either morally valuable to you or it isn't. And there's nothing meaningful or relevant in saying that something has moral utility. That's not the issue at all. — S
Okay, so you're a subjective relativist like me. — S
Look at it this way, with something that's less controversially a matter of preferences:
Say that Joe prefers the taste of pizza to the taste of horseradish.
Bob, though, prefers horseradish to pizza.
Is Joe going to say, "From my perspective, Bob's preference is just as good as mine"?
Wouldn't that imply that Joe doesn't actually have a preference between pizza and horseradish? If one preference is just as good to Joe as another from his perspective, then he shouldn't have a preference in the first place. This is pretty wrapped up in how preferences work/what they are. — Terrapin Station
joe has no right to make any kind of value judgment about bob preference — Rank Amateur
any qualitative word at all about (...) relative preference- it is no longer relative. — Rank Amateur
Because all value judgments imply against some standard, and if you are applying them against a standard they are now objective. — Rank Amateur
Because all value judgments imply against some standard, and if you are applying them against a standard they are now objective. — Rank Amateur
Let's look at this part first.
So, first off, "I prefer pizza to horseradish" is a value judgment. Comparing and preferring one thing to another is making a judgment about them, and it has a valuation included--"I like A more than B" is valuing A more than B. — Terrapin Station
That's a non sequitur. — S
I think that it is fallacious. And it is doubly so if it is intended to represent what I'm doing. I've done the opposite by emphasising that morality is no less important under moral relativism.
Why wouldn't I care? You're making an illogical connection here.
And I'm not a relativist, I'm a moral relativist. I haven't claimed that everything is relative. — S
What I think about everything else is entirely irrelevant in the context of this discussion. This discussion is about morality, and regarding that, I am a moral relativist. Relativism, more broadly, is a red herring. — S
Kant's categorical imperative is a joke. — S
No, that's the trouble with a poor way of thinking about moral relativism. — S
Anyone who obstinately persists in their own misunderstanding of what the other side is arguing should take a time out and consider the principle of charity.
Now go and sit on the naughty step. — S
That's not an argument. You don't have one, do you? — S
I bet you thought that that sounded clever, but it is just an uncharitable and irrelevant attack on a person's presumed motive and their character, rather than any reasonable and substantive criticism of moral relativism. — S
That doesn't even make sense when properly analysed. You know that I'm a moral relativist. Why on earth would you expect me to agree to that? Why don't you just admit that you have no real argument? You don't have to put on a show. — S
I will award a point to whoever can correctly name this fallacy. — S
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, but you know that already, don't you? You're doing that on purpose. Again. It's another example of loaded language. They would much more likely say that it is extremely immoral. — S
This is getting sillier and sillier. You show very little awareness of your own fallacies. — S
...are a figment of your imagination as far as I can reasonably tell. You're not a philosopher, you're a dogmatist.
Didn't Kant decry dogmatism, by the way? — S
For example, you don’t boil babies. This is a moral truth, not just mere opinion where individuals feel disgust. — Noah Te Stroete
The categorical imperative — Noah Te Stroete
If morality is based on doing what promotes the flourishing (health and happiness) of a society and all its members, and the basic requirements for such flourishing are established and universally acknowledged, then morality as an "if, then" set of principles can be established and universally acknowledged, and the problems with the "is, ought" divide circumvented. — Janus
Frankly I'm flabbergasted that you would try to put up any defense of FGM whatsoever. — VagabondSpectre
Uh, oh. I was sure I was right when I said I would boil three babies if the aliens promised not to destroy earth to build their galactic bypass (not sure how boiling 3 babies helped them, but it saved earth!) — ZhouBoTong
That said, I would rather die and take others with me than boil even one baby. Never mind that it is the alien race who are committing an evil act. — Noah Te Stroete
So you are unwilling to sacrifice your spiritual enlightenment (never doing anything "wrong") for the lives of billions? Doesn't seem so moral anymore? — ZhouBoTong
never doing anything "wrong" — ZhouBoTong
I have no problem stating it that way as long as we recognize that "collective (social) preference" is not a simple thing. It involves a complex interaction of societal, governmental, religious, and cultural institutions. — T Clark
I get what you're saying, but I think amoral isn't the right word. Essentially you're saying that everything is amoral (right?) but that would render the term "moral" useless. I would use the term amoral to describe decisions that fall outside the realm of moral decision making entirely (which do not concern, or consider, extant moral values). — VagabondSpectre
Brushing has sound moral utility given the moral value of dental health. This reflects a major part of the point I have been trying to make. — VagabondSpectre
I guess so. I just happen to also think that more often than not it is the matters of fact which drive moral disagreement, not disparate or competing values. — VagabondSpectre
I was making the point that we have some capacity to predict whether or not FGM is beneficial to a society's subjective moral values, — VagabondSpectre
We cannot be absolutely certain that NOT cutting off a girl's clit won't harm the girl or society (harm their subjective values), but the forecast certainly indicates this — VagabondSpectre
the weather forecast is99% possibility of precipitation, it would be prudent to carry an umbrella. This doesn't mean we're obligated to believe and obey weather forecasts, — VagabondSpectre
Some cultural practices are, in fact, morally superior to others in the context of those nearly universal human values which we all share — VagabondSpectre
Because all value judgments imply against some standard, and if you are applying them against a standard they are now objective. — Rank Amateur
You’re doing fine. — Mww
Which both bob and joe can make individually relative to how they individually feel. They just can't make any value judgments on what anyone else values and still believe in relative food judgments
This point I am trying to communicate is not that hard to grasp. lf you want to have relative morality for yourself, you have to allow relative morality for others.
I can't see how such a thing as that is possible. — Rank Amateur
You are muddying the waters by trying to draw an analogy, which is inevitably simplistic and inadequate, between moral values and culinary tastes. — Janus
I will take a page from S’s playbook. Anyone who says “that boiling babies is wrong” just means “Ew, I don’t like boiling babies, boo” is a moron. — Noah Te Stroete
And these childish attempts to trivialise moral relativism — S
what could dissuade someone who promotes FGM as moral or morally obligatory because it promotes well-being? — VagabondSpectre
I'm just pointing out that from the perspective of basically every human that has ever lived, and will ever live, some social systems/cultural practices/moral laws are more or less desirable than others. — VagabondSpectre
You're trying to hold me to some ridiculously high standard of certainty where all I'm after are relatively strong inductive arguments. — VagabondSpectre
But if your beliefs don't make for effective moral suasion, what use is your moral framework? — VagabondSpectre
I don't understand what you mean with this end of time stuff. Specific virtues (or even entire virtue frameworks) can be naturally selected over a finite time-span. — VagabondSpectre
I think it's obvious enough that the widespread practice of FGM is not beneficial even to the values it purportedly serves. — VagabondSpectre
I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings. I just wasn’t aware you had any. — Noah Te Stroete
When did I ever say anything about Heaven? — Noah Te Stroete
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.