Why? You've repeated this argument several times without answering the key question about it. If the vast majority of people evaluate the earth to be flat, or the vast majority of people evaluate black people to be of lesser worth than white people (both of which have definitely been the case in some closed communities), then do we have to accept those evaluations as objective truths. If not why is the majority opinion on murder different. All you've given me so far is that murder is a matter conscience (I think the worth of black people is a matter of conscience too, but we'll deal with that later). What you've not provided is your reason why being a matter of conscience suddenly make the majority belief into objective fact. If I argued that all 'purple apples could fly' and you retorted that apples can't fly, it would not be a suitable counter argument to simply point out that purple apples are different because they're purple. You'd expect an argument as to why being purple caused this difference.
So why does the fact that moral rules occur in the conscience mean that, unlike all other beliefs, what the majority think makes a belief into objective fact? — Isaac
Gosh, I never thought of that! Imagine that: there are preferences, and, what they are, are preferences. I'm glad to have that information! Move on. — tim wood
I think our passions (what we desire), impacts our thoughts,...... — Rank Amateur
on more then a handful of moral choices, nearly every human conscience on the planet would evaluate it the same. — Rank Amateur
I might disagree with the nose analogy — Rank Amateur
It does seem a tad ironic that the group who argue relative and subjective in regard to morality, act as if this particular view of morality is objectively true. — Rank Amateur
Non-sequiturs won't do here. — creativesoul
There's an argument. You are objecting to the primary premiss. The primary premiss is both true and verifiable. — creativesoul
Moral agency is existentially dependent upon thinking about the rules of behaviour. The rules of behaviour are statements of thought/belief. — creativesoul
How would a rational system so hopelessly circular ever get us anywhere? — Mww
If this is the case, and given the choice of deciding whether or not, e.g., is courage worthy of honor, which would seem to suffice for part of a handful of thoroughly objective considerations, it would have to be shown the choice is a moral choice, and, that conscience is responsible for its evaluation. Cases in which the considerations are reversed, yet still fulfil the criterion of objective consideration, re: is arbitrarily taking a human life good, it should be asked whether the choice is predicated on actually taking one, which is indeed a very moral choice, or witnessing the taking of one, which is merely an observation resulting in criticizing a choice without any knowledge whatsoever of its moral circumstance.
Obviously, there are agreements common to humanity in general. But morality is not found in agreements, that being no more than cultural suitability, sustainability, or simply allegiance, but rather, morality is always found in disagreements, and moral philosophy has to do with the reduction to the explanations for them. Its awful hard to say one is acting morally when in fact he acting as is expected of him, in which case his particular humanity (it is not honorable to prosecute a young Muslim American for learning to speak Farsi) couldn’t be distinguished from his general complicity (if you’re America you will speak English, dammit!!!)
If (iff) one thinks morality a fundamental human condition, it follows necessarily that objective morality is at best a categorical error and at worst self-contradictory. — Mww
I don't see how any of that says anything that shows relative morality is a better explanation of near unanimous moral judgments — Rank Amateur
You're probably reading "Morality is subjective" as me saying something other than "Morality is of bodies" in the sense that "Noses are of bodies," despite the fact that I've tried to correct that misunderstanding tens of times (if not hundreds in general on the board) — Terrapin Station
Someone please make a coherent argument how moral relativism explains that near every human being on the planet would think torturing babies for amusement is morally wrong. — Rank Amateur
This point is nonsense. — Rank Amateur
I have given you all a challenge, show that relative morality is a better explanation than some degree of objective morality for the near universal moral judgments on some actions. — Rank Amateur
Haven't you ever taken an action that you thought/believed and/or strongly felt was good, right. and/or moral... — creativesoul
What on earth is "that which existed prior to our awareness and/or naming of it"? — Isaac
You should adopt a view akin to emotivism because it's factually correct, it's what the world is like. — Terrapin Station
Haven't you ever taken an action that you thought/believed and/or strongly felt was good, right. and/or moral... — creativesoul
Haven't you ever typed up a sentence which doesn't so abuse the English language? — S
↪Rank Amateur
I can't help but think that some of this stems from misunderstandings--namely, believing that relativists and/or subjectivists are more or less saying that morality is wildly divergent from person to person, and that it's essentially arbitrary. But no one is actually claiming anything like that.
What I'm saying is that morality/moral stances are something that occurs in minds only (which I believe are brains functioning in particular ways). I'm saying that moral stances do not occur outside of minds. I'm not saying anything suggestive of moral stances being arbitrary, being necessarily widlly divergent, etc.
I'm essentially making a claim about the location of a phenomenon.
There are upshots to what I'm saying, upshots where it makes a difference if we're saying that something only occurs in brains functioning in mental ways versus elsewhere, but the core idea is that moral stances only occur in brains functioning in mental ways. — Terrapin Station
Someone please make a coherent argument how moral relativism explains that near every human being on the planet would think torturing babies for amusement is morally wrong.
— Rank Amateur
It doesn't. Moral relativism explains how some humans do think torturing babies for fun is OK (by positing that there must therefore be no objective moral fact). Evolution is what explains why near every human being on the planet does think torturing babies for amusement is morally wrong (because it would be difficult to raise the next generation if we didn't).
Why must moral relativism explain what you want it to? Moral objectivism doesn't explain why most people have noses, but that isn't an argument against it. — Isaac
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.