Homophobic Trump...

[JonathanL]

Yes. It is my belief that reasoning is a function of the sentient mind. It is my belief that opinion is a function of the sentient mind. That categorization is a function of the sentient mind. I have never encountered "morality" without a sentient mind involved. Have you? This seems rather self evident to me. I have to conclude that someone who ignores this reality is somewhat divorced from reality.

I have not encountered morality without a sentient mind either, no. But that says nothing about whether there are aspects to morality that are part of objective reality or not. Only if you believe that something has to be part of the physical, or material world, would that actually be a good argument against the objectivity of morality, or the objectivity of parts of morality.

It's pretty self-evident to me. I don't see how anyone could make a case for it being other.

The belief that the mind is a distinct entity apart from the brain made up of some sort of substance that is not material is pretty self-evident to me, and somehow people manage to make a case for it being other happens pretty regularly. Your lack of ability to see things from perspectives other than your own isn't so much an argument for your position as it is a showcase of your own shortcomings.

Like I said - he can believe anything he wishes. He can call himself a moral realist all day long and all life long. I have never suggested otherwise.



It factors into whether or not he is ACTUALLY a moral realist as the term defines. Look, Chrawnus, a man can tell me all day long that he is a loving, forgiving, kindhearted person. If he then proceeds to beat everyone around him at the drop of a hat - what he believes is somewhat irrelevant to me. He doesn't meet the criteria of "loving, forgiving, and kindhearted." Likewise, Seer can call himself a moral realist all day long - but then he turns around and subjectively chooses a moral standard, and subjectively interprets it, and subjectively applies it...and what he believes is irrelevant to me. He's acting like a moral relativist/subjectivist. So his belief is divorced from reality.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Loving, forgiving and kindhearted all describe behaviors, while moral realist describes a belief someone holds about reality. That said person then (allegedly) "turns around and subjectively chooses a moral standard, and subjectively interprets it, and subjectively applies it..." doesn't change his beliefs one iota, because he still believes that moral standard is an objective moral standard that holds for all persons, in all places, during all times.

What you're right now is the moral subjectivist version of the "A person might claim to be a moral relativist, but when someone does something that impacts them negatively and they react with indignation and requests that they be given reparations for the 'wrongs' committed toward them and that the perpetrator should be punished for their 'crimes', they're revealing that they're actually a moral realist deep down, and when push comes to shove they don't actually believe morality is subjective" claim.

Bottom line, you're wrong about what "the term defines".

To use your atheist/theist example, it would be the equivalent of calling myself an atheist all day long, but going to church and praying to god regularly, and invoking god as my justification for my choices. I can call myself an atheist all day long - but if I do all of those things - my status as an atheist is pretty doubtful.

The difference here is that an atheist going to church and praying to God (there is no reason what so ever not to capitalize God in this case since it's essentially used as name, and not just as another noun) regularly would actually be an indication that they do believe in God, contrary to what they're claiming, unless there are some specific reasons as to why they engage in these behaviors even though they don't actually believe God exists. If a person ""turns around and subjectively chooses a moral standard, and subjectively interprets it, and subjectively applies it...", it doesn't make him a moral subjectivist, unless he also at the same time actually believes that what he's doing is "subjectively choosing a moral standard, subjectively interpreting it, and subjectively applying it...".

Who else's beliefs would I be talking about?

My point is simply that you're confusing your own beliefs about what holding a position actually entails, and the reality about the situation.

On that we disagree.

Not only do you disagree with me, you disagree with every dictionary and encyclopedia worth it's salt.

And if your actual behavior testifies to the opposite of what you claim.... shrug:

Then the question is whether you're using that behavior to judge that persons claimed character, or their claimed beliefs. If it's about their character judging their behavior is oftentimes more appropriate than not. If it's the latter then using their behavior to judge the sincerity of their beliefs is a much more hazardous venture.

