My definition of subjective morality is a moral judgment that has no inherent truth value. That the truth value of the statement, or the mental phenomena , is dependent on or subject to something else. It is not always true, it is only true if (fill in the blank) — Rank Amateur
↪Rank Amateur
As I've said a number of times, I don't think the terms are important. I'm fine with dropping the terms "objective" and "subjective." I've suggested dropping them a number of times, including earlier in this thread.
So I'm just saying that moral judgments are things we think.
Do you agree with that?
And on my view, I don't believe that moral judgments (or whatever else we might want to call them--moral whatevers) occur, as moral judgments (whatevers) other than as things we think.
And then what matters are the upshots of the fact that moral judgments are things we think. — Terrapin Station
My definition of subjective morality is a moral judgment that has no inherent truth value. That the truth value of the statement, or the mental phenomena , is dependent on or subject to something else. It is not always true, it is only true if (fill in the blank) — Rank Amateur
There is nothing there to disagree with. But it just does not say anything of value about the utility of moral judgments — Rank Amateur
“Since morals, therefore, have an influence on the actions and affections, it follows, that they cannot be deriv’d from reason....”
-Mww
— creativesoul
This presupposes that nothing (...) that has/ (...) an influence on actions and affections can be derived using reason. — creativesoul
Hume's mistake is conflating simple, rudimentary, and/or basic thought/belief with the linguistically informed/ladened — creativesoul
Why wouldn't not wanting to be murdered be sufficient? Additionally most people don't want people to murder other people in general. — Terrapin Station
Not only the ownership, or possession of it, but included is the principle of its preservation. If we have a truth the negation of which is impossible, we have a law. If we have a law, we have the ground of a moral philosophy. Because the law is a priori, it is neither relative nor objective. It is, instead, a good place to start. — Mww
And I steadfastly refuse to address what the Kantian in the background has said if he hasn't the decency to even speak to me. He who has the nerve to suggest that I lack philosophical maturity. I think they call that projection. — S
The right or wrong of something like "Murder is bad" or "One should not murder" is a moral right/wrong, and it's identical to the preferences "Murder is bad" or "One should not murder." — Terrapin Station
The grounds of determination is someone having those preferences. — Terrapin Station
According to the philosophy of Terrapin, et al, the 20th century murders by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and a host of imitators are nothing whatsoever wrong in themselves. Apparently that's even a nonsensical idea. — tim wood
the 20th century murders by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and a host of imitators are nothing whatsoever wrong in themselves. Apparently that's even a nonsensical idea. — tim wood
The truth is that those persons thought their actions were acceptable/justifiable/necessary/good, take your pick — tim wood
I'm confused then, I suppose. Did you not quote me and charge the excerpt with ignoring and/or neglect?
Yes, that actually happened.
Three charges of neglect. None true.
When I wrote "non-sequitur" I was drawing your attention to the situation at hand. None of those charges follow from my position. You quoted me, and then aimlessly opened fire. "Non sequitur" was not about your argument, it was about the fallaciousness of your inquiry.
— creativesoul
"Non sequitur" refers to something being stated in the context of an argument as if it follows--that is, as if it is valid, but it actually does not follow, it is not valid.
All you're saying really is that you disagree with me that "Morality is codified rules of behaviour. Code is language" "amounts to ignoring a significant portion of the phenomena that people typically characterize as morality, moral stances, etc"--well, we should hope you disagree with that, otherwise you'd be forwarding stances more or less dishonestly, because you'd think that you're ignoring something but you'd not care.
Nevertheless, what you stated amounts to ignoring a significant portion of the phenomena that people typically characterize as morality, moral stances, etc. — Terrapin Station
It seems to me, when Hume said....
“Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions”
.....he should have realized his own words suggest morals are antecedent to passions. And when combined with......
“a passion must be accompany’d with some false judgment, in order to its being unreasonable; and even then ’tis not the passion, properly speaking, which is unreasonable, but the judgment”
.....suggests an undefined chronology between an unreasonable passion and the false judgement that goes with it. Is the passion unreasonable because of the false judgement or is there a false judgement because the passion is unreasonable? — Mww
The problem I have is that I have no idea how anything qualifies as 'wrong in itself' (i.e. wrong even if no one believed it was wrong)? — ChrisH
The verification of what we're talking about when we are talking about morality is provided by how current and past convention used the term... — creativesoul
The problem I have is that I have no idea how anything qualifies as 'wrong in itself' (i.e. wrong even if no one believed it was wrong)?
— ChrisH
Reason, following Kant's dynamic in his categorical imperative... — tim wood
There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition of morality will be applicable to all moral discussions. One reason for this is that “morality” seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
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.