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

The idea of a moral stance that has no meaning or judgment attached to it is incoherent.

I would not put it quite like that. I would say..... — Janus

I’m ok with everything after the dot dot dot. Six of one, half dozen of the other?
——————

Neither, as truths, are merely matters of personal opinion or preference. — Janus

Agreed, unequivocally. Opinion has no logical validity, and preference can imply a relativism whereas a truth can not.
——————-

When it comes to the universal moral truths, I think disagreement is irrational. — Janus

Agreed, in principle. Disagreement would be irrational iff universal moral truths are established by means of an antecedent law. I presented Tim with a logical proof for establishing the universality of murder being immoral, so I think each instance of such establishment would require a proof of its own. But that being given, disagreement would indeed be irrational.
——————-

Awww......I was hoping you’d offer a possibility for the flaw. But never mind......we both gave all sortsa stuff about truth, but neither of us reduced the concept to something relevant to the stuff we said. In other words, what is truth? Or, even better, is there any sense of truth at all, that would falsify the stuff we said.

I like your “notion of truth”, but doesn’t analytic philosophy demand more than a notion?

I’ll go first: truth is the non-contradiction of a conception with its object.

If moral stances are merely personal emotional responses then they would have no need of inter-subjective justification — Janus

Why? (the logic may seem obvious to you but it's not to me)

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.

"I presented Tim with a logical proof for establishing the universality of murder being wrong...".

A logical proof! It doesn't establish anything unless it is logically sound. And likely, out of those of us who have already developed a meta-ethical position on such matters, only those of us who are already moral universalists on murder being wrong will accept that it's logically sound.

"When it comes to universal moral truths...". But none have been demonstrated. — S

Perhaps its time for you to tell us just what you think a universal moral truth is. I suspect you deny there are any, but I am not sure.

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. 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. The debate has very much gone downhill in my assessment when there are just a small group of people agreeing amongst themselves with the dogmatic stance that any one who rejects the meta-ethics of moral universalism (at least in relation to something like murder) as unwarranted, is simply mistaken. I happen to feel very strongly against murder, but no matter how strongly I feel against it, or how strongly others feel against it, that isn't enough to support moral universalism. Where is the evidence? And no, not evidence that murder is wrong, which I think everyone in this discussion agrees on. But evidence that this is a universal moral truth. There is much talk, and much patting on the back, but little if any substance, it seems.

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

The Kantian "moral truth" is certainly universal in some sense - his sense. And as that is what he claimed for it, that amounts to something that is worth more than being dismissed as a joke. By the way, what is the joke by which you dismiss him? Serious question, you dismiss Kant's moral arguments as a joke. What is the joke? Time to put up....

And we're all against murder. Glad for that. 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. Not that you lack knowledge, but as a matter of relative morality. Of course you think it's wrong - for you, and no doubt your friend similarly. 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. Everyone else - the rest of us including you - just has a personal problem. "But," you claim, "I do think it's all wrong!" You leave out the qualification, that you only - merely - think it wrong as a matter of your own preference.

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.

And there's the idea that if a thing is a good, then it ought to be universalizable. The murderer thinks murder a good, so he'll universalize it to you. But you make a special exception in your favor. And so does everyone else. What kind of a good is it if no one wants it? Reason suggests that by any test of the good, this result with murder suggests that it is not a good. Likely even the murderer would agree with this!

But you disqualify this. You argue that it isn't reason. Or that the only reason people don't want to be murdered is a matter of personal preference - and everybody has their own preferences.

Terrapin won't even allow the truth that 2+2=4.

To be sure, reason isn't not found in the periodic chart of the elements. Nor is it some molecule. Maybe we should investigate reason. In physics, reason equates with cause. Given an effect E, what is the reason for E? What is the cause C of the effect E? In moral reasoning, we can argue that reason/cause must not be contradicted in the process of the argument. Mww was articulate on this approach.

And we had the argument that murder is an unauthorized and unjust taking.

Reason, truth, consistency, the good. You deny all of those any claim of universality. How about mania, lies, arbitrariness, evil. What's the default position, btw? If nothing is good, then is everything bad? neutral?

Kant dealt with relativism with and through reason. But you haven't dealt with the relativism of relativism. You say, "Morality is relative." 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.

