| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/20/2011 11:50:09 PM · #726 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
But it IS a construct, a set of postulates set forward to allow communal action. Objective fact is not necessary. |
I agree with you (and moral fictionalism satisfies that just fine). However, Jason seems to think that morality isn't a construct, but a fact- an absolute truth that is objectively correct independent of social invention. As an ontologically positive claim, I asked him to prove it. |
So you are back to being a Moral Error Theorist?
Would you just lay out my requirements? Is that too hard to ask?
"I will accept moral proposition A is objectively true if X, Y, and Z are satisfied." |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 12:08:34 AM · #727 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So you are back to being a Moral Error Theorist? |
Did I misspell moral fictionalism or is your monitor really dim?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"I will accept moral proposition A is objectively true if X, Y, and Z are satisfied." |
I will accept moral proposition A if you can show that it is objectively true or correct independent of culture or opinion. So far you've gone straight to what society believes as your evidence. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 12:20:09 AM · #728 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So you are back to being a Moral Error Theorist? |
Did I misspell moral fictionalism or is your monitor really dim?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"I will accept moral proposition A is objectively true if X, Y, and Z are satisfied." |
I will accept moral proposition A if you can show that it is objectively true or correct independent of culture or opinion. So far you've gone straight to what society believes as your evidence. |
You understand that a Moral Fictionalist is merely a Moral Error Theorist who doesn't have the guts to tell others he thinks all moral statements are in error, right? He's just playing along with all the other saps because it's convenient. It's the ultimate in elitist stances and it figures you'd gravitate toward it.
Here's a quote from your essay again..."Epistemological principles (concerning what one ought and ought not believe, given oneâs other beliefs) require any committed moral error theorist to discard his moral beliefs. But a group of error theorists sensitive to these principles may then consider themselves in a bit of a pickle, for at the same time practical considerations are telling them to avoid the costs that will be incurred by giving up these beliefs. Moral fictionalism is a view designed to help them out of this pickle.
Actually I love this quote. He's so honest here...
"Now letâs return to the moral error theorist â call him âDavidâ. David doesnât believe that punching babies is morally wrong, but we can imagine various situations in which heâll have good reason to utter the sentence âPunching babies is morally wrong.â 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 âBaby-punching?! Oh, thatâs just morally wrong!â?"
Naw, don't worry buddy. We understand it just takes so much effort to talk to us troglodytes. Go ahead and just grunt along with the rest of us...
But because I'm dim, can you lead me by example. Let us take a non-moral statment that I will assume is open to being objectively true or false. "In 1492 Columbus sailed to America" Can you show me how it is done? Would you prove for me this statement is both true and objective in every sense you are asking me to prove "Stealing is sometimes wrong"? I'll go make some popcorn.
Message edited by author 2011-03-21 00:31:43. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 12:35:47 AM · #729 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You understand that a Moral Fictionalist is merely a Moral Error Theorist who doesn't have the guts to tell others he thinks all moral statements are in error, right? He's just playing along with all the other saps because it's convenient. It's the ultimate in elitist stances and it figures you'd gravitate toward it. |
"Joyce is an error theorist who believes that moral judgments are untrue but too useful to abandon. This position is called moral fictionalism." Halloween is also fiction, but a fun tradition to keep around. If you go trick or treating, do you really believe spirits rise from the grave around Halloween or, being all elitist, do you just play along with the other saps because you lack the guts to admit they don't? Edit to add... shmuck.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"In 1492 Columbus sailed to America" Can you show me how it is done? Would you prove for me this statement is both true and objective in every sense you are asking me to prove "Stealing is sometimes wrong"? |
You can do that with historical records and contemporary 3rd party verification. Columbus returned to Europe with cacao, tobacco and other items that could only have come from the New World and therefore prove that he didn't just say or believe he discovered a new land.
