Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheism And Moral Progress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    So, as was mentioned before - doesn't this exercise require an objective moral reality at bottom?
    Why?

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Honesty?
    Not that I can see.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Honesty concerning what we value/cherish?
    Are you talking about honesty to others? If I do not relate my moral framework honestly, then others will not know what it is. That doesn't change my moral framework or the fact that I have one.

    Are you talking about honesty to self? I am not sure what that even means in this context? I actually value/cherish something other than I have convinced myself I actually value/cherish? I'm not sure that even makes sense.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Honesty as we formulate supporting arguments or reasons for our positions?
    Again, I'm not sure what "dishonesty as we formulate our moral positions" looks like. How would one be "dishonest" in formulating their moral positions?

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Or is honesty too relative?
    Not sure where you are going with this. Honesty is one of those things we typically have a moral position about and it typically takes the form "one ought be honest." That is primarily an issue in forming societies and building trust - so assumes the person values "society" and "trust."
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      I'm going to leave "humility aside" as a continued red herring. I will look at any presupposition if someone gives me cause to. When someone presents a new piece of information, or a new way of looking at an old one, I will consider it. That you think I do not is, frankly, not my concern. I'll leave you to your own conclusions about my person. I'm interested in the arguments and the topic - not the personal observations.
      After I explicitly wrote that it wasn't a personal observation but about the way you're presenting your ideas. If you insist on taking it personally and ignoring the content of what I wrote, that's your choice. You may not think I give you warrant for looking at your pre-suppositions in a new light, which is fine, but you don't give any reasons for why you think that way; you merely repeat your old talking points again and again.

      Concerning the rest of your points/questions, moral reasoning is a subset of reasoning in general. Not only is the ability to reason a necessary condition - but moral reasoning is, in essence, caused by the combination of the ability to reason and the natural function of the sapient mind to sort things. We sort species into families and genus. We sort investment types that we created. We sort into communities. The sapient mind recognizes patterns and associates things that have common patterns. It is natural that, in the wide array of possible choices of action, the mind will sort actions into "ought do" and "ought not do." It is from this reality that our moral reasoning springs. It natural follows that we will then ask "on what basis do we make this distinction." The answer is, "we sort actions on the basis of how they impact (or are intended to impact) those things we most value/cherish. Those things that positively impact (or are intended to positively impact) what we most value/cherish we classify as "ought do" and those things that negatively impact (or are intended to negatively impact) what we most value/cherish we classify as "immoral." Everything we value/cherish falls on a continuum from "most" to "least." We do not tend to use the word "moral" for actions related to those things low down on that continuum; only for things high on that continuum. There is no specific cut-off between the two that I have ever detected. All that can be described is the general dynamic. There are no rules for what will be high and what will be low on that continuum. The order of things on that continuum is determined by the individual, and influenced by a wide variety of factors previously listed.
      Yes, you've said all of this several times before. The sapient mind sorting things into categories of various kinds covers all human, indeed all sapient, activity. You're ignoring all of the reasons I've given and that have been given in the articles I've posted/linked to to think that the conditions you list may only be the necessary and not the sufficient conditions for morality. One's life and continued survival is generally of the utmost importance but not one of moral consideration. Why? The matter does not appear to be a simple quantifiable scale as you make it to be. There are probably other factors at play. It is not as simple as you would like it to be.

      Why this is confusing, I am not sure. It describes exactly how morality unfolds throughout the world and all sapient beings I know.
      Because of the counter-examples and reasons to think that it's not nearly this simple.



