I've said all I'm going to say in this thread. I lack the time or energy required to continue responding unproductively to what appears to me as so many distortions and so much sophistry from some of those here. — Janus
It's normative because its the feeling or the kind of feeling that allows people to live together more or less harmoniously. — Janus
The "I can't actually address the objections brought up, but I'm not about to drop my spiel" tactic. — Terrapin Station
I get what you're saying, but I disagree. I think that, in the fields where moral decisions are made, the 'way the world is' is sufficiently complex that no single model stands out as being objectively best with the clarity you believe. Of course, there are models which are so bad they can be discarded from consideration, but that still leaves most options that normal adult humans consider, in play. — Isaac
Moral positions relate to the effect actions have on people. Fields covering the effects on people are mainly psychology, sociology and human biology. None of these fields has the rigour of basic physics (or even chemistry) and to treat them as such is a mistake. Models can, and frequently do, come completely undone as new information emerges, and multiple models exist simultaneously. — Isaac
Most models are complex. This means they rapidly become quite unpredictable over long periods of time. Even your sacred cow of the success of vaccination has only been measured over a few decades. What about 100 years, 1000 years? Do you think anyone has any hope of reliably predicting the effects on societies over those timescales? — Isaac
Basically my feeling is that, in the face of such uncertainty, feeling good about one's decisions is more important than the extremely fragile result of some utilitarian calculus. That's not to say that these models are useless, far from it. I think it vitally important that when one's approach is overwhelmingly contradicted by the evidence, one is well advised to change it, but the key word here is 'overwhelmingly'. Not only is a preponderance of evidence not enough, but most of importantly, I personally must be overwhelmed by it, not others telling me I should be. — Isaac
Despite my addiction to verbosity and post length, I think I'm getting a clearer picture of the differences between our views as our discussion progresses. Thanks for your patience! — VagabondSpectre
I don’t even read your posts because they’re so long. I’m being lazy, though. I just read your opening few sentences, then skipped to this last part. — Noah Te Stroete
It's not a perfect approach (or one that seeks perfection), but the vector of reason and evidence is hopefully a more persuasive method. If we have to redefine what we mean by some words in some contexts to expose more of that overwhelming persuasive power, that's what matters. In practical moral debate we just can't meaningfully bring the moral-epistemic implications of relativism without also neutering the persuasive power of our language; if and where we have fundamentally different starting values, to import relativism would be to give up an attempt to influence their values directly. If we don't need to influence their values because they are not in competition with our own, then we don't need relativism at all; we can focus on how our moral agreements empirically serve (or more easily: do not disservice) our mutually compatible values. — VagabondSpectre
I find it cognitively exhausting to read many consecutive complex sentences. — Noah Te Stroete
I find it cognitively underwhelming to only read or write in curt and simplistic fashion :wink: . — VagabondSpectre
then what is to prevent others for assigning other values in the same circumstances? — Isaac
But now we're back where we started. If a feeling that one should torture a child turned out (by some convoluted chain of events) to bring about an harmonious society later down the line, does that make it morally OK to do it?
If not, then making an harmonious society is clearly not what determines that which is moral. If it just wouldn't be possible, then what physical law prevents such a scenario?
It's a question, how can a question be distortion and sophistry? — Isaac
Yes. The irony of accusing us of sophistry. — Isaac
The most coherent way I think we can talk about these kinds of considerations is to put them on a spectrum of less morally praiseworthy to more morally praiseworthy — VagabondSpectre
Strictly speaking, it would be more ideal if we had technology that could eliminate diseases in the first place; such a technology is probably possible, but we don't yet have access to it. — VagabondSpectre
If I give you an unweighted dice with six sides, and all sides but one displays a value of 6, you would be remiss to bet on anything but 6, statistically speaking. — VagabondSpectre
It really reveals the way in which your perspective of morality is more focused on the relative and subjective way people feel about moral values,and also their actions, as opposed to the more strict empirical approach I take to the way actions conform to relative values in the first place. — VagabondSpectre
We can challenge values hierarchies directly by exploring how one of their values (or the action which serves it) forseeably subverts one of their more fundamentally important values. We can also, and mainly, mitigate the subjectivity in how proposed actions are perceived by more objectively exploring the ramifications of proposed actions. So long as people believe we can say they are neither right nor wrong from the strict relativist standpoint, but in practice, if we can get people to change their mind then the statement "morally incorrect/immoral/morally inferior" actually does have relevant and consistent meaning within relativism. — VagabondSpectre
To ensure that future generations will have robust immune systems, we either need to let people die naturally from disease, or we would need to sterilize anyone deemed too weak to survive a disease without the vaccine. — VagabondSpectre
The crux of my point is that it is most important for us to try to become experienced and informed, like them, that we too can make more reliable decisions (that we're sometimes impelled to trust preeminent experts on specific matters is not a complication we cannot use reason to assess). — VagabondSpectre
Can you imagine, except for some incredibly minute exceptions, that any human being could actually be honest with their conscience, and say it would be moral to needlessly torture innocent children? — Rank Amateur
That's why you need, first, reason, and... — tim wood
Is there nothing that you hold is plain wrong - or right - not because you feel that it is, but because it is? — tim wood
↪Isaac wondering your thought on this as well. Can you imagine, except for some incredibly minute exceptions, that any human being could actually be honest with their conscience, and say it would be moral to needlessly torture innocent children? — Rank Amateur
I haven't accused you of distortion and sophistry...yet...I had thought you are one of the more reasonable respondents in this thread. — Janus
the intent to live well and harmoniously with others is what makes attendant thoughts and feelings moral thoughts and feelings. — Janus
To me both of these posters are more concerned with insisting ad nauseum on their own inadequate views and with winning arguments than with discussing any issue in good faith and with an open mind. — Janus
wondering your thought on this as well. Can you imagine, except for some incredibly minute exceptions, that any human being could actually be honest with their conscience, and say it would be moral to needlessly torture innocent children? — Rank Amateur
I can but even if we accept for the sake of argument that no such people exist, then all you have then is universal intersubjectivity. It doesn't get you an objective morality. — ChrisH
What bothers me about comments like this--and they tend to be legion--is the apparent assumption that it goes without saying that the popularity (or as others prefer, "prevalence," just to avoid Aspieish confusion) of something has some significance for its normative merit. Basically it seems to be an endorsement of an argumentum ad populum. — Terrapin Station
the question was not do they, the question was, would they be acting in accordance with their conscience. I understand that we humans can rationize or justify just about anything, to others and to ourselves. Just because they do it, or say it, does not mean they are acting or talking in conflict with their conscience. — Rank Amateur
Other than the label you apply to it, is there some pragmatic difference between universal subjectivity and objectivity? — Rank Amateur
how about, instead of wondering, guessing, or thinking tactically on what this does or does not do to your argument and position, you just honestly answer the question. It is just an opinion, it is not provable, just want to know what your honest thought is on it. — Rank Amateur
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.