As I said - on this we disagree. I have no doubt Seer believes he is a moral realist. I have no doubt you believe the same thing. But your moral behavior is inescapably relative/subjective. It's somewhat akin to watching people who deny that gravity exists because no one can prove or even define what it actually is, but then proceed to live your lives completely dependent on gravity. After a while, the objections ring hollow.

I'm sure there are some crackpot out there who actually believes that gravity doesn't exist. Comparing your position that morality is subjective with the scientifically verifiable position that gravity is an objective facet of reality is a bit rich in my opinion though. You have no where near the amount of reasons and evidence in support of your belief that morality is subjective as there is for the position that gravity exists.

Again - on that we disagree. A moral realist necessarily must be able to point to an absolute/objective standard and absolutely/objectively adhere to it. But they can't. They cannot show it exists - they cannot show there is even a consistent interpretation of any standard they point to - they cannot point to any standard that does not originate from the mind of a human being - and they cannot show that their selection of that framework over this one was not subjective.

Again, doesn't matter if they can do any of those things or not. All that matters is that they believe that these standards are objective. Whether they actually are, what method they used to arrive at those standards, and whether their interpretations of those standards are consistent or not doesn't change whether they are moral realists or not.

[seer]

Again - I have responded multiple times to this - and it is simply more "green is not blue" argumentation - which is not an argument. Wasting my time repeating my answer only to be told I didn't answer is just that - a waste of time. I'll let my previous answers stand for the lurking reader.



And "green is not blue" yet again... and again... "so what?"



And "green is not blue" yet again... and again... "so what?"

Well I'm glad you agree that moral reasoning does not lead to moral truths, and is useless for deciding right or wrong. One wonders why the word moral is even in there.

[carpedm9587]

I have not encountered morality without a sentient mind either, no. But that says nothing about whether there are aspects to morality that are part of objective reality or not. Only if you believe that something has to be part of the physical, or material world, would that actually be a good argument against the objectivity of morality, or the objectivity of parts of morality.

I disagree. The available evidence show moralizing as a function of sentience. If I imagine this universe without any sentience, I can still see the so-called "laws of physics" in operation. I can accept that there will still be eight planets orbiting this sun. A thing will still not be able to be and not be at the same time. But when there is no sentience, and no consciously selected action, the entire notion of "morality" disappears without any impact on the universe. There is no actor sorting actions - there are no actions to be sorted. Morality simply cease to exist as a concept.

Ergo - morality is objective in one and only one respect: your morality is an objective reality to me - and mine to you. If a god existed, his/her/its morality would be objective to me - and subjective to it. No difference.

The belief that the mind is a distinct entity apart from the brain made up of some sort of substance that is not material is pretty self-evident to me, and somehow people manage to make a case for it being other happens pretty regularly. Your lack of ability to see things from perspectives other than your own isn't so much an argument for your position as it is a showcase of your own shortcomings.

I don't see you able to provide any kind of evidence for that position - and there is a lot of evidence against it. I think you're comparing apples and oranges.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Loving, forgiving and kindhearted all describe behaviors, while moral realist describes a belief someone holds about reality. That said person then (allegedly) "turns around and subjectively chooses a moral standard, and subjectively interprets it, and subjectively applies it..." doesn't change his beliefs one iota, because he still believes that moral standard is an objective moral standard that holds for all persons, in all places, during all times.

And then he turns around and subjectively selects a moral framework and subjectively interprets it...

What you're right now is the moral subjectivist version of the "A person might claim to be a moral relativist, but when someone does something that impacts them negatively and they react with indignation and requests that they be given reparations for the 'wrongs' committed toward them and that the perpetrator should be punished for their 'crimes', they're revealing that they're actually a moral realist deep down, and when push comes to shove they don't actually believe morality is subjective" claim.

If someone makes a claim that their moral position is absolutely/objectively better than anyone else's, they deserve the criticism, IMO. My objection is not to that criticism, it is to its misapplication when I am NOT making that claim.

Bottom line, you're wrong about what "the term defines".

