| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/21/2011 03:51:22 PM · #751 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You and I, on the other hand, differ because you would hold morality to be subjective while I would hold that at least some of it is objective. Both of us, agree though that such conversation is discussing an actual quality. In an analogy, you might say the piece of art is beautiful or not beautiful depending on the subjective opinion of the viewer. "The artwork is beautiful." is a statement that is either true or false depending on the viewer. In that analogy I would be contending that "beauty" is a real quality and the intrinsic beauty of a piece of art is independent of the viewer's opinion. I, too, would say "The artwork is beautiful" is a statment that is either true or false, but it is not dependent on the viewer. (note that this analogy favors your opinion, but I'm just trying to explain the differences.) |
That's very well-put, very illuminating...
R. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 03:53:00 PM · #752 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Paul, if you didn't read Shannon's linked essay on Moral Fictionalism, it's actually a decent read as far as explaining the position. |
It's incredible to think YOU read it and still post this drivel. I've said for years that morality is both subjective and a relative construct of society. You know that, and everyone who follows these threads knows that. Do you not comprehend the difference between objective and subjective? Stealing is indeed considered immoral, not because of objective fact, but because our society declares it so (which is why you can stick "sometimes" in there).
I believe rules against speeding and using layers in Basic are constructs of man, too, but that doesn't make me unlawful. Every state has speed restrictions, but you know darn well that "speeding is wrong" is something our society made up for non-moral reasons (safety, fuel economy, etc.), NOT an objective truth. I can agree that it's "wrong" to chew with your mouth open or eat with your elbows on the table even if I'm fully aware that it's a tradition of society rather than standalone fact. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 03:58:42 PM · #753 |
You can keep saying whatever you are saying. I find it ironic that between our arguments I am the only one quoting your essay.
Let's put your fictive money where your mouth is. According to your article...
"one (a Moral Fictionalist) remains disposed to concede, if pressed in an appropriately serious and critical way, that it’s all false." (all being "moral statements")
Sooo...seriously and critically, is the following statement false? "Prohibiting gay marriage is morally wrong."
Message edited by author 2011-03-21 16:00:17. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 05:09:07 PM · #754 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sooo...seriously and critically, is the following statement false? "Prohibiting gay marriage is morally wrong." |
Depends on who you ask.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 05:21:16 PM · #755 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sooo...seriously and critically, is the following statement false? "Prohibiting gay marriage is morally wrong." |
OK, I'll repeat the same article quote you already posted:
David doesn’t believe that punching babies is morally wrong, but we can imagine various situations in which he’ll have good reason to utter the sentence “Punching babies is morally wrong.” Imagine that David is surrounded by a population who do believe in moral wrongness and believe that baby-punching has it. We should remind ourselves that David is no fan of baby-punching. In fact, the thought of it sickens him. He believes that baby-punching ought to be prevented and perpetrators severely dealt with. He thinks all this on non-moral grounds. So when a moral believer asks him his opinion of baby-punching, David could embark on a long and likely-to-be-horribly-misunderstood explanation of his non-moral grounds for opposing the action. But would we really accuse him of any great transgression if he simply says “Baby-punching?! Oh, that’s just morally wrong!”?"
So yes, prohibiting gay marriage is morally wrong: my personal belief based on all sorts of non-moral grounds. The beliefs of others can and do differ. So which is correct? Neither. There is no correct answer... and that's the whole point. They're personal opinions, not statements of fact. It's like saying a disease is bad. We may have some very good reasons for considering ebola bad, but objectively it's just another form of life struggling to survive.
