Whether the act was objectively, universally wrong is simply beside the point; all that matters, as far as me holding people morally responsible, is how I relate to the incident. — SophistiCat
you wouldn't just take that like you would take a disagreement in food tastes, right? You would think their assessment of the morality of that situation is incorrect, not just different from yours, no? — Pfhorrest
If you did take it that way, then blaming someone for doing something you merely dislike but don't think is actually wrong in a universal, objective way, doesn't seem like it would make any sense. — Pfhorrest
Why do you see these as the only two options - either 'like trivial preferences' or 'objectively and universally wrong'? — Isaac
Because the difference between those is binary: can multiple contrary opinions on the same thing be simultaneously warranted, or not? — Pfhorrest
since you think the different opinions are warranted, you have no motive to blame others for their disagreement — Pfhorrest
The problem is the statment is not rational unless there something wrong with the action. It's not rational for someone to do what you want, to act to achieve your goals, unless that action and goal ought to happen , even for oneself-- goals are normative in nature, they are an account its true something ought to occur. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Existence where you are ostracised is just as logically coherent as one where you are not.
It's only rational for you to stop if there is an ought: that you ought not get ostracised. Then we would actually have a reason to prefer an existence of not being ostracised over being so. Yes, it is rational, but only to a world in which you ought not be ostracised. — TheWillowOfDarkness
The existence of my desire does not automatically mean it is truthful my desire should be fulfilled. — TheWillowOfDarkness
My point is the exact opposite: we don't just have a fact that I should get what I want. — TheWillowOfDarkness
My point isn't that the ought must be. It's that if it's true getting my desire is the rational outcome — TheWillowOfDarkness
That I love my wife is just a matter of my opinion, but it is far from trivial. — Isaac
If it matters, then you're treating it like it's an objective or universal matter, where we all need to come to the same conclusion lest at least one of us be wrong (and deserve blame if we act wrongly because of that). — Pfhorrest
This is the bit I don't get. Where's the connection between it mattering and me treating it as objective fact? — Isaac
If I was tied to five other people it would really matter that we agreed on which direction to walk (I might get injured if we don't all agree), but none of us would consider the chosen direction to be objectively 'right', we might as easily have tossed a coin for it. — Isaac
all I mean by “objective” is that it’s not a topic where disagreement doesn’t matter: it’s something where in any disagreement at least one party (and possibly all parties) is at least partly wrong.
I don’t know what more exactly you take it to mean by that. — Pfhorrest
If you trying to walk to somewhere for some reason, then there is an objectively right way to do that, — Pfhorrest
accounts for — Pfhorrest
most urgent — Pfhorrest
needs met — Pfhorrest
Simple. an objective fact is one about which it's possible for all parties to be wrong — Isaac
I see we've simply reached the point where you've previously abandoned the conversation — Isaac
What is the truthmaker in "if it's true getting my desire is the rational outcome"? — Isaac
Also, I'm not sure how any of this relates to the argument about assignation of blame being an objective-oriented speech act. In order for such an argument to be plausible, it only need be the case that the speech act is effective at it's objective. That being so, you can almost guarantee that people will use it that way and so it becomes, de facto, what the speech means.
all I mean by “objective” is that it’s not a topic where disagreement doesn’t matter: it’s something where in any disagreement at least one party (and possibly all parties) is at least partly wrong. — Pfhorrest
People don't just get to say it is true an outcome ought be achieved just because they exist wanting it. — TheWillowOfDarkness
The fact the existence of your desire does not equal that it ought to be achieved. — TheWillowOfDarkness
That there are things which truthfully ought to be the case is the matter being debated - you here are assuming it. — Isaac
I have not assumed it. My point is the exact opposite — TheWillowOfDarkness
You only have reason to prefer your own success if it ought to be over your failure. Otherwise, it makes just as much sense for you to be one who fails and never gets their desires fulfilled, even from your own point of view . — TheWillowOfDarkness
without the ought, failure in this goal makes as much sense as success. — TheWillowOfDarkness
People will, of course, act to achieve success because they want it, but this doesn't ground the action a preferable or the rational option. It's just describing how people exist acting to get what they want. That one has "the might" and uses it does not amount to an action being preferable, either in terms of ethics or the rational. — TheWillowOfDarkness
But whether you think that its wrongness is objective/universal, rather than just a matter of opinion, is a part of how you relate to it.
I don't like strawberries. But I understand that liking strawberries or not is just a matter of opinion; I don't think anybody is incorrect in their assessment of strawberries just because they like them while I don't. But if someone asserts that your friend being beaten and robbed was perfectly fine and not wrong at all, you wouldn't just take that like you would take a disagreement in food tastes, right? — Pfhorrest
You would think their assessment of the morality of that situation is incorrect, not just different from yours, no? — Pfhorrest
The contrast here is between moral and amoral (morally neutral) actions, not between moral simpliciter and objectively/universally moral (whatever that might mean). — SophistiCat
I would consider other people's assessments incorrect if and only if they are different from mine. This is a trivial tautology; you can't base any argument on it. — SophistiCat
People will, of course, act to achieve success because they want it, but this doesn't ground the action a preferable or the rational option. It's just describing how people exist acting to get what they want. That one has "the might" and uses it does not amount to an action being preferable, either in terms of ethics or the rational. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Failure or success in a goal isn't the sort of thing that can make sense. Sentences make sense, actions makes sense (in respect of their objective). Labelling ('failure'/'success') is just a categorisation exercise. It might be wrong or right, but not sensical or nonsensical. — Isaac
I have to say that generally I can't make much sense of what you've written, so I've little faith that the following will actually address it, but I'll have a go...
I would consider other people's assessments incorrect if and only if they are different from mine. — SophistiCat
The point is that you don’t do that for all assessments about all things — Pfhorrest
Do you agree that moral claims cannot justify themselves to the extent that they attempt to ground themselves on the basis of anything outside of contingent normative practices? — Joshs
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.