The term defines someone who believes morality is based on an absolute/objective frame of reference. I am aware of that, and I am aware that it is the term Seer (and you, presumably) apply to yourselves. The term describes a reality that doesn't exist - so as I noted - if I call myself an atheist and then pray to god and attend church regularly, my behavior discloses a different reality. Seer is a moral realist in belief, and a moral relativist/subjectivist in reality. As I said, he can call himself anything he wants all day long - it makes no difference to me. It doesn't change what he IS.

The difference here is that an atheist going to church and praying to God (there is no reason what so ever not to capitalize God in this case since it's essentially used as name, and not just as another noun) regularly would actually be an indication that they do believe in God, contrary to what they're claiming, unless there are some specific reasons as to why they engage in these behaviors even though they don't actually believe God exists. If a person ""turns around and subjectively chooses a moral standard, and subjectively interprets it, and subjectively applies it...", it doesn't make him a moral subjectivist, unless he also at the same time actually believes that what he's doing is "subjectively choosing a moral standard, subjectively interpreting it, and subjectively applying it...".

So you're apparently comfortable with anyone calling themselves whatever they want. You are free to do that too. I prefer to call a truck a truck.

My point is simply that you're confusing your own beliefs about what holding a position actually entails, and the reality about the situation.

Not only do you disagree with me, you disagree with every dictionary and encyclopedia worth it's salt.

That part doesn't impress all that much. For one thing, our society and culture is so deeply indoctrinated to moral objectivity and absoluteness, it is embedded in our language, our habits, our norms. Only a very few people I have ever had this conversation with have ever even SEEN that the only argument constantly returned to is the non-argument of "moral relativism/subjectivism cannot make absolute/objective statements." Sparko and Seer have been doing it ceaselessly now for dozens and pages, and STILL don't see it, AFAICT.

Then the question is whether you're using that behavior to judge that persons claimed character, or their claimed beliefs. If it's about their character judging their behavior is oftentimes more appropriate than not. If it's the latter then using their behavior to judge the sincerity of their beliefs is a much more hazardous venture.

I don't see a necessary distinction. If someone calls themselves a loving person, and hits everyone at the drop of a hat, their self-description is incorrect. If someone calls themselves an atheist and prays to a god and goes to church daily, their claimed belief does not align with their actions. If someone claims to believe morality is absolute/objective, and then proceeds to behave exactly like all the rest of the subjective/relative world, their claim is simply not sustainable. They can claim to believe it - they can even convince themselves they believe it - but they are not living out of that belief. Frankly, they are not living out of the belief because it's simply not possible to do so.

I'm sure there are some crackpot out there who actually believes that gravity doesn't exist. Comparing your position that morality is subjective with the scientifically verifiable position that gravity is an objective facet of reality is a bit rich in my opinion though. You have no where near the amount of reasons and evidence in support of your belief that morality is subjective as there is for the position that gravity exists.

Really? I disagree. Scientifically, we can show and measure the effects of gravity. But we have no idea what it is - or why it is - or how it comes to be. All we can see is the effects. The case for relative/subjective morality is similar. We see it in every single human being. We see it in the wide variation in moral frameworks. We see it in the same behavior across all beings - who try to influence one another's moral positions until that is shown to not be possible - and then resort the the exact same behavior: ignore, isolate/separate, or contend - depending on circumstance. We see it in the very nature of what morality is: a categorization of behavior.

And we see it in the absence of pretty much ANY evidence supporting the existence of "objective moral truths." Once we see past the indoctrination - and truly ask the hard questions, the card-house of "objective/absolute" morality quickly collapses.

Again, doesn't matter if they can do any of those things or not. All that matters is that they believe that these standards are objective. Whether they actually are, what method they used to arrive at those standards, and whether their interpretations of those standards are consistent or not doesn't change whether they are moral realists or not.

As I said - we disagree. I am not so much concerned with what a person calls themselves. Seer, and you, and Sparko, and MM, are all free to call yourselves "moral realists" for the duration. You cannot escape the relative/subjective nature of morality, and it is impossible to function as a "moral realist" as conventionally defined. Indeed - the term moral realist SHOULD be redefined (IMO) to describe someone who believes in what morality REALLY is: subjective and relative. I doubt that will ever happen.