      Jim, whether morality is subjective or objective is not something you can hold a vote on and decide "that's the way it will be." That would be the equivalent of trying to hold a vote to determine if general relativity and special relativity are "true." General relatively and special relativity are either a correct description of how the cosmos functions, or they are not. Morality is either based on objective principles, or it is not. You believe it is. I believe you are wrong and that morality is rooted in the subjective. One of us is wrong, and each of us thinks it is the other. SO far, I have not heard an argument from you that compels me to re-evaluate my conclusion.
      How did you get the idea I thought it was a matter of a vote? That would make me a relativist, the exact opposite of a realist. What I was actually saying is that the fact that relativism and skepticism are impossible to consistently live is an indication, a reflection of the fact that those things are objectively not true. I wasn't saying that they make them not true, but the exact opposite.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        I think you are comparing apples and oranges. There is profound difference between the observation that we can only experience the mind-independent universe through our senses (so it is essentially "filtered" or "interpreted," and the partitioning of reality into that which is objectively real and not based in our ideas, opinions, and feelings - and that which is based on our ideas opinions, and feelings. The latter does not create a filter - it simply partitions reality into two groups.
        The point of the analogy is that both arguments rest upon knowledge that can be ultimately traced back to, ie "rooted in," immediate subjective experience. If you argue with the skeptic, he can always say, "Anything you know is ultimately traceable back to (rooted in) my own subjective sense impressions." The moral subjectivist similarly says, "Any moral knowledge I have is ultimately traceable back to (rooted in) my own subjective valuings." The skeptic concludes that because of his first premise, and because you cannot get outside of your sense impressions to check their validity, that you cannot know that any item of knowledge you have is secure. The moral subjectivist says that based on his premise, and because he cannot get outside of his subjective valuings, all moral knowledge is ultimately nothing more than subjective valuings.

        Another analogy is to inductive reasoning. Any inductive truth is 'rooted in' subjective experience. Objects fall toward the earth's surface. This is an inductive generalization but it is 'rooted in' immediate subjective experience. You can't conclude form this, though, that all inductive inferences are subjective in nature. That's a category error. The mere fact that a kind of reasoning is 'rooted in' subjective experience tells you nothing about the nature of the kind of reasoning. More has to be known.

        So I don't understand why you are finding it "unclear." You propose that morality is based on objective truths. Fine. Take a moral principle - and defend it using only objective truths. This is not a difficult concept. As soon as you require a subjective truth in order to defend your moral principle, the jig is up. Personally, I don't think you can. I don't think I can. I don't think anyone can. That is why I am a moral subjectivist. But you are adamant that morality is based on objective truths. So...show this to be true with so much as ONE moral principle.
        As I've said,

        you can't think a thought without an accompanying physical event in your brain; but that doesn't reduce your thought to a physical event in your brain.

        you can't think of an inductive generalization without any reference to subjective experience; but that doesn't mean inductive generalizations are nothing but subjective experiences.

        you can't come to know physical objects other than through the subjective experience of sense impressions; but that doesn't mean that physical objects are nothing more than the subjective experience of sense impressions.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          All human reasoning has an "aim." Few (if any?) of us just randomly "think." Indeed - that might actually be an oxymoron. When we moralize, our "aim" is to sort actions into "ought" and "ought not" so as to protect what we value/cherish. That is the general aim of morality. But that does not make it an objective exercise. It is the objective "aim" of "eating" to sustain ourselves with nourishment. That does not make our selection of food or likes for one type of food over another any less subjective.
          The fact that I must eat is the point of the analogy, and the fact that I must get certain nutrients in order to live and be healthy. Those are the facts that embed and more or less severely constrain my personal choices, or matters or 'taste.' I can 'choose' to eat junk food all day, just like I can choose to treat people like crap, but in the case of food, there is a real set of biochemical and physical facts that will have real repercussions on me physically and psychologically, sooner or later, just like my treatment of others is embedded in sets of facts and will have real repercussions. Also, genetics plays a large role in how things taste to us, so that our tastes in food may not be as much up to us as was originally thought.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            After I explicitly wrote that it wasn't a personal observation but about the way you're presenting your ideas. If you insist on taking it personally and ignoring the content of what I wrote, that's your choice. You may not think I give you warrant for looking at your pre-suppositions in a new light, which is fine, but you don't give any reasons for why you think that way; you merely repeat your old talking points again and again.
            Actually, Jim. I have - many times. The reasons I think this way is:

            1) It is my experience within myself
            2) It is what I see people all around me doing all the time.
            3) It fits with what I perceive of our nature as humans
            4) No one has ever given me a cogent, non-circular, rational argument for accepting that morality is based on objective truths.