Message edited by author 2011-03-21 00:36:45. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 12:47:09 AM · #730 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You understand that a Moral Fictionalist is merely a Moral Error Theorist who doesn't have the guts to tell others he thinks all moral statements are in error, right? He's just playing along with all the other saps because it's convenient. It's the ultimate in elitist stances and it figures you'd gravitate toward it. |
"Joyce is an error theorist who believes that moral judgments are untrue but too useful to abandon. This position is called moral fictionalism." Halloween is also fiction, but a fun tradition to keep around. If you go trick or treating, do you really believe spirits rise from the grave around Halloween or, being all elitist, do you just play along with the other saps because you lack the guts to admit they don't? Edit to add... shmuck.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"In 1492 Columbus sailed to America" Can you show me how it is done? Would you prove for me this statement is both true and objective in every sense you are asking me to prove "Stealing is sometimes wrong"? |
You can do that with historical records and contemporary 3rd party verification. Columbus returned to Europe with cacao, tobacco and other items that could only have come from the New World and therefore prove that he didn't just say or believe he discovered a new land. |
This is your proof? I'm not even sure there was a person named Columbus. I need you to prove that first. And you are taking historical records as evidence? Aren't those historical records open to societal biases? Maybe the Spanish made up Columbus because the Norse had actually beaten them and taken all the credit. And that all only gets at whether the statement is true. How do we go about determining whether it is objective? So you need to show it is true "independent of culture or opinion". We certainly know historical records, being written by people, are open to opinion and are a part of human culture.
Message edited by author 2011-03-21 00:51:56. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 01:08:33 AM · #731 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is your proof? I'm not even sure there was a person named Columbus. |
OK, then I'm not sure you exist and I certainly don't believe you're going down this path. Tobacco and cacao arriving in Europe could only have come from the New World regardless of culture or opinion. Columbus himself didn't believe he had discovered America, but the New World flora and fauna he brought back (including non-Asian natives), maps of the area that he charted, contemporary eyewitness accounts and widespread records of contact on both sides of the Atlantic add up to a mountain of hard evidence that's hard to dismiss. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 01:16:43 AM · #732 |
Usually when they conduct Turing tests it includes at least one human being...
|
|
|
|
03/21/2011 01:18:58 AM · #733 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Usually when they conduct Turing tests it includes at least one human being... |
-----[TILT]----- |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 01:24:38 AM · #734 |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 02:02:04 AM · #735 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This is your proof? I'm not even sure there was a person named Columbus. |
OK, then I'm not sure you exist and I certainly don't believe you're going down this path. Tobacco and cacao arriving in Europe could only have come from the New World regardless of culture or opinion. Columbus himself didn't believe he had discovered America, but the New World flora and fauna he brought back (including non-Asian natives), maps of the area that he charted, contemporary eyewitness accounts and widespread records of contact on both sides of the Atlantic add up to a mountain of hard evidence that's hard to dismiss. |
LOL. You mean like the account of Jesus? ;)
You wouldn't accept this evidence for a second if you had a vested interest in thinking the proposition was false.
The flora and fauna, for example, show that somebody made it from America to Europe, but it does nothing to show it was Columbus or it was in 1492. What if it was 1493? What if it was from someone else? And none of this gets at the question of objectivity as defined however you want to define it. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 05:20:15 AM · #736 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The flora and fauna, for example, show that somebody made it from America to Europe, but it does nothing to show it was Columbus or it was in 1492. What if it was 1493? What if it was from someone else? And none of this gets at the question of objectivity as defined however you want to define it. |
Believable Source... and they even quote him and state that he was guided by the Spirit...and it is even in English making it easy for all of us to understand.
Ray |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 06:42:47 AM · #737 |
I think Lennon/McCartney had it right: "She could steal but she could not rob".
It all runs out into semantics, but there are connotations, especially in modern usage, to 'steal'. It has to be sneaky, it has to be underhand. It neatly circularises any argument about moral rectitude.
