Of course I don't believe moral stances are merely personal emotional responses or preferences. They are inter-subjectively acquired, sustained and justified, so they are relative not merely to individual subjects. — Janus
I would not put it quite like that. I would say..... — Janus
Neither, as truths, are merely matters of personal opinion or preference. — Janus
When it comes to the universal moral truths, I think disagreement is irrational. — Janus
Doubting that requires being exposed to something different. — creativesoul
A universal moral truth would be a moral truth which is universal in some sense. Universal meaning of all. I don't think that is something which can be logically demonstrated, in any sense that I can think of. — S
Sure, someone can string together a valid argument, but that's not too difficult. It seems that one would have to abandon the understanding of morality which makes the most sense in favour of a more problematic understanding which hasn't stood up to intellectual scrutiny. — S
In the thought experiment, I am white, and so is everyone else in my village. I've never even seen anyone of a different skin colour in person. My culture is very much racist. My parents are racist. But I am not. — S
But what are we to make of the claims of you and Terrapin - he explicitly with you in explicit support - that neither of you can find anything at all wrong that any of the greater and more murderous monsters of the 20th century did. — tim wood
But because presumably Mao, Stalin, Hitler, et al didn't themselves think they were doing wrong, then apparently that's enough for S. and Terrapin. — tim wood
They didn't think it was wrong, therefore it isn't wrong. — tim wood
As to the reason, that's been rehearsed here. In short form it's do unto others..., together with its sister, don't do unto others.... The forms of the golden rule. — tim wood
And there's the idea that if a thing is a good, then it ought to be universalizable. — tim wood
And we had the argument that murder is an unauthorized and unjust taking. — tim wood
Suppose I say, "The relativism of moral relativism is relative."
How do you handle that? Will you dismiss it? A display of ignorance if you miss both the significance and the force of the challenge. — tim wood
Sure, valid arguments, what are they worth when we have so many invalid, nonsensical arguments ready at hand? — tim wood
But don't waste our time with the usual hand-waving. Don't direct us back, because I've been back and it isn't there. I will respond to a substantive reply, like the one above. — tim wood
preference can imply a relativism whereas a truth can not. — Mww
I presented Tim with a logical proof for establishing the universality of murder being immoral, — Mww
. But because presumably Mao, Stalin, Hitler, et al didn't themselves think they were doing wrong, then apparently that's enough for S. and Terrapin. They didn't think it was wrong, therefore it isn't wrong. — tim wood
Murder, the thing itself, is properly understood as revoking the principle of ownership — Mww
preference can imply a relativism whereas a truth can not.
— Mww
So it's not true that physical phenomena are reference-frame relative per the theory of relativity? — Terrapin Station
It’s an isotopic universe which means there is no preferred reference frame for the occurrence of phenomena. But I understand what you were driving at, so yes, per SR, the observations of phenomena show reference frame relativity. — Mww
We’re even then. I wasn’t clear on why you brought up physical phenomena when what you were responding to was mental preference. So I just ran with it, trying to connect them somehow. — Mww
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
Correct.
The truth is that those persons thought their actions were acceptable/justifiable/necessary/good, take your pick
— tim wood
Sure, they may have.
At least you're getting it now. :grin: — Terrapin Station
No one has ever said anything like "therefore it isn't wrong," and in fact we've explicitly explained, in some detail, in quite a few different posts, why and how such a "therefore" doesn't work, is absurd, depends on a category error, etc. — Terrapin Station
Please explain this. — tim wood
What they think implies nothing outside of the context of what they think. — Terrapin Station
Careful.
Doubting that requires being exposed to something different.
— creativesoul
If this is indubitably the case, you’d have to either find or assume something different in order for the doubt necessary to counter the societal norm to manifest. You won’t be able to find it, because it wasn’t given, and if you assume it, you’re open to accusations of assuming the antecedent.
It should be the case that an offset for the norm is impossible, but you’ll never be granted a successful argument. — Mww
I argue, though, that the matter must be dug deeper to find a commonality. If both the murderer and I agree that neither of us consents to be murdered, and our several reasons are reconcilable, then we have a common ground upon which our respective views are most clearly contradictory. — tim wood
Presumably both agree they would not be murdered, but the murderer nevertheless would murder, while we would not. It's very tolerant of you to refrain from a judgment about the murder of others, but then you must not invoke that judgment when he comes for you. — tim wood
inconsistent because particularized to the individual. — tim wood
Incomplete because it appears to deny the universality of reason — tim wood
make a clear argument. I call you out as not having one, because you have not yet presented one. It's very Trumpian, and ultimately disgusting and sickening and toxic. Don't tell me what you did, because in this thread you've never done it. Do it now. — tim wood
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.