            I assume the "talking points" you reference are my outline for how I believe morality functions both within societies and within the individual? When I don't think the points have been understood, I attempt to reframe them as best I can. But there are only so many ways to say a thing, so it does sometimes get repetitious.

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            Yes, you've said all of this several times before. The sapient mind sorting things into categories of various kinds covers all human, indeed all sapient, activity. You're ignoring all of the reasons I've given and that have been given in the articles I've posted/linked to to think that the conditions you list may only be the necessary and not the sufficient conditions for morality. One's life and continued survival is generally of the utmost importance but not one of moral consideration. Why? The matter does not appear to be a simple quantifiable scale as you make it to be. There are probably other factors at play. It is not as simple as you would like it to be.
            At no point did I limit morality to "one's life" and "survival," so I have no response to this. It appears to be a response to someone else's argument.

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            Because of the counter-examples and reasons to think that it's not nearly this simple.
            So far, I have responded to all of these points, and shown how they are essentially circular or simply do not apply. I do not think morality is at all "simple." However, the nature of morality is not that difficult to understand.

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            How did you get the idea I thought it was a matter of a vote?
            Your statement included the phrase, "that all disputants tacitly agree to, at least in practice." In the context, it appeared to be claiming that the fact that so much of the world clings to the notion of morality as an objective exercise somehow substantiates that this is indeed the fact. I didn't find an appeal to majority compelling.

            Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            That would make me a relativist, the exact opposite of a realist. What I was actually saying is that the fact that relativism and skepticism are impossible to consistently live is an indication, a reflection of the fact that those things are objectively not true. I wasn't saying that they make them not true, but the exact opposite.
            I have had no problem with consistently living out my ethics AND my meta-ethics (though I am as prone as anyone else to failing to live up to my own expectations), so I have no idea what you are referring to.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              The point of the analogy is that both arguments rest upon knowledge that can be ultimately traced back to, ie "rooted in," immediate subjective experience.
              Now I think you might be the one confusing "individualized" with "subjective," as previously discussed.

              Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              If you argue with the skeptic, he can always say, "Anything you know is ultimately traceable back to (rooted in) my own subjective sense impressions." The moral subjectivist similarly says, "Any moral knowledge I have is ultimately traceable back to (rooted in) my own subjective valuings." The skeptic concludes that because of his first premise, and because you cannot get outside of your sense impressions to check their validity, that you cannot know that any item of knowledge you have is secure. The moral subjectivist says that based on his premise, and because he cannot get outside of his subjective valuings, all moral knowledge is ultimately nothing more than subjective valuings.
              And this does nothing to address the apples-to-oranges comparison I pointed out. Objective morality is not being "filtered" through subjective premises in any way that is analogous to how objective reality is filtered through our individualized perceptions. I don't see your comparison holding, or making the point you seem to think it is making.

              Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              Another analogy is to inductive reasoning. Any inductive truth is 'rooted in' subjective experience. Objects fall toward the earth's surface. This is an inductive generalization but it is 'rooted in' immediate subjective experience. You can't conclude form this, though, that all inductive inferences are subjective in nature. That's a category error. The mere fact that a kind of reasoning is 'rooted in' subjective experience tells you nothing about the nature of the kind of reasoning. More has to be known.
              Again, these things are rooted in individualized experience - but not "subjective" experience. You were the one who pointed out this disconnect to me, and helped me clarify my own thinking on it. Now you seem to be making the same mistake.

              Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              As I've said,

              you can't think a thought without an accompanying physical event in your brain; but that doesn't reduce your thought to a physical event in your brain.

              you can't think of an inductive generalization without any reference to subjective experience; but that doesn't mean inductive generalizations are nothing but subjective experiences.

              you can't come to know physical objects other than through the subjective experience of sense impressions; but that doesn't mean that physical objects are nothing more than the subjective experience of sense impressions.
              See above.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                The fact that I must eat is the point of the analogy, and the fact that I must get certain nutrients in order to live and be healthy. Those are the facts that embed and more or less severely constrain my personal choices, or matters or 'taste.' I can 'choose' to eat junk food all day, just like I can choose to treat people like crap, but in the case of food, there is a real set of biochemical and physical facts that will have real repercussions on me physically and psychologically, sooner or later, just like my treatment of others is embedded in sets of facts and will have real repercussions. Also, genetics plays a large role in how things taste to us, so that our tastes in food may not be as much up to us as was originally thought.
                So to carry the analogy forward, the fact that some acts will or will not protected/enhance what I value/cherish is as much an objective reality as the fact that my body needs nourishment to eat. No one uses the latter reality to argue that our preference for particular foods is "objective." I don't see how you can therefore use that reality as an argument that morality is any more rooted in objective truths. These realities are nothing more than a context - an environment in which morality (or nourishment) plays out. But our preferences for food are subjective - based in out individual ideas, opinions, and feelings. Our moral principles are likewise rooted in our preferences for what we value/cherish and are also subjective in nature.

                To use another analogy - it is an objective physical fact that pressure exerted by my legs on my bicycle pedals will cause my bike to move forward. It is a function of the physics of the bicycle and my physiology. That does not make my choice of which street to pedal down any less subjective. We select moral principles to protect/enhance the things we subjectively value/cherish. The fact that we subjectively value/cherish these things makes morality implicitly subjective - and inter-subjective in the context of a community. This is simply inescapable. I don't see how you can frame a cogent argument to refute this - and so far do not believe you have done so.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Are you stalking me?
                  This is a ‘discussion group’ is it not. So, discuss.

                  You are wittering on about the necessity for an “objective moral reality at bottom”. What does this actually mean given that all the evidence indicates that our most primitive ancestors exercised rules of behavior, i.e. morality. And that there is every reason to believe that this was a product of the evolution of necessary social behavior to survive as cooperative intelligent social animals.
                  Last edited by Tassman; 09-24-2019, 01:36 AM.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    This is a ‘discussion group’ is it not. So, discuss.

                    You are wittering on about the necessity for an “objective moral reality at bottom”. What does this actually mean given that all the evidence indicates that our most primitive ancestors exercised rules of behavior, i.e. morality. And that there is every reason to believe that this was a product of the evolution of necessary social behavior to survive as cooperative intelligent social animals.
                    I'm not sure what you mean - rules of behavior. Like when our primate cousins steal and rape females, steal each others food and kill their own kind?
                    Last edited by seer; 09-24-2019, 05:30 AM.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post

                      Not sure where you are going with this. Honesty is one of those things we typically have a moral position about and it typically takes the form "one ought be honest." That is primarily an issue in forming societies and building trust - so assumes the person values "society" and "trust."
                      OK, this is where I think I'm going with this. Honestly/dishonesty is a moral consideration. Yet in your world view the question of honestly is relative, there is no objective or universal reality. So a man, let's say, formulates an argument for a moral position - but his argument is dishonest, even blatantly so. If honestly is a relative consideration why isn't his argument just as justified or legitimate as yours which is scrupulously honest? I mean you could simply appeal to the masses and say we all find his argument dishonest, but that doesn't rationally make it any more illegitimate than yours. Since the question of honestly is relative.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        OK, this is where I think I'm going with this. Honestly/dishonesty is a moral consideration. Yet in your world view the question of honestly is relative, there is no objective or universal reality.
                        There is no "objectively true moral principle." In other words, "one ought to be honest" is not a universal/absolute/objective moral truth. The truth of the statement is relative/subjective to the individual. If someone values society/community/relationship, they will see the moral principle "one ought to be honest" as a "moral truth" because dishonesty threatens/damages society/community/relationships.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        So a man, let's say, formulates an argument for a moral position - but his argument is dishonest, even blatantly so.
                        What exactly does a "dishonest moral position" or a "dishonest argument for a moral position" look like? Do you have an example?

