And I suppose this is why I find statements like ""One ought not kick puppies for fun" is true" as unpersuasive. Sure, but It's the hard questions that give me pause, not the points of agreement. And our love of puppies does nothing to speak to our, what appears to me, thirst for violence. — Moliere
"If morals were real then we would agree to such and such a standard. We do not agree to that standard, therefore morals are not real" — Moliere
Somewhat relatedly, a lot of people seem to think, “Because they can be ignored or argued against, therefore duties do not exist.” I would respond, “If duties could not be ignored or argued against, then they would not exist.” — Leontiskos
could you provide some examples (so I can research them)? — Bob Ross
I was thinking of religious moralities, Kantian moralities, and conscience-based moralities. It seems to me that very many of these are not arguing from "how the world is," as if one could infer morality from the natural world.
As an example, some years ago I was engaged in a rather superficial argument with an atheist who professed that there are no moral truths. As we conversed it became very obvious that she held the prohibition on slavery as an objective moral truth, and I was able to tease this out in a dozen different ways. Nevertheless, she never admitted it, and continued to hold to her position, construing, for example, the necessary freeing of slaves as an act of violence rather than justice
Folks who profess moral anti-realism tend to be engaged in a rhetorical tack, and it is primarily their actions that betray them.
For instance, creatures who don't believe in morality would never perceive injustice and never get angry. We get angry all the time.
By world, I was meaning it more generically than ‘natural world’: I meant ‘the totality of existence’. — Bob Ross
This is something I get from moral realists all the time: if I truly care that someone is being immoral, then I am not a moral anti-realist. But this just presupposes that if something isn’t objectively immmoral, that it doesn’t matter. Obviously, I am going to deny that. So I can get as furious as I want about people torturing babies for fun and never once concede that it is a factually wrong thing to do. — Bob Ross
Can you explain your thinking? — Banno
I came into this thread simply to point out that there are moral truths. — Banno
Indeed, in questions of ethics, you have no choice but to work it out for yourself. — Banno
If it is not objectively wrong for others to torture babies then you should not get angry at them when they do. — Leontiskos
If i'm happy with (in light of potential objections in practical day-to-day life) understanding my position is subjective, but that it is the 'best' position by my lights, given the information I believe I can rely on, how would that necessarily mean it was senseless to get angry about a behaviour that I have, by those previous subjective position/s, understood to be 'wrong'? — AmadeusD
...in so far I consider truth to be corresponding to states of affairs, and I don't understand morals to be states of affairs. — AmadeusD
I can't make sense of how you are distinguishing morals and ethics here. Ethics is the field of study that has as its subject, morals. What you have said is analogous to "thjis seems to suppose that botany is the correct basis for considering plants". Well, yes.This seems to suppose that ethics are the correct basis/es for considering morals. . — AmadeusD
You have not set out why these follow, and indeed, there are ethical proposals that do not propose an external benchmark (subjectivism) nor ethical certainty (nihilism)....ethics basically assume either 1. A worthwhile external benchmark (you could think revelation or law here); or 2. Some way to ascertain certainty around a moral claim via some ethical consideration. — AmadeusD
Here again is the ubiquitous confusion of belief and truth. Here's another analogy. The Earth is not flat. It is true that the Earth is not flat. Even given that truth, each individual can choose whether to believe that the Earth is flat, or not. They must work it out for themselves.If you're concluding that for ethics, individuals must 'work it out for themselves' you're (to my mind) precluding an external mitigating authority (or force) which would be required as a source of 'ethical truth' which would be required to ground a moral truth. — AmadeusD
Have a read of @Leontiskos posts, above. They offer some novel contraries to this proposal.I just don't understand how that's an objective or 'true' statement. I — AmadeusD
That much is apparent. That's not at all what I am proposing. I'm just pointing out that there are moral truths. The inability of your theorising to deal with this simple observation perhaps tells us, not to reject moral truths, but your theorising.If you're decoupling ethics from morals and essentially considering ethics teleological and morals some how truth-apt, I'm not really understanding how that works — AmadeusD
Because if one is going to hold others to a standard then they either have to admit that a standard exists or else accept the fact that they are performatively self-contradicting themselves. This is quite bas — Leontiskos