Objective truths carry a degree of consistency and verification that belief does not. If we find a bed of 6 billion year old fossils tomorrow, then the earth cannot be 4.5 billion years old. As facts, one of those figures must be wrong. However, as statements of belief we can say that ebola is bad and should be eradicated from the planet AND that driving a species to extinction is wrong. Likewise, you might believe that gay marriage is wrong and also believe that it's wrong to interfere in people's private lives, that it's wrong to judge others or that it's wrong to discriminate. As objective statements of truth, something would have to give, but as personal opinions you can just bust out a "sometimes" and ignore any moral proposition we like: sometimes wrong to wipe out a species, sometimes wrong to steal, sometimes wrong to kill, sometimes wrong to interfere in the private lives of others and so forth... because they're not objective facts. There is greater deceit in declaring mere belief to be truth than in going along with a useful tradition that you know to be illusory (see Halloween). |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 05:43:37 PM · #756 |
My answer was shorter Shannon, and then bucks to a donut the good Doc will understand mine. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 06:13:44 PM · #757 |
You're right, Ray. I understand your answer quite well. Shannon's less so, though I think he was doing his best. Here's an example of what I don't get:
"So yes, prohibiting gay marriage is morally wrong: my personal belief based on all sorts of non-moral grounds."
How exactly do non-moral grounds inform us on a moral proposition? Isn't that akin to using non-scientific data to inform us on scientific propositions?
The rest of his statement makes more sense.
In the end it provides us with a large degree of freedom just to ignore Shannon. When speaking on moral issues he is only stating his opinion (which he is entitled to) and he full well knows this. He may offer some rational reason to take his position such as it being self-serving and in this we can agree with him. (eg. I will support gay marriage because it will get these people off my back.) But they offer no convictive power that compels us to agree. To further offer the freedom of ignoring, he also holds to a framework that says any such opinion is actually "false" if any moral words are being invoked (eg. right, wrong, moral, immoral). As he is putting it, it does not reflect any objective truth. It's all in the mind of the speaker.
Message edited by author 2011-03-21 18:18:38. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 06:25:37 PM · #758 |
| I think the war of the "big words" between you two is quite funny. But I'm going to butt in again. The most common definition of "moral" is ...concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles. People that aren't religious get their "morals" from living life and making up their own minds. People that are religious get their "morals" dictated to them through their religion. The funny thing is moral is only a word. You can totally disregard the word and just as easily call it your sense of right and wrong. And really, who decides what if right or wrong for you? |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 06:54:02 PM · #759 |
| Your right Kelli. Discussing epistemology, the study of knowledge and how we know things is like going into the woods at night. You never know what you are going to find, many are unidentifiable, and quite a few are scary. I often get a headache. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 07:00:01 PM · #760 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your right Kelli. Discussing epistemology, the study of knowledge and how we know things is like going into the woods at night. You never know what you are going to find, many are unidentifiable, and quite a few are scary. I often get a headache. |
See, if you didn't say what that meant, I might think you'd changed your specialty to gynecology! |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 07:39:19 PM · #761 |
See, Ray, he didn't comprehend either post. He's still demanding to be "informed" as if there is a correct answer out there to be found. The concept of no correct answer is as alien to Jason as a Klingon ballet routine, and yet it's inescapable: a moral proposition is an "ought" statement that simply cannot stand on its own as an objective truth (which is why he had to acknowledge a Pirate Code that keeps the group from taking each other's stuff because no objective fact existed for that purpose).
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How exactly do non-moral grounds inform us on a moral proposition? Isn't that akin to using non-scientific data to inform us on scientific propositions? |
We weigh the options and decide on a course of action just as we do for any other matter of personal opinion. You don't ponder a restaurant menu to figure out the objectively "correct" choice. You take into account a preference for seafood, disdain for mayonnaise, the price, the description, the size of the portion compared to your appetite, past experience with similar dishes and other factors that have nothing at all to do with whether it's right. You can ask the waiter to make a recommendation, and he may do so based on his own preference or an entree's popularity, but if you demand to know the CORRECT choice for dinner he'll probably back away slowly from the crazy dude at table 5.
You follow the same process for moral issues. If it were factually true that stealing is wrong, then the thought would never even cross your mind if you passed someone's garden while your family was starving or you discovered an extra quarter in your change when you got home from the store. Instead, you weigh the options just like above: "letting my family suffer is also wrong," "I see lots of unpicked overripe veggies so it's just going to go to waste anyway," "there's nobody to see me and no way they'll notice a single cucumber," or "the store cashier was rude and overcharged me last time," "it would cost more than a quarter in gas to return it," etc. All those moral "sometimes" come out to play and your supposed truth vanishes into the fallacy of overwhelming exception that it really is. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 08:03:10 PM · #762 |
I get it. So, for example, in 1927 the US Supreme Court decided that the action of choice was the forceful sterilization of tens of thousands of Americans because they were unfit to procreate. They weighed the benefits and the costs and came up with the conclusion that this was permissible and beneficial.