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        If honestly is a relative consideration why isn't his argument just as justified or legitimate as yours which is scrupulously honest? I mean you could simply appeal to the masses and say we all find his argument dishonest, but that doesn't rationally make it any more illegitimate than yours. Since the question of honestly is relative.
                        Ahh... so you're back to wanting to be able to assess the "justification" or "legitimacy" for a moral position. Once again, an assessment of "more/less justified" or "more/less legitimate" requires a framework in which to make the assessment/measurement. You appear (again) to be trying to make objective evaluations of subjective realities. Whatever reason a person cites for "valuing X," how do you determine which person's "valuing" is more or less justified or legitimate than someone else's when the valuing is subjective?

                        Using an example from the trivial end of the valuing scale: is Peter's "valuing pizza" more or less justified/legitimate than Sue's "valuing sushi?"
                        Using an example from the legal world: are Norway's laws providing universal healthcare more or less justified/legitimate than the US' laws NOT providing universal healthcare?

                        You cannot assess the justification/legitimacy of a subjective reality using an objective measuring stick.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          There is no "objectively true moral principle." In other words, "one ought to be honest" is not a universal/absolute/objective moral truth. The truth of the statement is relative/subjective to the individual. If someone values society/community/relationship, they will see the moral principle "one ought to be honest" as a "moral truth" because dishonesty threatens/damages society/community/relationships.



                          What exactly does a "dishonest moral position" or a "dishonest argument for a moral position" look like? Do you have an example?
                          Like killing Jews is legitimate because they are sub-human. They are not factually sub-human, non-human.


                          Ahh... so you're back to wanting to be able to assess the "justification" or "legitimacy" for a moral position. Once again, an assessment of "more/less justified" or "more/less legitimate" requires a framework in which to make the assessment/measurement. You appear (again) to be trying to make objective evaluations of subjective realities. Whatever reason a person cites for "valuing X," how do you determine which person's "valuing" is more or less justified or legitimate than someone else's when the valuing is subjective?

                          Using an example from the trivial end of the valuing scale: is Peter's "valuing pizza" more or less justified/legitimate than Sue's "valuing sushi?"
                          Using an example from the legal world: are Norway's laws providing universal healthcare more or less justified/legitimate than the US' laws NOT providing universal healthcare?

                          You cannot assess the justification/legitimacy of a subjective reality using an objective measuring stick.

                          So again, you can not say that honestly is a requirement for making a moral argument, since that is as relative as anything else.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Like killing Jews is legitimate because they are sub-human. They are not factually sub-human, non-human.
                            That, of course, depends on one's definition of "human" and "sub-human." We've already seen that language is malleable and some people are perfectly comfortable changing the common definitions of words if they don't like them (see discussion on "supernatural") and will justify that change until the cows come home. So - no surprise here.

                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            So again, you can not say that honestly is a requirement for making a moral argument, since that is as relative as anything else.
                            I don't recall saying "honesty is a requirement for making a moral argument." Indeed, people will make moral arguments on the basis of logic, feelings, or anything else they think is "the right way to do it." You make moral arguments on the basis of what is written in a collection of ancient books you have decided are "the word of god." Whatever basis people choose for making their moral arguments is the basis they will choose. Arguing with them about their moral positions either requires that you adopt their approach, or convince them to change their approach. If neither is possible, we are left with ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

                            Frankly, it took a bit for me to realize that I was basically pounding my head against a wall with moral arguments when discussing things like same-sex intimacy with you and Sparko and others. I was basically not taking the time to appreciate the basis you folks use, and the limits that places on arguments that have the potential to work in swaying your positions. As soon as I "woke up" and realized the inherent futility of the approach I was trying to take, you will notice that I largely stopped discussing those moral principles with folks here. The discussions are pretty much doomed to failure. I have almost no chance of swaying anyone here to accept same-sex intimacy as moral (or at least morally neutral).
                            Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-24-2019, 04:33 PM.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              Actually, Jim. I have - many times. The reasons I think this way is:

                              1) It is my experience within myself
                              2) It is what I see people all around me doing all the time.
                              3) It fits with what I perceive of our nature as humans
                              4) No one has ever given me a cogent, non-circular, rational argument for accepting that morality is based on objective truths.
                              And all of these points are merely assertions and do not stand in a relationship to one another that one could call an argument, which I assume you wouldn't disagree with :) Also, fun fact, all four points map exactly onto all of my analogical arguments.