No, I don't think that makes any sense. If it is not objectively wrong for others to torture babies then you should not get angry at them when they do. You get angry and intervene because you believe it is wrong for them to torture babies. Moral anti-realism is too often — Leontiskos
The fact you have an opinion or preference does not mean you are expressing a belief about something being objectively correct. — Apustimelogist
And yet, one ought not keep slaves. It is therefore true that "One ought not keep slaves". — Banno
And hence, if truth is corresponding to states of affairs, then that one ought not keep slaves is a state of affairs. — Banno
I can't make sense of how you are distinguishing morals and ethics here. Ethics is the field of study that has as its subject, morals. What you have said is analogous to "thjis seems to suppose that botany is the correct basis for considering plants". Well, yes. — Banno
They must work it out for themselves. Their believe does not determine the truth of the proposal. — Banno
Notice that you do understand that ethical truths "ground" moral truths, something you seem to deny, above. — Banno
In addition, there is a confusion here about "subjective" statements, such that you seem to suppose that hey cannot be true. That would be very odd. But then, the subjective/objective distinction is fraught with conceptual puzzles. — Banno
I'm just pointing out that there are moral truths. — Banno
So, where does my deduction, given above, go astray?And yet, one ought not keep slaves. It is therefore true that "One ought not keep slaves".
— Banno
I reject your position. — AmadeusD
That it doesn't establish it's truth. — AmadeusD
My suspicion, from what you have written, is that you are only now becoming aware of the implications of this.I note a very subtle, but incredibly important difference between "..therefore X is true" and "..Therefore S believes X is true". — AmadeusD
But moreover, if you think folk ought not keep slaves, how could you not be committed to concluding that "One ought not keep slaves" is true? — Banno
My suspicion, from what you have written, is that you are only now becoming aware of the implications of this.
You're welcome. — Banno
No, I don't think that makes any sense. If it is not objectively wrong for others to torture babies then you should not get angry at them when they do. You get angry and intervene because you believe it is wrong for them to torture babies. Moral anti-realism is too often — Leontiskos
So I can get as furious as I want about people torturing babies for fun and never once concede that it is a factually wrong thing to do. — Bob Ross
You are implying that someone saying that torturing babies is not a stance independent moral fact also believes that torturing babies is not wrong. — Apustimelogist
But moreover, if you think folk ought not keep slaves, how could you not be committed to concluding that "One ought not keep slaves" is true? — Banno
I would need to be confident in my own ideas to such a degree (one i can't fathom) that my beliefs entail teh truth of them. I just don't make that move. — AmadeusD
But moreover, if you think folk ought not keep slaves, how could you not be committed to concluding that "One ought not keep slaves" is true? — Banno
And if you think folk ought not be allowed to keep slaves, then can you explain how it does not follow that you think "folk ought not be allowed to keep slaves" is true? — Banno
So you ar enot confident in your conviction that folk ought not keep slaves. Ok. — Banno
How does your previous claim about preferences follow from this? — Leontiskos
But moreover, if you think folk ought not keep slaves, how could you not be committed to concluding that "One ought not keep slaves" is true? — Banno
It only need be the best among the options I see ahead of me, for any given decision to act. — AmadeusD
I don't see an inherent difference between a preference such as " I don't think my favourite sports team should play in such a manner " and an ethical statement like " people should be nice ". Both are framed normatively in terms of what should be done but I don't necessarily think the idea that my favourite sports team should play in a particular way is an objective fact. In the same way, just because someone thinks torturing babies is wrong, doesn't mean they think it is an objective stance independent fact. — Apustimelogist
You can act without believing your act to comport with truth. — AmadeusD
objective reality of what is good by being most proximate to it, — javra
That is, you act on the basis that "Folk ought not keep slaves" is true. — Banno
it doesn't matter which propositional attitude you frame it with; the T-sentence sits on its own. — Banno
So your reply doesn't help you avoid ascribing truth values to moral statements. — Banno
I mean, there are lots of moral anti-realists across the world who would disagree with this sentiment. This rhetoric is not really more than question begging moral facts. — Apustimelogist
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.