You claim for your relativity the power to render any moral judgment relative - arbitrary. But you deny my arguments. If I'm wrong, I'm relative, therefore not wrong. And obviously if I'm right I'm not wrong, and you are.

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

Sure, valid arguments, what are they worth when we have so many invalid, nonsensical arguments ready at hand? And all through you have claimed your relativism makes the most sense, and the alternative hasn't stood up to "intellectual scrutiny." You've had your share on nonsense, and your idea of intellectual scrutiny is no scrutiny at all, just hand-waving. Put your money where your mouth is. Defend how your arguments don't need to be valid. Show us your intellectual scrutiny that withers the possibility of moral certitude!

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.

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

I'll concede this...

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

Your wording is misleading. To claim that they couldn't 'find' anything wrong presumes in its expression that wrongness is something one could potentially find in a universal sense, yet that is the very point in question. This is just sophistry.

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

More sophistry. "Enough" for what? Again, your language use deliberately implies that which is the matter in question, that there is some task of universal judgement to be done and that S and TS are satisfied they have completed that task. The meaningfulness of such a task is the very matter in question.

They didn't think it was wrong, therefore it isn't wrong. — tim wood

No. This has been repeatedly explained to you and your refusal to acknowledge this is nothing but bad faith. To a relativist, 'wrong' is that which they feel is wrong, so it doesn't even make sense to say an action isn't wrong which they feel is wrong. Again you're simply presuming your world view is true and then showing how relativism doesn't work from that perspective. Well, obviously it doesn't, but it's the perspective that is in question.

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

Fine, why must we do unto others...

And there's the idea that if a thing is a good, then it ought to be universalizable. — tim wood

No problem. It is good for all people calked Jim (who live at 23 The Boulevard, born 23/01/1960) to commit murder. Would Jim the psychopath rationally want that rule be universalised? Yes.

And we had the argument that murder is an unauthorized and unjust taking. — tim wood

Authorised by whom, just according to whom? You're just begging the question again.

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

Aside from the unpleasant arrogance that accompanies this question. If you were to argue that relativism was relative, I would expect the same support as has been presented here. Is it universally true that relativism is the case? Is there a mechanism by which this truths is made universal? Which is the simpler explanation?

Sure, valid arguments, what are they worth when we have so many invalid, nonsensical arguments ready at hand? — tim wood

Valid arguments are worthless normatively when their premises are false.

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

Honestly, is this what you think passes for quality debate? You offer a circumlocutory way of saying "I don't agree with you" and then accuse your interlocutors of hand-waiving and lack of substance.

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?

I presented Tim with a logical proof for establishing the universality of murder being immoral, — Mww

Could you reference that post somehow if it's not too much trouble? Maybe link to it, or at least retype or paste a brief text string that's unique to it?

. 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

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.

About a third of the way down, pg 43.

Thanks.

Is this the start of it?

Murder, the thing itself, is properly understood as revoking the principle of ownership — Mww

If so, I'd say that first premise already has a problem, because of the idea of "properly understanding" a concept.

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

Correct. It is not true that physical phenomena are reference-frame relative. 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.

Still, I think I will invoke the dreaded categorical error, insofar as my “preference can imply a relativism whereas a truth can not” predicated on logical thought, is very far removed from SR, predicated on metaphysical naturalism.

As an aside, metaethical moral relativism didn’t come into vogue until the early 20th century, about the same time as the paradigm shift in natural science. I wonder....did one chose “relativism” because the other chose “relativity”? Or the other way around?

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

I'm not clear on the distinction you're making there, and in particular, I'm not sure why you're bringing up the idea of a preferred reference frame.

Of course. Anything can be found problematic if one tries hard enough. In any speculative philosophy with syllogistic arguments, the author can only advance valid conclusions, consistent with the premises the philosophy expounds.

It then becomes incumbent on the dialectical opponent to prove the premise false.....not problematic or merely inconclusive or irrelevant.....but false, in order to falsify the conclusion.

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.

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

I had no way of knowing you scope for saying "'Truth' can't be relative," and especially given that most folks on this board use "truth" to refer to objective facts in some manner, I figured your scope was one of maximum generality.

Tim used “ownership of my life is absolute”, and I used that as a condition for the argument. So no, in this case the alluded truth was a reduction to a minimum particular, not an induction to maximum generality.

