Damn! I was just going to wrap it up for the night with a good book!
So now complete your analogy. In the moral world, what is the "lens" and what is the thing one is viewing?"
Same question.
It goes beyond this. I have NEVER suggested that #1 was any part of my argument. This is entirely your addition.
It is not just inseparable, Jim. Inseparable suggests correlation and, as you note, that is not the same as causation. Subjective morality is not just "associated with" valuing/cherishing - it is explicitly rooted in it. Moralizing is the process of determining which actions will protect/nurture/enhance/promote what we most value/cherish (moral actions) and which will threaten/starve/diminish/demote what we most value/cherish (immoral). If you take any moral position, and ask "why is that moral?" you will eventually arrive at a subjectively determined "thing" the individual values/cherishes. It is not merely associated - it is the reason/justification for the moral position to that individual.
No. The term "objective" does not mean "true for more than one person." Two people can agree on the same thing and it can still be subjective to each (e.g., liking pizza, thinking the new Lion King is a terrible movie, hating people who make bubbling noises with their straw, etc.). The term objective, even in morality, means "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." In the moral world, the moral subjectivist believes that "random killing is immoral" is a moral statement whose truth value is subjectively determined. The moral objectivist (or so-called moral realist) believes that "random killing is immoral" is a moral statement whose truth value is objectively true without recourse to any individual.
"Absolute" is a reference to "unchanging." A moral subjectivist is rarely an absolutist because moral principles for individuals can and do change. The only way in which a subjectivist could also be an absolutists is if they believe in an unchanging deity. Presumably this deity would have a moral framework that is unchanging and so "absolute." A moral objectivist may also be an absolutist if they believe that moral principles are not only objectively true/false but also unchanging.
We've been through this argument and (hopefully) you know why I find this argument flawed.
There is a difference between "didn't get" and "didn't agree."
No - we aren't. We are violating a basic foundation on which society operates: trust. If we value society/community, and recognize that a lack of trust undermines society/community, we will see lying as immoral. If we do not, then we will not see lying as immoral. Language is irrelevant to this. Language is merely one tool by which we communicate. We can lie without uttering a single word. As previously noted, you are associating with "language" what belongs to "communication."
See above
The request is simple. My position is that ANY valuing/cherishing is subjectively derived. Moral positions are rooted in what we value/cherish, ergo they are also subjectively derived. We not only subjectively choose what we value/cherish, we subjectively choose the method of traversing from "value/cherish" to "moral statement" (e.g., reason, feeling, intuition, etc.) and may shift methodology from one moral position to another.
Your position is, apparently, that moral statements are objectively true/false. So make that case. To do so, you must necessarily show how a moral statement's truth value is objectively derived. If you cannot, then I respectfully suggest you stop accusing me of being dogmatic, since you seem to be dogmatically holding to a position you cannot show to be correct.
Originally posted by Jim B.
View Post
Originally posted by Jim B.
View Post
Originally posted by Jim B.
View Post
Originally posted by Jim B.
View Post
Originally posted by Jim B.
View Post
"Absolute" is a reference to "unchanging." A moral subjectivist is rarely an absolutist because moral principles for individuals can and do change. The only way in which a subjectivist could also be an absolutists is if they believe in an unchanging deity. Presumably this deity would have a moral framework that is unchanging and so "absolute." A moral objectivist may also be an absolutist if they believe that moral principles are not only objectively true/false but also unchanging.
Originally posted by Jim B.
View Post
Originally posted by Jim B.
View Post
Originally posted by Jim B.
View Post
Originally posted by Jim B.
View Post
Originally posted by Jim B.
View Post
Your position is, apparently, that moral statements are objectively true/false. So make that case. To do so, you must necessarily show how a moral statement's truth value is objectively derived. If you cannot, then I respectfully suggest you stop accusing me of being dogmatic, since you seem to be dogmatically holding to a position you cannot show to be correct.
Comment