We cannot and should not offer any "ought" statements with regard to this decision. We cannot and should not offer any moral judgement on the grounds that it is merely opinion and not objectively true. This is what you are saying, correct?
You're right. I don't get that at all... |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 09:43:49 PM · #763 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We cannot and should not offer any "ought" statements with regard to this decision. We cannot and should not offer any moral judgement on the grounds that it is merely opinion and not objectively true. This is what you are saying, correct? |
We certainly can and do, but whether we should is another ought statement subject to personal opinion... and when that's understood you can move beyond unsupported claims to considerations of facts. An opinion presented as truth is only as credible as your ability to fool the other guy into believing it. The course of Proposition 8 is a shining example of this. Religious and conservative groups spent millions on a marketing campaign to convince voters that the bill was "right" based in belief and stereotypes, but when challenged to back up their assertions in court the proponents literally admitted they had nothing. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 11:33:15 PM · #764 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We cannot and should not offer any "ought" statements with regard to this decision. We cannot and should not offer any moral judgement on the grounds that it is merely opinion and not objectively true. This is what you are saying, correct? |
We certainly can and do, but whether we should is another ought statement subject to personal opinion... |
And we understand your personal opinion is that intellectually we should not because such an opinion is invalid.
I'm pretty positive Moral Fictionalism degrades very quickly into, "I can ignore your moral statement because it is invalid and non-objective. You must pay attention to my moral statement because it is really based on non-moral grounds which are quite valid." Pretty sweet!
|
|
|
|
03/21/2011 11:48:14 PM · #765 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...As he is putting it, it does not reflect any objective truth. It's all in the mind of the speaker. |
...and you have a problem with this premise.
Go back and revisit the very short comment I made a while back and that is effectively what I am saying. The issue of mores rests entirely within the mindset of the group you are asking and the responses you get will vary accordingly.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/22/2011 01:06:50 AM · #766 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
We certainly can and do, but whether we should is another ought statement subject to personal opinion... |
And we understand your personal opinion is that intellectually we should not because such an opinion is invalid. |
Nope, you fail to understand at all (which is amazing given that it's the four words right before your reply). Whether we believe that decision was right or wrong and whether we should offer any value judgements are both personal opinions.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm pretty positive Moral Fictionalism degrades very quickly into, "I can ignore your moral statement because it is invalid and non-objective. You must pay attention to my moral statement because it is really based on non-moral grounds which are quite valid." Pretty sweet! |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We certainly can and do, but whether we should is another ought statement subject to personal opinion... and when that's understood you can move beyond unsupported claims to considerations of facts. |
This REEEEALLY shouldn't be difficult to comprehend. Moral Fictionalism recognizes that moral premises do not exist as independent statements of objective fact. They're just an opinion. Now, there may be very valid reasons for that opinion, but being inherently right or wrong isn't one of them. So rather than degrade anything, acknowledging that "it's wrong" is unconvincing as evidence of truth requires the speaker to explain WHY it's wrong and thus elevate the debate to an honest discussion of facts. My moral statement is an opinion based on sound reasons, and if yours isn't then "I can ignore your [opinion] because it is irrational and based on belief, whereas my [opinion] is rational and based on these facts..." That is EXACTLY what happened at the Proposition 8 trial when the proponents based their arguments entirely on appeals to morality: "The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief... These interests do not provide a rational basis for supporting [legislation]." |
|
|
|
03/22/2011 11:41:09 AM · #767 |
The Prop 8 court argument is a very poor example. It is a legal argument not a moral argument. The court is not deciding on the morality of Prop 8. They are deciding on the legality of Prop 8. You'll be falling into a very large hole if you claim otherwise.
I'll stick with the opinion that Moral Fictionalism is "philosophical double talk which would repudiate (the existence of something) while simultaneously enjoying its benefits." The only comeback the essayist had was, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me".
