It seems to me the argument of relative morality vs objective morality is not being argued on the merits of one vs the other. — Rank Amateur
Your source argument is certainly the best argument against objective morality - but the argument is based a proposition that can not be shown to be true. — Rank Amateur
Morality isn't anything other than what's it's good for. — Janus
Morality never was a “thing”, but always the condition of a thing — Mww
In my view it has absolutely nothing to do with what the merits of one versus the other would be. It has to do with which one is the way the world really is. — Terrapin Station
Do you mean that in the sense of "It can't be proved"? No empirical claim can be proved, period. That includes proving that Jack is homeless. — Terrapin Station
Maybe, just maybe, your view of how the world really is, is not correct. — Rank Amateur
here is no god, therefore the source is human, — Rank Amateur
if you can come up with another argument against objective morality that is not the source argument. — Rank Amateur
where do moral stances occur? — Terrapin Station
some people at some time, and for some reason believe slavery was moral
other people at some time, and for some reason believe slavery was immoral
Both times the people were correct, and the morality of slavery changed.
All this says is whatever one thinks is infallibly morally correct for you - that is nonsense. — Rank Amateur
Simplest: conditions themselves are merely states of affairs; — Mww
Technical Point: conditions themselves are non-entities; — Mww
And since this is the core, there is no correct answer to what is the right moral view. — Rank Amateur
agree - and neither can prove the other false. — Rank Amateur
I want to own slaves, because owning slaves will make me a bunch of money. And I really like money.
I think about it a sec, and then I decide, my moral view is slavery is morally permissible.
In your view or moral relativity, relative to myself, am I correct, slavery is morally permissible ? — Rank Amateur
I would say that relative to your views, slavery is morally permissible, that it's morally acceptable, etc — Terrapin Station
ok - but what if my conscience is really saying “slavery is bad you idiot “. But I like money so much, I just say “I think slavery is moral” — Rank Amateur
But if your morality were based only on your personal preferences, and you were satisfied with that then nothing anyone raises could be a problem for you, then no argument could be against your position and hence would not be worth arguing against. It would be like arguing that your preference for beef over lamb was somehow mistaken. — Janus
To discuss anything is to seek normative agreement, For anything to be worth arguing over is for it to be potentially subject to normative agreement, but that is impossible in the case of moral relativism. — Janus
So to answer what might be considered to be the meta-ethical question "What do moral judgements consist in?" with something like "They are nothing more than personal preferences", is to ignore the reality of cultural and normative influences on the individual. — Janus
And further to that if they were nothing more than personal preferences based on feeling (and I am not denying that they are that, only that they are not nothing more than that) then they are not properly moral at all, since they would then have no moral significance. In other words you would just be acting, not morally, but as your feelings dictate, just as animals do. (This is not to deny that the instinctive behavior of animals towards their own kind is not normative and cannot be seen as a kind of quasi-morality). — Janus
What "other (moral) priorities" could one who wishes to live in society have? The whole idea of morality consists in thinking of others. — Janus
So if you had. for example, an "other priority" that consisted in exploiting others without consideration for their feelings or welfare, then that would amount to thinking only about yourself and your own feelings, and hence would not count as moral at all, but rather amoral. — Janus
If someone acts against their own moral principles, then they are acting immorally. — Janus
If someone has no moral principles, which would be the case if someone were to kill people without remorse, then they would be acting amorally. — Janus
I may have been pointed out, but it is not compelling; it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If moral relativism consists in saying that it is OK to believe whatever is in accordance with your feelings about how to act towards others, then that just is an amoral, morally nihilistic, anarchic view. In that sense the very idea of moral relativism is a contradiction in terms. — Janus
I don't believe that individuals are morally independent in any significant sense. — Janus
I made this point before to Terrapin; an artist is not isolated from influence, but they may be creatively independent in the sense that they can produce an original synthesis. — Janus
This is not the case with moral stances; there are no original stances when it comes to questions about the rightness of murder, rape, theft, deception and so on. There is really very little variation on those generic question other than for or against, and actually there is even less variation than that since almost everyone is against murder, rape, theft and deception. — Janus
It is not merely that they are "equal in kind", but that they are equal insofar as on the presumption of moral relativism there is no rational reason to prefer one over the other. — Janus
The fact that moral relativists do prefer one over the other does not indicate that there are any rational justifications for any of those preferences, because they are preferences based only on self-interest or feeling. — Janus
There is no need for rational justification if you are a moral relativist, because you are simply following your feelings. — Janus
If those feelings happen to be kind, then good, but that does not make them moral. — Janus
Animals have kind feelings towards their own; does that make them moral beings? — Janus
Something more is needed, and that something more consists in thinking that it is important to care about your fellows, even if you don't naturally feel that way. — Janus
Isn't what? Isn't — Janus
...if you are a consistent moral relativist you won't expect anyone to be interested in your reasons for your moral judgements since they are merely based on your feelings and not on any normative considerations. — Janus
In fact it isn't possible for you, as a consistent moral relativist, to 'explain the truth in (your) claim that (your) moral judgement is better than someone else's" because any such explanation will necessarily appeal to normative values that you have no business appealing to. All you could consistently say is "I feel my moral judgement is better than yours, so there!" to which the other will likely retort "So what?". — Janus
No, I don't treat it like that at all. As I said a few times moral philosophy is more an art than a science, and similarly as with aesthetics there are qualities which determine the value of works that are more than merely a matter of personal preference, even though, since art has no strict utility, it is even harder than it is with ethics to say precisely what those qualities are. — Janus
What I am getting out of this so far is that everyone non-critically accepts that some moral propositions are relative; that given such a moral proposition, P, some folks hold for P, some for not-P, and because of moral relativity, both are right, neither is wrong. — tim wood
But if your morality were based only on your personal preferences, and you were satisfied with that then nothing anyone raises could be a problem for you, then no argument could be against your position and hence would not be worth arguing against. It would be like arguing that your preference for beef over lamb was somehow mistaken. — Janus
"They are nothing more than personal preferences", is to ignore the reality of cultural and normative influences on the individual. — Janus
I don't agree with the last phrase. Right and wrong in this context are simply another way of saying whether someone holds moral position P or not-P. In other words, — Terrapin Station
If you allow reason, — tim wood
If you allow reason,
— tim wood
Speaking of reason, I didn't see you answer if you were claiming that reason exists independently of persons. — 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.