Since we don't know who first sailed from Europe to the Americas then we have a strange lack of irrelevant habeus corpus with regard to accusations of theft. As that one's thrown out of court then there can't be anything missing but a few brain cells. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 07:38:05 AM · #738 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Tobacco and cacao arriving in Europe could only have come from the New World regardless of culture or opinion. Columbus himself didn't believe he had discovered America, but the New World flora and fauna he brought back (including non-Asian natives), maps of the area that he charted, contemporary eyewitness accounts and widespread records of contact on both sides of the Atlantic add up to a mountain of hard evidence that's hard to dismiss. |
LOL. You mean like the account of Jesus? ;) |
Oh, yeah... nothing claimed that couldn't have been made up, nothing written by Jesus himself, zero eyewitness accounts, and no contemporary records of significant achievement- just a scattered mention of a name appropriated for increasingly elaborate tall tales spun decades later by people literally soliciting followers. The very difference between folklore and history... just like that!
Message edited by author 2011-03-21 07:39:47. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 12:41:40 PM · #739 |
Takehome message is that whether you are a Moral Error Theorist or a Moral Fictionalist flavor of Moral Error Theory, you are amoral. When you talk about morality, you now claim you are only utilizing false conventions and do not believe they are statements that contain objective or even subjective truth (or objective or subjective falseness, truth/false claims are not applicable qualities to these statements).
So while we know not all atheists are amoral, we know that one is or claims to be. Interestingly, when you were arguing about prohibitions against Burqa wearing in French schools way back when, you really sounded like you believed in the legitimacy of your position. Who knew that down deep you understood that there is no truth to the statement "Forcing women to wear Burquas is wrong."?
I do enjoy the wry sense of irony knowing your position has the word "fiction" embedded within. Even better is the fact this falls within a larger framework called "non-cognitivism". Rock on with your lack of cognition! :D
Message edited by author 2011-03-21 12:42:18. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 12:53:21 PM · #740 |
| The belief that "morality" is a social construct rather than immutable natural/divine law does not make one "amoral" or disbelieve in "moral" behavior. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 01:44:10 PM · #741 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The belief that "morality" is a social construct rather than immutable natural/divine law does not make one "amoral" or disbelieve in "moral" behavior. |
Agreed. But the belief that moral statements do not possess the quality of being true or false does make one amoral (note not immoral). A Moral Error Theorist can still do things that others would consider to be "moral" (like help an old lady across the street), but they would do them for purely non-moral reasons. A Moral Error Theroist would not say, "Stealing is wrong to me." They would say that the idea that stealing is "wrong" has no objective (or even subjective) meaning. "Wrong" is not an adjective you can use about a moral proposition just like "green" is not an adjective you can use about the musical note C#. A Moral Fictionalist, however, believes this to be true but doesn't want to discard the verbage. That though we understand the statment "Stealing is wrong" to be equivalent to "C# is green", there is utility in speaking in such manner so we can continue to do so. Frankly I see it as a bizarre version of trying to have your cake and eat it too.
How else would you define "amoral" if not by saying that one would hold all moral statements to be fictional?
Am I remembering correctly that Kelli has some philosphical schooling? If so, can she weigh in?
Message edited by author 2011-03-21 13:46:49. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 01:53:20 PM · #742 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[Am I remembering correctly that Kelli has some philosphical schooling? If so, can she weigh in? |
Sorry, my degrees are in accounting and computer programming. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 01:58:11 PM · #743 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[Am I remembering correctly that Kelli has some philosphical schooling? If so, can she weigh in? |
Sorry, my degrees are in accounting and computer programming. |
Dang it! ;) It was someone else then. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 02:04:20 PM · #744 |
| 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. Being thus armed you can decide whether Shannon is really a Moral Fictionalist; thinks he is, but really isn't; or isn't claiming to be and isn't in reality. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 02:14:26 PM · #745 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The belief that "morality" is a social construct rather than immutable natural/divine law does not make one "amoral" or disbelieve in "moral" behavior. |
Agreed. But the belief that moral statements do not possess the quality of being true or false does make one amoral (note not immoral). A Moral Error Theorist can still do things that others would consider to be "moral" (like help an old lady across the street), but they would do them for purely non-moral reasons. A Moral Error Theroist would not say, "Stealing is wrong to me." They would say that the idea that stealing is "wrong" has no objective (or even subjective) meaning. "Wrong" is not an adjective you can use about a moral proposition just like "green" is not an adjective you can use about the musical note C#. A Moral Fictionalist, however, believes this to be true but doesn't want to discard the verbage. That though we understand the statment "Stealing is wrong" to be equivalent to "C# is green", there is utility in speaking in such manner so we can continue to do so. Frankly I see it as a bizarre version of trying to have your cake and eat it too.How else would you define "amoral" if not by saying that one would hold all moral statements to be fictional?
