I have, a few times, in a few forms. but once again- other than in a smoke filled dorm room - near unanimity of a particular view would clearly cause a problem with a view they all reached that conclusion independently and it was just an amazing coincidence - — Rank Amateur
would you also agree there is some line, in regard to any issue where they are dichotomous. Good cant ever equal bad, and right can not equal wrong about the same issue. — Rank Amateur
If morality came from the individual, then there would be no need for socialization.
Socialization ensures the smooth working of society.
Society is the necessary conclusion of social creatures with shared linguistic meaning and communication.
Followed by:
Society has the goal of survival and flourishing of the community.
In order for this survival and flourishing, moral laws must be formed.
Moral laws are also grounded in moral feeling.
That moral feeling has as its basis the avoidance of pain.
Moral laws dissuade the inflicting of pain, which also helps to ensure the survival and flourishing of society.
If moral laws didn’t exist, then society would not have lasted this long.
Society has lasted.
Hence, MORAL LAWS EXIST.
so then there has to be a near objective understanding of good or bad or right and wrong - for all these subjective judgments to have any meaning. — Rank Amateur
On my view neither understanding nor meaning are objective, so obviously I'm going to have a problem with this part — Terrapin Station
Something "just is" if and only if, when I treat it that way, it works. The desk in front of me "just is" solid because when I treat it as such it responds as I expect. In fact, physicists seem to be telling me that the desk is not 'really' solid after all, but, not being a physicist, I don't care.
But "murder is wrong" is not a proposition similar to "this desk is solid" because there's no test I can think of which clarifies it. — Isaac
you just agreed a sec ago that good cant equal bad, and right cant equal wrong on a specific issue - that means they have objective meaning. — Rank Amateur
Just a question. If, in a future world, some evil genius had arranged things such that torturing an innocent child brought about a harmonious society, would that make torturing the child morally right?
— Isaac
Zero. Not even a little bit. — tim wood
After all, one man's horror is just another man's just stretching out, yes?
— tim wood
Yes, obviously. Hitler clearly was not horrified by what he did, so it's pretty irrefutable that one man's horror is just another man's stretching out. Are you suggesting that Hitler was horrified by what he did? — Isaac
there has to be a near objective understanding of good or bad or right and wrong - for all these subjective judgments to have any meaning.
How does moral relativity deal with the issue that it needs some objective understanding of good or bad right or wrong - for their moral judgments to have any meaning ? — Rank Amateur
I for one have explicitly spoken of the role that reason plays. — S
Goodness, in the moral sense, is a feeling, badness is a feeling. I can quite easily say that the pain is bad without any objective measure. I can say this apple tastes good without any objective measure. Why does it suddenly become a problem when describing moral feelings? — Isaac
Same problem still applies. If the intent is what makes it moral, then what of the situation where you may have to, for example, murder some innocent to save others. Your intent behind committing the murder is to save the others (the harmonious society), but that does not make you undertake the murder with relish, safe in the knowledge that it is best for the community. Something still tells you murder is wrong, even when your intention is purely the best interests of the group. If that something is not morality (because by intention, you've determined this action is, in fact, moral) then what is it? — Isaac
I don't see how we can do this in the face of such uncertainty, without assigning an ordinal value to each option, we cannot order them, and if are admittedly unclear about the details, how can we be clear about the ordinal value we assign. Throwing out the nonsense, we agree on, the unreasoned and the insane, but all we have left after that is a pool of equally viable options. I don't se any logical reason why, in some areas, one option may not still rise slightly above the others. I see no logical reason why it might not be the case that all the options just happen to be very obviously ordinal. But I cannot see what worldy force would make this the case for all decisions. — Isaac
What CEO in their right mind is going to invest in a drug which only a small number of people will need, to replace a drug they currently sell to everyone? — Isaac
Not entirely, but it still highlights a difference between us. I don't see the point in keeping people alive if they're not going to be happy. It's people's happiness that matters to me. Why do people do risky sports? Because the increase in happiness is worth the reduced life expectancy. So psychology and sociology are important considerations. We can't just presume people want to remain alive for as long as possible at all costs, want to have as much wealth as possible at all costs. Clichéd though it sounds, this is just not the case. — Isaac
We are agreed here, as I think we've now firmly established. Where we disagree is simply over the strength of evidence contradicting one's 'gut' that is required to make one change. For me it is very high, for you it seems to be merely a preponderance. — Isaac
As to the test for murder, there is such a test: would you consent to be murdered (not would you want to be murdered); do you imagine that everyone would or should consent to be murdered? And then why not? — tim wood
As to "reason first," I think you confuse temporal with logical priority. A think doesn't have to be first on the clock to be primary. And, word games: you could say that you have to have something to reason about before you can reason, but if so, how do you ever start reasoning? — tim wood
I disagree strongly here. I don't see how you can justify that kind of accusation. What does "good faith" even mean in this context, and what types of argument are you identifying as examples of "bad faith" As far as I read the discussion, it started out with Tim simply declaring, without argument, that some things were simply "wrong". Some relativist have tried to make their case and been met with just a repeated assertion that "some things are just wrong". I tried to explain my position with a thought experiment (a perfectly normal, common philosophical tool) and you took the hump and said you weren't engaging anymore.
How is that discussing with an open mind? — Isaac
and the relevant question is 'on what basis could one think that some interpersonal behaviors are "more significant than etiquette"?'. Not just because it is popular to think that way surely?moral judgments are judgments that interpersonal behavior (that one considers more significant than etiquette) is morally good bad, right or wrong, etc., that's fine, yes. — Terrapin Station
it seems obvious that matters that are considered matters of morality and not matters of mere preference or popularity are 'life and death' matters, and such matters are profoundly important to almost all of us because life and death is profoundly important to almost all of us, and that is the "objective" element of commonality that operates in moral thought and feeling, makes it more than a matter of popularity or mere personal preference, and which moral relativism cannot even begin to explain. — Janus
Why would anyone care about such a judgement ? — Rank Amateur
But you can’t bite the apple and tell someone it tastes both good and bad at the same time. In order to communicate your view of the taste of the apple you have to use adjectives with some degree of objective meaning. If we have widely varied subjective views on goodness or badness as it relates to apple taste we can’t effectively communicate. Your view of the apple is now meaningless to me. — 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.