And I didn’t say, and I didn’t mean to imply, that truth can’t be relative, but only that the truth of murder being immoral can’t be relative, and then iff one accepts the conditions given in the syllogism.

Agreed, most folks do use truth to refer to objective facts in some manner. But moral philosophy doesn’t deal in a posteriori facts, but moreso a priori practical reason. Anthropology and empirical psychology may deal in objective moral facts, but, being a transcendental reductionist, I’m not impressed with them.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Are you ok with it? Dissenting or affirming opinion?

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.

Please explain this. — tim wood

"nothing whatsoever wrong in themselves."

"those persons thought their actions were acceptable..."

Both of those are about what those individuals think. What they think implies nothing outside of the context of what they think.

Actually, I should clarify that. The second is about what they think, and the first is a statement that actions aren't right/wrong outside of what people think.

What they think implies nothing outside of the context of what they think. — Terrapin Station

These people I refer to as monsters of the 20th century did monstrous things. You think so. I think so. (With Aristotle's qualification in mind) everyone thinks so. And we all think what they did was wrong, you apparently, as a matter of your own opinion, or framework, or standards, or whatever you call it. But you appear to either refuse to, or cannot, generalize that view even so far as to say that their actions, among the most horrendous in recorded history, are simply wrong simpliciter.

If they're not wrong, then nothing is wrong. I do not mean to disqualify your view that it's wrong. But your expressed view is a misstatement. It's mere subjective opinion marching under a categorical banner; that's all you'll allow it to be. And that leaves the region outside of opinion open. What, then, is the natural, or default, state? Nothing is wrong? Nothing is right?

Clearly among inanimate objects and non-human living things, human notions of right and wrong do not apply. But do you argue there is not application to homo sapiens - "the wise"?

I understand relativism as the referral of all judgments back to a set of criteria, the relativity arising in that your set of criteria differs from my set. But is that the limit? Obviously people have different views on things. Our example is murder. The murderer doesn't have a problem with it. The rest of us do. Apparently the relativist stops there and allows as how it's a matter of preference, opinion, and therefore we on one side have no grounds beyond our personal views to condemn the other side.

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.

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.

Relativism, then, near as I can tell, is an incomplete and inconsistent theory. Even the question of the relativity of relativism exhibits its foundational flaws. And inconsistent because particularized to the individual. Incomplete because it appears to deny the universality of reason.

Now I should like you to do something that none of you have yet done in all these 40+ pages: 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.

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

It's not impossible. It does require something new. New correlations between some old things and some new things. Not worth getting into here, but it cannot happen until one first has a baseline from which to doubt/question.

This recent talk about 'universal' and 'truth' and 'moral truth' seems misguided to me.

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

What about relativism prevents two people from seeing if they agree about some fundamental preferences? Relativism does not argue (and has not been in this thread) that there is no room for any rational argument. If two people agree that they both wish to avoid killing innocent people, then an argument could be had about how best to achieve that goal. Relativism is just acknowledging that there has to at least be a goal in the first place, that not amount of application of rationality to facts can tell you what you ought to do. Once a goal is present and agreed on, any amount of rational argument can take place as to how to achieve it. Although if this thread is anything to go by, that is of almost no use whatsoever.

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

You keep going on about this and it's very disingenuous of you. No one is refraining from judgement about other people murdering, no one is forced to let others murder them without complaint.

inconsistent because particularized to the individual. — tim wood

What does this even mean, and why does it make relativism inconsistent?

Incomplete because it appears to deny the universality of reason — tim wood

Firstly, reason is clearly far from universal. You think you're applying it here, I'm convinced you're not. How does that happen if reason is universal? Secondly, even if reason is universal, relativism makes no comment on that, relativism is a statement about the motives on which reason acts, not reason itself.

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

Can you please try to act like a grown up. Anyone who's spent any serious time debating will know there are differences of opinion. What seems clear to you is a mystery to me, and what seems obvious to me is opaque to you. If all you're going to to is bluster about how anything that doesn't make sense to you must therefore not be an argument, and anything which is opposed to your world view is disgusting and toxic, then what the hell are you doing on a discussion forum?

You’re right, it’s not impossible, if something new is available. But in the case at hand, there was posited a non-compliance, an offset of the norm, but with nothing new justifying it. I must say I had secret hopes as to why you conceded, but I’ll probably never know, other than, as you say.....not worth getting into.

Misguided. Care to elaborate?