Message edited by author 2011-03-22 11:42:42. |
|
|
|
03/22/2011 11:46:30 AM · #768 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Prop 8 court argument is a very poor example. It is a legal argument not a moral argument. The court is not deciding on the morality of Prop 8. They are deciding on the legality of Prop 8. |
It's a test of objective evidence, and demonstrates that moral claims carry no factual weight on their own. |
|
|
|
03/22/2011 11:57:51 AM · #769 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Prop 8 court argument is a very poor example. It is a legal argument not a moral argument. The court is not deciding on the morality of Prop 8. They are deciding on the legality of Prop 8. |
It's a test of objective evidence, and demonstrates that moral claims carry no factual weight on their own. |
No weight in the court system. That doesn't prove anything other than our courts don't give them weight. That, in itself, could be an error. |
|
|
|
03/22/2011 12:00:53 PM · #770 |
Just pondering here, but have the courts ever protected a building or an area based in its "beauty" or "historical importance"? Both of those would be non-objective in your view and it would be contradictory for the courts to consider them in their decision.
EDIT: Yes, National Historic Landmarks are considered for their "historical significance". I would challenge you to defend "significant" as an objective truth and not subjective. Anway, poking holes in your claim the court never considers such facts. Your constant claim that the only facts we ever need to concern ourselves with are objective puts you in a) a minority and b) on odd rational ground.
Message edited by author 2011-03-22 12:17:04. |
|
|
|
03/22/2011 12:58:32 PM · #771 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your constant claim that the only facts we ever need to concern ourselves with are objective puts you in a) a minority and b) on odd rational ground. |
What the hell is a subjective fact? Something that's true just because you think it is? We call that a belief, sir. We can certainly consider it, but we consider it as your opinion... with whatever weight that might merit. |
|
|
|
03/22/2011 01:31:08 PM · #772 |
| You mean like "There is no God"? |
|
|
|
03/22/2011 01:47:59 PM · #773 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
You mean like "There is no God"? |
Yes, that's an opinion, as is "There is a God." They are not equally valid, though. The burden of proof falls on the person making the ontologically positive claim (you). If I think there is such a thing as unicorns and you disagree, then I would have to support my claim in order to surpass the more rational likelihood that unicorns don't exist.
Message edited by author 2011-03-22 13:52:14. |
|
|
|
03/22/2011 01:59:07 PM · #774 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Your constant claim that the only facts we ever need to concern ourselves with are objective puts you in a) a minority and b) on odd rational ground. |
What the hell is a subjective fact? Something that's true just because you think it is? We call that a belief, sir. We can certainly consider it, but we consider it as your opinion... with whatever weight that might merit. |
I agree wholeheartedly. What IS a "subjective fact" or "subjective truth"? It is opinion only. Your opinion about Burqua or gay marriage or anything you consider "right" or "wrong" is by your admission, opinion. You might say that you have non-moral (or objective) grounds to believe them, but why should we give weight to those non-moral (or objective) grounds? And is that why an objective fact? If not, it's just another opinion and we can ask why we should believe it as well. It's turtles all the way down, my friend. |
|
|
|
03/22/2011 02:00:08 PM · #775 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The Prop 8 court argument is a very poor example. It is a legal argument not a moral argument. The court is not deciding on the morality of Prop 8. They are deciding on the legality of Prop 8. You'll be falling into a very large hole if you claim otherwise. |
I will gladly step into that hole. The question of law and morality has been awaiting resolution since the Devlin/Hart debate thirty five years ago (I will skip out on Dworkin's tangent since I don't care for her reasoning) I wont bother trying to recap the debate here but suffice it to say that from a legal standpoint law has become uncertain how much it can rely on moral viewpoint.
Since Devlin's viewpoint is still leading the day, laws exist and are enforced that are intended to enforce current moral viewpoint, as held by "reasonable men". That law should restrict behavior "capable of posing a threat to social cohesion. Therefore, morals laws are justified to protect society against the disintegrating effects of actions that undermine the morality of a society."
Moral arguments are codified into law all the time. When "reasonable men" shift their moral viewpoints, the law ought to shift with them, even by the logic of the more conservative Devlinians. |
|