ETA: so here's a thought. We can distinguish between belief and action. Moral realists are moral realists in belief. They are moral relativists/subjectivists in action. Their belief doesn't align with their actual actions. Better?

[carpedm9587]

Well I'm glad you agree that moral reasoning does not lead to moral truths,

I agree it does not lead to absolute/objective moral truths - but then we know that: it's relative/subjective. So more "green is not blue" argumentation. I've agree to this many, many, many, times - and ask "so what?" and all you can do is repeat, "relative/subjective morality cannot make absolute/objective statements." I agree. It can't. So what? To which you will respond... (ad infinitum)

It is amazing to me, Seer, that a man of your intelligence can go all of these pages and STILL not see you have yet to make an actual argument...

and is useless for deciding right or wrong.

I've never agreed with this - so you are putting words in my mouth. You are free to do that if you wish - but it doesn't make them my words. It is useless for deciding what is absolutely/objectively right/wrong because there is no such thing. It is perfectly useful for determining what is relatively/subjectively right and wrong. So, once again, your response reduces to "green is not blue."

One wonders why the word moral is even in there.

It is in there because that is how every one of us moralizes: subjectively and relatively. You do. Sparko does. I do. Every single human being does so.

We just don't all know it...

[seer]

I've never agreed with this - so you are putting words in my mouth. You are free to do that if you wish - but it doesn't make them my words. It is useless for deciding what is absolutely/objectively right/wrong because there is no such thing. It is perfectly useful for determining what is relatively/subjectively right and wrong. So, once again, your response reduces to "green is not blue."

Then why on earth is a subjective moral opinion gained through reasoning any more valid than one picked up from the herd or a book? You agree that there are no objectively right or wrong answers, so for the life of me Carp I can see why it is a big deal. Because you can't argue with me and change my opinion? In your relative scheme that distinction seems meaningless. Again no moral conclusion, no matter how one gets there, is more valid or privileged than another. I guess inventing or subjectively choosing your premises to serve your conclusions makes you feel better, superior, but you are telling us anything about true ethics, except for what you prefer? You like pizza, thanks for sharing...

[Sparko]

In your world no moral position is more privileged than its opposite. So whether I find something immoral because I reasoned to that position or because I simply find it disgusting is immaterial since no moral outcome privileged. In other words, since it is all relative why does it matter how one gets there?

^^That. This is what I have been trying to get across to Carp. Yet he still argues as if there were a "better" and a "worse" way that everyone should objectively agree on.

He is so inconsistent in his views that it is impossible to reason with him about his moral outlook, despite him claiming he is all about reason.

[seer]

^^That. This is what I have been trying to get across to Carp. Yet he still argues as if there were a "better" and a "worse" way that everyone should objectively agree on.

He is so inconsistent in his views that it is impossible to reason with him about his moral outlook, despite him claiming he is all about reason.

Correct, whether a moral conclusion comes about by reason (reason I might add that is based on subjective premises) or by a purely emotive response, both in the end come to subjective conclusions. And in Carp's world neither conclusion is objectively more correct. In fact neither conclusion is it objectively true or false.

[Sparko]

Then why on earth is a subjective moral opinion gained through reasoning any more valid than one picked up from the herd or a book? You agree that there are no objectively right or wrong answers, so for the life of me Carp I can see why it is a big deal. Because you can't argue with me and change my opinion? In your relative scheme that distinction seems meaningless. Again no moral conclusion, no matter how one gets there, is more valid or privileged than another. I guess inventing or subjectively choosing your premises to serve your conclusions makes you feel better, superior, but you are telling us anything about true ethics, except for what you prefer? You like pizza, thanks for sharing...

He just wants to justify why his morals are better than anyone else's. Therefore he has to come up with a "reason" why his are better and a "reason" why everyone eles's are inferior. I think the ultimate reason is to feel superior as you say.