                              I assume the "talking points" you reference are my outline for how I believe morality functions both within societies and within the individual? When I don't think the points have been understood, I attempt to reframe them as best I can. But there are only so many ways to say a thing, so it does sometimes get repetitious.
                              I suggest that it gets repetitious when you don't have any further justification for your position beyond the standard slogans you've already given. When asked to delve deeper and justify why you think that the slogans are true, you simply repeat the slogans in the same or slightly different wording.



                              At no point did I limit morality to "one's life" and "survival," so I have no response to this. It appears to be a response to someone else's argument.
                              Maybe I wasn't clear. I never said that morality is limited to one's life and survival. I'm saying that it's the most urgent interest that nearly everyone has and yet it isn't a moral consideration at all. I used it as a counter-example to your point that whatever one values/cherishes the most will be of the greatest moral consideration.



                              So far, I have responded to all of these points, and shown how they are essentially circular or simply do not apply. I do not think morality is at all "simple." However, the nature of morality is not that difficult to understand.
                              Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I don't think you successfully answered any of them, including the fallibility, disagreement, or plausibility arguments, or Cuneo's "Normative Web" argument, or the normative background argument, to name but a few. And the nature of morality is more complex than you represent it as being.



                              Your statement included the phrase, "that all disputants tacitly agree to, at least in practice." In the context, it appeared to be claiming that the fact that so much of the world clings to the notion of morality as an objective exercise somehow substantiates that this is indeed the fact. I didn't find an appeal to majority compelling.
                              There's a difference between a consensus, if not unanimity indicating a probable underlying truth and a consensus constituting a truth. The former is what I'm referring to. The latter is what you're accusing me of.



                              I have had no problem with consistently living out my ethics AND my meta-ethics (though I am as prone as anyone else to failing to live up to my own expectations), so I have no idea what you are referring to.
                              You said you could be wrong in light of reason and rationality.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                Now I think you might be the one confusing "individualized" with "subjective," as previously discussed.
                                You're right. Good catch. How about "phenomenal" or "experiential" in place of "subjective, and their opposites being "mind-independent" or "objective"?

                                And this does nothing to address the apples-to-oranges comparison I pointed out. Objective morality is not being "filtered" through subjective premises in any way that is analogous to how objective reality is filtered through our individualized perceptions. I don't see your comparison holding, or making the point you seem to think it is making.
                                Of course it does. Every ostensibly 'objective' moral principle and moral 'truth' has to be apprehended through or by means of one's individual phenomenal experience of valuing a certain thing, ie 'rooted in' that experience . Every ostensibly 'objective' physical object has to be apprehended by means of one's individual phenomenal sense impression, ie 'rooted in' that impression. Every thought one has must occur by means of an individual physical event in one's brain, and this event is in principle observable and therefore the subject of an individual phenomenal event, ie, 'rooted in' that event. Every inductive ostensible 'truth' must be apprehended by means of a series of individual phenomenal sense impressions, ie, 'rooted in' those impressions. And so forth.



                                Again, these things are rooted in individualized experience - but not "subjective" experience. You were the one who pointed out this disconnect to me, and helped me clarify my own thinking on it. Now you seem to be making the same mistake.
                                Okay. Make the proper substitutions of words and it goes through. You're right: "subjective" in this connection has more to do with people's attitudes.



                                See above.
                                I did. Substitute the changes.
                                Last edited by Jim B.; 09-24-2019, 07:38 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X