Am I remembering correctly that Kelli has some philosphical schooling? If so, can she weigh in? |
I can give you my opinion though. I think while this is almost true, it's not quite it. It does have a subjective meaning. While in most instances, stealing may be wrong, it's not necessarily true in all cases. Take for instance, the single mother on the street who has no other option to feed her starving child but to snatch some food off a cart and make a dash for it. Or even the child strolling the country road who picks an apple off a tree on private property. Both are stealing, and both are forgivable acts and neither can be deemed so wrong as to be immoral. Therefore "stealing is always wrong" can't be a true moral statement.
I kind of think imposing "universal morals" on others is kind of like telling people what should make them feel good or bad. Not everyone gets a lift out of helping an old lady cross the street. Not everyone feels bad doing things they sometimes feel they have no other choice but to do. And most of the time to do what would be considered a "moral" act, people need to be guilted into it. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 02:19:40 PM · #746 |
How does this "helping an old lady across the street" creep into a discussion of morality, fictional or otherwise? It's, at best, a peripherally moral act; it's not an act that has anything much to do with "morality" as we're dealing with it here. This sort of behavior is better lodged in the "altruism" niche than in the "moral/immoral" slot.
For whatever that's worth...
R. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 02:32:11 PM · #747 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I can give you my opinion though. I think while this is almost true, it's not quite it. It does have a subjective meaning. While in most instances, stealing may be wrong, it's not necessarily true in all cases. Take for instance, the single mother on the street who has no other option to feed her starving child but to snatch some food off a cart and make a dash for it. Or even the child strolling the country road who picks an apple off a tree on private property. Both are stealing, and both are forgivable acts and neither can be deemed so wrong as to be immoral. Therefore "stealing is always wrong" can't be a true moral statement.
I kind of think imposing "universal morals" on others is kind of like telling people what should make them feel good or bad. Not everyone gets a lift out of helping an old lady cross the street. Not everyone feels bad doing things they sometimes feel they have no other choice but to do. And most of the time to do what would be considered a "moral" act, people need to be guilted into it. |
I actually agree with you on nearly everything Kelli. Here's the catch between what is, I think, your position, and the position of the MET (moral error theorist). You say, "Stealing is always wrong" can't be a true moral statement, and by that I assume you mean to say "Stealing is always wrong" is a false moral statement. The MET might actually say, "Stealing is always wrong" can't be a true statement but would equally assert that "Stealing is always wrong" can't be a false statement either. It is a statement of error like saying "C# is always green". Does the difference make sense?
Message edited by author 2011-03-21 14:33:53. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 02:54:10 PM · #748 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
I can give you my opinion though. I think while this is almost true, it's not quite it. It does have a subjective meaning. While in most instances, stealing may be wrong, it's not necessarily true in all cases. Take for instance, the single mother on the street who has no other option to feed her starving child but to snatch some food off a cart and make a dash for it. Or even the child strolling the country road who picks an apple off a tree on private property. Both are stealing, and both are forgivable acts and neither can be deemed so wrong as to be immoral. Therefore "stealing is always wrong" can't be a true moral statement.