[Sparko]

Correct, whether a moral conclusion comes about by reason (reason I might add that is based on subjective premises) or by a purely emotive response, both in the end come to subjective conclusions. And in Carp's world neither conclusion is objectively more correct. In fact neither conclusion is it objectively true or false.

It is like two people discussing their favorite ice cream flavor and one says "I prefer vanilla because it tickles my tongue!" and the other one says, "Well obviously your methodology is flawed. I can't change your mind if you are just going by tongue tickling. The only real way to determine which tastes better is to use logic! Chocolate is better because it releases endorphins into to brain and contains chemicals that fight cancer!"

[seer]

It is like two people discussing their favorite ice cream flavor and one says "I prefer vanilla because it tickles my tongue!" and the other one says, "Well obviously your methodology is flawed. I can't change your mind if you are just going by tongue tickling. The only real way to determine which tastes better is to use logic! Chocolate is better because it releases endorphins into to brain and contains chemicals that fight cancer!"

Except even here there could be an objective answer, Chocolate may in fact have cancer fighting agents in it. There is not, nor can there be, an objective moral answer in Carp's world. But of course if vanilla is a better at tickling your tongue then that is a good to you, which is perfectly rational.

[Sparko]

Except even here there could be an objective answer, Chocolate may in fact have cancer fighting agents in it. There is not, nor can there be, an objective moral answer in Carp's world. But of course if vanilla is a better at tickling your tongue then that is a good to you, which is perfectly rational.

But even if Chocolate is better FOR you, that doesn't mean you must prefer its flavor.

[seer]

But even if Chocolate is better FOR you, that doesn't mean you must prefer its flavor.

Correct...

[carpedm9587]

Then why on earth is a subjective moral opinion gained through reasoning any more absolutely/objectively valid than one picked up from the herd or a book?

I need to take this and just put it in a notepad so I can just cut/paste it from one post to another. I (again) took the liberty of adding the words you omitted in your post, so you can (again) hopefully see your error. It is NOT absolutely/objectively valid - but we know that because moral relativism/subjectivism cannot make absolute/objective conclusions - that is the definition of the terms. So again your question reduces to "green is not blue" and you STILL have not said anything.

It can however, reach subjective/relative conclusions. And my statement were originally not about the conclusions, but about the superiority of the process because of the avenue it creates for moral discussion/debate, which is absent in a "follow the herd" or "from the book" approach.

You agree that there are no objectively right or wrong answers, so for the life of me Carp I can see why it is a big deal.

It's not - but it seems to be to you. You keep coming back to it with your non-argument.

Because you can't argue with me and change my opinion?

Your process is inferior because it locks you to a moral position you have merely adopted and cannot discuss/defend/examine. It is a thought-free moral framework engaged in by a sentient being capable of thought. I would think that would be a self-evidently inferior process.

In your relative scheme that distinction seems meaningless. Again no moral conclusion, no matter how one gets there, is more valid or privileged than another.

More "green is not blue"

I guess inventing or subjectively choosing your premises to serve your conclusions makes you feel better, superior, but you are telling us anything about true ethics, except for what you prefer? You like pizza, thanks for sharing...

More "green is not blue"

[carpedm9587]

He just wants to justify why his morals are better than anyone else's.

Umm...no...

Therefore he has to come up with a "reason" why his are better and a "reason" why everyone eles's are inferior. I think the ultimate reason is to feel superior as you say.

I'm truly curious. Do yuo guys see ANY value in misrepresenting what I have actually said, and then engaging in a back and forth ridiculing your own misunderstandings? Do you think anyone reading cannot see through this type of strawman?

From my side - it doesn't seem all that productive. But then again, since I'd prefer not to waste time defending positions I don't take - it does save me a LOT of typing!

[Sparko]

And my statement were originally not about the conclusions, but about the superiority of the process because of the avenue it creates for moral discussion/debate, which is absent in a "follow the herd" or "from the book" approach.

although this is probably the most ironic post in the thread....

So what? The 'superiority' you claim is just your subjective opinion.