I kind of think imposing "universal morals" on others is kind of like telling people what should make them feel good or bad. Not everyone gets a lift out of helping an old lady cross the street. Not everyone feels bad doing things they sometimes feel they have no other choice but to do. And most of the time to do what would be considered a "moral" act, people need to be guilted into it. |
I actually agree with you on nearly everything Kelli. Here's the catch between what is, I think, your position, and the position of the MET (moral error theorist). You say, "Stealing is always wrong" can't be a true moral statement, and by that I assume you mean to say "Stealing is always wrong" is a false moral statement. The MET might actually say, "Stealing is always wrong" can't be a true statement but would equally assert that "Stealing is always wrong" can't be a false statement either. It is a statement of error like saying "C# is always green". Does the difference make sense? |
The only way that could make sense is if the words themselves had no meaning. Everyone know C# is always red. ;) I think the part you might not be getting is that right & wrong are subjective. There are those who would gladly cut off the hand of that mother or child. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 03:25:15 PM · #749 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
The only way that could make sense is if the words themselves had no meaning. Everyone know C# is always red. ;) I think the part you might not be getting is that right & wrong are subjective. There are those who would gladly cut off the hand of that mother or child. |
Perhaps this paragraph from Shannon's linked essay might be revealing. He is writing about the Moral Fictionalist who "recommends that the error theorist âimmerseâ himself in the fiction in a rather more full-bodied fashion, such that he doesnât just carry on using moral language, but also âacceptsâ these falsehoods in a way that allows them some positive influence upon his decisions and motivations."
"An important feature of fictive immersion is that when immersed one is distracted from the fact that one is an error theorist. Hence much of the time one speaks and acts and even thinks as if one really believes in morality. The idea is, then, that one can in this way gain some of the pragmatic benefits that come from sincere moral belief. And yet in doing so one violates no epistemological imperative since one doesnât believe it; oneâs âacceptanceâ of morality falls short of belief since one remains disposed to concede, if pressed in an appropriately serious and critical way, that itâs all false. (By analogy, I violate no epistemological dictum if I happen to daydream something that I know to be false.) We can call this fictive attitude a kind of âpretense,â with the qualification that it may be an important and highly-played kind of pretense. But how can mere pretense have enough impact on oneâs motivations to affect significant costs and benefits? The quick answer to this question (as to so many others) is that humans are strange creatures."
At the very end of the essay, the author quotes someone else's withering critique of Moral Fictionalism as, "philosophical double talk which would repudiate (the existence of something) while simultaneously enjoying its benefits." (I replaced "an ontology" with "the existence of something" for clarity.)
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.)
Message edited by author 2011-03-21 15:32:10. |
|
|
|
03/21/2011 03:43:42 PM · #750 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
The only way that could make sense is if the words themselves had no meaning. Everyone know C# is always red. ;) I think the part you might not be getting is that right & wrong are subjective. There are those who would gladly cut off the hand of that mother or child. |
Perhaps this paragraph from Shannon's linked essay might be revealing. He is writing about the Moral Fictionalist who "recommends that the error theorist âimmerseâ himself in the fiction in a rather more full-bodied fashion, such that he doesnât just carry on using moral language, but also âacceptsâ these falsehoods in a way that allows them some positive influence upon his decisions and motivations."
"An important feature of fictive immersion is that when immersed one is distracted from the fact that one is an error theorist. Hence much of the time one speaks and acts and even thinks as if one really believes in morality. The idea is, then, that one can in this way gain some of the pragmatic benefits that come from sincere moral belief. And yet in doing so one violates no epistemological imperative since one doesnât believe it; oneâs âacceptanceâ of morality falls short of belief since one remains disposed to concede, if pressed in an appropriately serious and critical way, that itâs all false. (By analogy, I violate no epistemological dictum if I happen to daydream something that I know to be false.) We can call this fictive attitude a kind of âpretense,â with the qualification that it may be an important and highly-played kind of pretense. But how can mere pretense have enough impact on oneâs motivations to affect significant costs and benefits? The quick answer to this question (as to so many others) is that humans are strange creatures."
At the very end of the essay, the author quotes someone else's withering critique of Moral Fictionalism as, "philosophical double talk which would repudiate (the existence of something) while simultaneously enjoying its benefits." (I replaced "an ontology" with "the existence of something" for clarity.)
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.) |
I think that about sums up our differences quite nicely. |
|
